Re: What does Oregon Measure 114 require of gun buyers, gun owners?

On 11/20/22 1:15 PM, John Dillinger wrote:
> 
>   <http://oregonlive.com>
> What does Oregon Measure 114 require of gun buyers, gun owners?
> Published: Nov. 20, 2022, 8:27 a.m.
> 
> Oregon's Ballot Measure 114, passed narrowly in the November election,
> will be one of the nation's strictest when and if it goes into effect.
> 
> Lawsuit filed to stop Measure 114 from going into effect
> 
> The measure is a so-called permit-to-purchase gun law. Under Measure
> 114, anyone who wants to buy a gun would have to obtain a permit, pay
> an anticipated fee of $65, complete an approved firearms safety course
> at their own expense, submit a photo ID, be fingerprinted and pass a
> criminal background check.
> 

Blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL, you never have to pay to exercise your 
RIGHTS... do you pay tax/fee to pray? Do you pay a tax/fee to speak your 
mind?  How about to petition the government?

And the second Amendment doesn't give any power to the Feds while it 
also denies that power to the States.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free 
State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms* , shall not be 
infringed.

Amendment X
The *powers not delegated* to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
*prohibited by it* to the States, *are reserved* to the States 
respectively, or *to the people* .


*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms* is telling us that the 
States are being denied the delegated power that was and still is the 
RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

NOT the delegated power of the feds or the power reserved to the States, 
instead it's the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms. And it 
requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any change in that by an amendment.

> Additionally, the measure bans the sale or transfer of magazines that
> hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
> 

It's part of the gun and the whole gun is under that RIGHT, NOT just the 
barrel or the trigger or the bullets.  It always included the powder and 
bullet projectiles as parts of the gun in that right to keep and bear.

> The background check would be more restrictive than one the state
> police currently conducts for gun buyers.

Also unconstitutional if they are placing it on persons NOT guilty of a 
crime, if you don't want a criminal to buy a gun keep them in prison or 
on an electronic leash that sets off an alarm when they get within 1000 
ft of a store that sells guns...  like the politicians do with 
pedophiles that get within 1000 ft of a school.  And make available 
phone apps for free that private citizens and gun owners can use to see 
if the person they're selling a gun to is wearing the electronic leash.

> An applicant could be denied
> a permit, for example, if the person “is reasonably likely to be a
> danger” to themselves or others, as a result of their mental or
> psychological state or “past pattern of behavior” involving violence
> or threats of violence.

Store owners already have the RIGHT, to NOT sell a wedding cake to a gay 
or a gun to a crazy person.

If the State wants to deny them a gun then do it through due process and 
after they are found guilty or insane/or unable to care for themselves 
and are appointed a guardian in a court of law, they can be fitted with 
an electronic RF(ID)-leash/ankle-bracelet.

The State politician's and State Constitution's have neither the 
delegated power or the physical ability and need to check every American 
when they engage in a purchase that is their RIGHT to engage in.


> State police now restrict a gun buyer if the
> person was found guilty by reason of insanity in a criminal case,
> incompetent to stand trial and committed to a mental health
> institution.

That is due process with a legal punishment to treatment or confinement 
which meets the test of the 13th amendment for due process in the courts.

> 
> A county sheriff's office, which now processes concealed handgun
> licenses, would accept the permit applications and state police would
> conduct the background checks for the permits.

If they for the people who are tagged as having been given due process 
then it's fine.  But if it's the average person that has NOT been duly 
convicted as a result of due process then it's unconstitutional. Which 
is outside the jurisdiction of the State.  They can't have jurisdiction 
to require a background check when you exercise your RIGHT the RIGHT 
would have to have been forfeited by you as punishment under DUE PROCESS 
for either committing a crime or being unable to care for yourself as in 
being mentally ill or incapable of making personal decisions, again 
decided by due process as a punishment for a crime.

In short, if you run free and are a danger to yourself or anyone... then 
due process has to either lock you up or attach an identifier to you 
before they mandate any background search for any purchase that you have 
a RIGHT to buy, things like Medicine, or food or religious paraphernalia 
or *arms*  .



> 
> Applicants would have to complete law enforcement-approved firearms
> training. Courses could be taken at a community college, firearms
> training school, private or public organization or from law
> enforcement, the measure says.

Under which Constitutional power? If they want you to take them they can 
offer them to people to take voluntarily if they choose to sign-up.

> The course must include a review of
> laws governing ownership, purchase, transfer and use of firearms, safe
> storage, reporting of lost and stolen guns, and the impact of
> homicides and suicides on families.

Unconstitutional laws? Why unconstitutionally require the person 
exercising their RIGHT of the people to be indoctrinated with laws that 
aren't Constitutional?  Sounds very Orwellian to me?


> There also must be an in-person
> demonstration before a certified firearms instructor of an applicant's
> ability to lock, load, unload, fire and store a gun.

I read the 2nd Amendment and that Qualifier isn't there, just as the 
President of he United States isn't required to tale a mental competency 
test... or can the State of Oregon pass a law that says if they want to 
be on the ballot they have to pass the States mental competency test to 
be placed on the ballot?


> A permit would last five years.
> 

No such thing in the Constitution as a permit to exercise a RIGHT OF THE 
PEOPLE.

> Licensed firearm dealers, private gun sellers and any sales or gun
> transfers that occur at gun shows would require validation that the
> buyer had a valid permit-to-purchase a firearm.

NOT their job to enforce unconstitutional government laws... The person 
has to be stopped by law enforcement with infringing the RIGHT of the 
people NOT duly convicted of a crime...  The innocent aren't punished 
for the crimes of the guilty. That's NOT how the Constitution works.

> 
> Once a permit holder wants to buy a gun, state police would conduct
> its usual firearms purchase background check, and that check would
> have to be completed before any gun were sold or transferred, under
> the measure.


Infringing on the rights of the people who committed no crime, because 
DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS and DEMOCRAT law enforcement is too lