Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-11-2019, 4:58 AM
BCA142's Avatar
BCA142 BCA142 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern Corruptifornia
Posts: 670
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default Oregon SB-501 5 Round Mag Limit

New bill proposed in Oregon.

"Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition. Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 daysí imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both.
Requires criminal background check before transfer of ammunition. Restricts ammunition re- ceipt to 20 rounds within 30-day period.
Prohibits transfer of firearm by gun dealer or private party until latter of 14 days or Department of State Police has determined that recipient is qualified to receive firearm".


https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/201...oRtuiQU1vqmoE4
__________________
Dec. 15, 1791
"The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed" EVER!!!!!

NRA Life Member: Benefactor
Calguns Supporter
CRPA Supporter
Second Amendment Foundation Life Member Defender Club
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-11-2019, 5:12 AM
torr11 torr11 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 25
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Oregonfornia??

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-11-2019, 5:27 AM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 912
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

They sure like that $6,250 fine, IIRC that's the fine for littering as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-11-2019, 5:42 AM
jarhead714 jarhead714 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: O.C.
Posts: 3,784
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

I feel bad for those Calgunners that fled there seeking refuge.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-11-2019, 7:07 AM
DrewN DrewN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orange County
Posts: 510
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Since there are very very few 5 round mags available, and most if not all of those are for bolt guns, I can't see this flying. In the long run any way. Unless they are screwed and have an initiative system. I mean,this bans Garands AND a whole bunch of leverguns and pump shotties.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-11-2019, 7:27 AM
gunsandrockets's Avatar
gunsandrockets gunsandrockets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,447
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrewN View Post
Since there are very very few 5 round mags available, and most if not all of those are for bolt guns, I can't see this flying. In the long run any way. Unless they are screwed and have an initiative system. I mean,this bans Garands AND a whole bunch of leverguns and pump shotties.
And neuters the vast majority of handguns too. Even target rimfire handguns.

But something like that bill is inevitable in anti-gun States. Next up will be bills which prohibit owning certain amounts of ammunition.

Perhaps at first something like the "arsenal" limits of the "Brady Bill 2" of the 1994 era, which would have required a $300 Federal License to own more than 10 guns and/or more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition. But eventually they would go for strict prohibitions on possession of ammunition, of ever lower limits over time, ending up with something like a limit of five.
__________________
Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-11-2019, 7:38 AM
onelonehorseman's Avatar
onelonehorseman onelonehorseman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Liberalandia
Posts: 4,443
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrewN View Post
Since there are very very few 5 round mags available, and most if not all of those are for bolt guns, I can't see this flying. In the long run any way. Unless they are screwed and have an initiative system. I mean,this bans Garands AND a whole bunch of leverguns and pump shotties.
Thousands of >10 rd mags have been modified for CA gun owners with blocks/rivets and such. I don't see Oregon gun grabbers not playing that card to show that their proposal is reasonably doable.

I sincerely hope Oregon gun owners rally to ensure this does not pass. This kind of legislation tends to become stepping stones for even more restrictive ideas.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-11-2019, 8:13 AM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 124
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrewN View Post
Since there are very very few 5 round mags available, and most if not all of those are for bolt guns, I can't see this flying. In the long run any way. Unless they are screwed and have an initiative system. I mean,this bans Garands AND a whole bunch of leverguns and pump shotties.
CA9 says it's fine that micro stamping doesn't exist yet still used as a regulation. I don't think they'll see limited 5 round magazine supply as a hurdle...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-11-2019, 8:55 AM
DrewN DrewN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orange County
Posts: 510
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
CA9 says it's fine that micro stamping doesn't exist yet still used as a regulation. I don't think they'll see limited 5 round magazine supply as a hurdle...
Hell, this might ban most revolvers even. I didn't see any language about detachable.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-11-2019, 9:01 AM
Deedle Deedle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: America
Posts: 1,135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Voting for this would be political suicide for 85% of the reps in office, of any party. I have to think this is meant to be virtue signalling and a political mission statement.
__________________
"No personal computer will ever have gigabytes of RAM" - Scott Nudds
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-11-2019, 9:27 AM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 1,007
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

LOL.....

Can own a machine gun, but can only feed it 5 rounds!
__________________
"Ya dude just bought my 67th gun today"......
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-11-2019, 9:30 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 726
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deedle View Post
Voting for this would be political suicide for 85% of the reps in office, of any party. I have to think this is meant to be virtue signalling and a political mission statement.
That's the problem. California will simply not be outdone in terms of being anti-gun, virtue signaling, etc. Expect a 3-round limit to be proposed here; followed in the not-so-distant future by a single-shot only limit.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-11-2019, 9:34 AM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,850
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The large cities in every coastal state are Marxist. I went through rural Oregon and Washington on a trip to Idaho, doubt they care about this, talked to a man in Idaho that just got transferred from Portland, said Portland is just plain weird.
__________________
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:03 AM
Cody805 Cody805 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: San Luis obispo county
Posts: 1,094
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrewN View Post
Hell, this might ban most revolvers even. I didn't see any language about detachable.
Exactly what i was thinking
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:24 AM
flatbedtruckin's Avatar
flatbedtruckin flatbedtruckin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: california
Posts: 484
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Single shot only in the near future....oregonions needs to get off their arses asap!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:39 AM
Deedle Deedle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: America
Posts: 1,135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
That's the problem. California will simply not be outdone in terms of being anti-gun, virtue signaling, etc. Expect a 3-round limit to be proposed here; followed in the not-so-distant future by a single-shot only limit.
In CA I'm not sure it would be political suicide, I dunno, but in OR their goose will be cooked if they vote for this. The sponsor(s) of the bill are probably the only ones who are politically immune due to being from fruity districts.
__________________
"No personal computer will ever have gigabytes of RAM" - Scott Nudds
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:09 AM
Abenaki Abenaki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 599
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Please see my sig line!

Take care Abenaki
__________________
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-11-2019, 2:29 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 485
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cody805 View Post
Exactly what i was thinking
It does say MAGAZINES, and revolvers do not have magazines.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-11-2019, 2:32 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 485
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Only 20 rounds of ammo a month? That would limit me to one range trip a year. And it would eliminate any and all shooting competitions, even skeet or trap. Obvioulsy written by someone who knows nothing about guns.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-11-2019, 2:45 PM
Dano3467 Dano3467 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: 85 mi south of Oregon
Posts: 6,407
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I came real close awhile back to move to Oregon.

Seems like I dodged a one sheetholestate to another. Glad I stayed. just wondering how many other free states will fall also.

Washington looks to be next. (as they already have some issues)

Will any of this legislation pass.. Idk...but that was to close for me to ever consider a move there now. feel sorry for those that shot their wad to move there from CA.

I was also wondering why I kept seeing more & more homes for sale in Oregon..well I guess this could be it.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-11-2019, 3:00 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 726
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deedle View Post
In CA I'm not sure it would be political suicide, I dunno, but in OR their goose will be cooked if they vote for this. The sponsor(s) of the bill are probably the only ones who are politically immune due to being from fruity districts.
Now that I've actually scanned through the entirety of the bill, I'm not sure even California Legislators are far enough out there (yet) to go for this one. There's a lot more to it than limiting things to 5 round magazines, 20 rounds per month, a background check, and a waiting period.
  • Requires person to secure permit before purchasing or otherwise receiving firearm. Specifies qualifications for permit and manner of applying for permit. Creates procedures for appealing denial of permit. Punishes receipt of firearm without valid permit by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both.
  • Requires person who owns or possesses firearm to secure firearm with trigger or cable lock or in locked container. Punishes failure to secure firearm by maximum of 30 days’ imprisonment, $1,250 fine, or both.
  • Requires person who owns or possesses firearm to report to law enforcement agency loss or theft of firearm within 24 hours. Punishes failure to report loss or theft by maximum of 30 days’ imprisonment, $1,250 fine, or both.
  • Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition.
  • Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both.
  • Requires criminal background check before transfer of ammunition. Restricts ammunition receipt to 20 rounds within 30-day period.
  • Prohibits transfer of firearm by gun dealer or private party until latter of 14 days or Departmentof State Police has determined that recipient is qualified to receive firearm.

That's the summary. The heart breakers are in the details. For instance...

You have to apply (paying a fee) for a permit to actually buy 1 handgun and 1 rifle or shotgun in a 30-day period. The sheriff to whom you apply then has 30 days to issue the permit; said permit then being valid for 90 days. (How that might work with custom firearms is something not addressed; e.g., what's the current wait time on an 1874 Quigley from Shiloh Rifle?)

There's more, but the gist of it is that, if there is an hiccup, you then have to file in court, within 30 days, which then can take up to 15 judicial days (or as soon as practicable thereafter) to adjudicate. In other words, it is conceivable that, if there is any kind of hiccup or obstruction, it could take a couple of months (plus fees) just to get a time perishable permit to buy a firearm.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-11-2019, 3:21 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 485
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Now that I've actually scanned through the entirety of the bill, I'm not sure even California Legislators are far enough out there (yet) to go for this one. There's a lot more to it than limiting things to 5 round magazines, 20 rounds per month, a background check, and a waiting period.
  • Requires person to secure permit before purchasing or otherwise receiving firearm. Specifies qualifications for permit and manner of applying for permit. Creates procedures for appealing denial of permit. Punishes receipt of firearm without valid permit by maximum of 364 daysí imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both.
  • Requires person who owns or possesses firearm to secure firearm with trigger or cable lock or in locked container. Punishes failure to secure firearm by maximum of 30 daysí imprisonment, $1,250 fine, or both.
  • Requires person who owns or possesses firearm to report to law enforcement agency loss or theft of firearm within 24 hours. Punishes failure to report loss or theft by maximum of 30 daysí imprisonment, $1,250 fine, or both.
  • Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition.
  • Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 daysí imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both.
  • Requires criminal background check before transfer of ammunition. Restricts ammunition receipt to 20 rounds within 30-day period.
  • Prohibits transfer of firearm by gun dealer or private party until latter of 14 days or Departmentof State Police has determined that recipient is qualified to receive firearm.

That's the summary. The heart breakers are in the details. For instance...

You have to apply (paying a fee) for a permit to actually buy 1 handgun and 1 rifle or shotgun in a 30-day period. The sheriff to whom you apply then has 30 days to issue the permit; said permit then being valid for 90 days. (How that might work with custom firearms is something not addressed; e.g., what's the current wait time on an 1874 Quigley from Shiloh Rifle?)

There's more, but the gist of it is that, if there is an hiccup, you then have to file in court, within 30 days, which then can take up to 15 judicial days (or as soon as practicable thereafter) to adjudicate. In other words, it is conceivable that, if there is any kind of hiccup or obstruction, it could take a couple of months (plus fees) just to get a time perishable permit to buy a firearm.
Huh. Ya think that maybe they don't thnk we should have guns? (sarc/)
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-11-2019, 3:28 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,735
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

I'm really not worried about this bill. Any legislator can introduce whatever legislation they like. I highly doubt this will gain traction. I fully expect ban gun sales under 21, locking requirements, red flag law and a few others.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-11-2019, 4:01 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CommieLand
Posts: 680
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Only 20 rounds of ammo a month? That would limit me to one range trip a year. And it would eliminate any and all shooting competitions, even skeet or trap.
Quote:
Requires criminal background check before transfer of ammunition
I read that as p2p transfers, however, the following sentence does say:
Quote:
Restricts ammunition receipt to 20 rounds within 30-day period.
You do receive ammo when you purchase it. So what their true intention is, I'm not sure. I doubt this would be interpreted as no more than 20rnds purchased each month. For example: does anyone even make a 20 rnd box of 22lr? Unless the gun stores want to partition out partial boxes of ammo, that's a de-facto 22lr ban.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-11-2019, 4:33 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,602
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrewN View Post
Hell, this might ban most revolvers even. I didn't see any language about detachable.
Garands, too. Even with the 5-round en bloc clip, the magazine still is capable of holding 8 cartridges.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-11-2019, 5:29 PM
Banksy Banksy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 20
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
I read that as p2p transfers, however, the following sentence does say:

You do receive ammo when you purchase it. So what their true intention is, I'm not sure. I doubt this would be interpreted as no more than 20rnds purchased each month. For example: does anyone even make a 20 rnd box of 22lr? Unless the gun stores want to partition out partial boxes of ammo, that's a de-facto 22lr ban.
Interesting to see how they break up a box of 50 rounds.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-11-2019, 6:58 PM
TTT TTT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 459
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarhead714 View Post
I feel bad for those Calgunners that fled there seeking refuge.
Why? Gunners in Oregon are much better off than gunners in Kali.
__________________
Liberty, simplest definition- Not having to tolerate stupid people telling you what to do.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:04 PM
furyous68 furyous68 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 1,677
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

This bill wasn't created by any of the legislaters. It was put together by a group of teens. "Students for Change". Tubular magazines for lever action & .22 rimfire are exempt. Revolvers are exempt. 20rnds per month, but it says shooting ranges are exempt... so maybe you can purchase more while at the range (assuming the range sells ammo)? The whole bill is rediculous.
__________________
Quote:
95,000,000 people die each day in the U.S. from gun violence
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-12-2019, 6:37 AM
FlyingShooter FlyingShooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 445
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by furyous68 View Post
This bill wasn't created by any of the legislaters. It was put together by a group of teens. "Students for Change". Tubular magazines for lever action & .22 rimfire are exempt. Revolvers are exempt. 20rnds per month, but it says shooting ranges are exempt... so maybe you can purchase more while at the range (assuming the range sells ammo)? The whole bill is rediculous.
Yeah but thatís our future right there, just wait until these teens become actual legislators. The 2nd Amendment will fade into a distant memory, once they become of power. Scary times...
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-13-2019, 3:07 AM
paddyraid's Avatar
paddyraid paddyraid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onelonehorseman View Post
Thousands of >10 rd mags have been modified for CA gun owners with blocks/rivets and such. I don't see Oregon gun grabbers not playing that card to show that their proposal is reasonably doable.

I sincerely hope Oregon gun owners rally to ensure this does not pass. This kind of legislation tends to become stepping stones for even more restrictive ideas.

you mean like California gun owners rallied to ensure the last round of gun laws here didn't happen? NOT!!!!!!!!!!

this bill isn't to be taken seriously. created by a bunch of ignorant children and submitted on their behalf as a goodwill gesture. relax!

Last edited by paddyraid; 01-13-2019 at 3:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-13-2019, 8:17 PM
skilletboy's Avatar
skilletboy skilletboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,978
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
That's the problem. California will simply not be outdone in terms of being anti-gun, virtue signaling, etc. Expect a 3-round limit to be proposed here; followed in the not-so-distant future by a single-shot only limit.
Gavin Newsome: "hold my beer".
__________________
Quote:
"If the American people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the law then they will conclude that neither are they." - Michael Cannon, Cato Inst. 2014

_________________________________________

Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-13-2019, 8:52 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CommieLand
Posts: 680
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skilletboy View Post
Gavin Newsome: "hold my beer".
I don't know whether to laugh or cry
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-14-2019, 8:09 AM
bubbapug1's Avatar
bubbapug1 bubbapug1 is offline
Ball Pimp 4 Border Collie
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: South South OC
Posts: 7,375
iTrader: 285 / 100%
Default Oregon seeks to limit mag to 5, ammo ration of 20 rounds

Oregon, now with a super majority in the senate and house, with a anti gun governor, may leapfrog California (temporarily) on gun restrictions.

5 round mags and ammo limited to 20 rounds per month.

https://www.guns.com/news/2019/01/14...o-20-rds-month
__________________
I love America for the rights and freedoms we used to have.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-14-2019, 8:26 AM
zonzin's Avatar
zonzin zonzin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Free state of Idaho!!
Posts: 858
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I guess the Califonication of Oregon is finally complete.




.
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ - Go Greek. Lifetime member Kappa Kappa Bang (KKB) Fraternity
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:15 AM
skilletboy's Avatar
skilletboy skilletboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,978
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default



https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1502692
__________________
Quote:
"If the American people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the law then they will conclude that neither are they." - Michael Cannon, Cato Inst. 2014

_________________________________________

Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:21 AM
skilletboy's Avatar
skilletboy skilletboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,978
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

One interesting tidbit to this story is there are friendly sheriffs to the 2A that have stated they would not support and may not enforce such blatantly unconstitutional laws. Such as sheriff Shane Nelson in Deschutes Co. (Bend area and central Or.)

https://www.heraldandnews.com/effort...91b15aecd.html


https://www.lagrandeobserver.com/new...rol-initiative
__________________
Quote:
"If the American people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the law then they will conclude that neither are they." - Michael Cannon, Cato Inst. 2014

_________________________________________

Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-14-2019, 12:01 PM
Kyle1886's Avatar
Kyle1886 Kyle1886 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: N. San Diego Co.
Posts: 1,786
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I commend Sheriff Shane and others, but Sheriffs come and go, so what will their successor's views be?

It's looking as if CA's idea of creating everyday "felons" is spreading from both coasts to the interior as well and quicker that I would have imagined.

See how easy it is to be a felon by just minding my own business in my own home.

Those "kids" that came up with stuff are possibly the new legislators of the future. So yes, we should be concerned.

Respectfully
Kyle
__________________
Take responsibility for your own actions!

WE are the NRA.

_________+__________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-14-2019, 12:44 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skilletboy View Post
Gavin Newsome: "hold my organic kambutcha".
Fixed it for you.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-14-2019, 12:46 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
I don't know whether to laugh or cry
Cry uncontrollably and wish for a quick and painless death to one particular justice.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-14-2019, 1:58 PM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 236
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Exactly. It was written by a bunch of kids that don't know jack **** about guns, who obviously wrote a bill to be as restrictive as possible. This BS is the anti gun culture war the Brady's et al have been planning and hoping would happen since the 80's. I mean, they are literally supporting a bill that disenfranchises themselves (21 to own a firearm). Pretty amazing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by furyous68 View Post
This bill wasn't created by any of the legislaters. It was put together by a group of teens. "Students for Change". Tubular magazines for lever action & .22 rimfire are exempt. Revolvers are exempt. 20rnds per month, but it says shooting ranges are exempt... so maybe you can purchase more while at the range (assuming the range sells ammo)? The whole bill is rediculous.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:07 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.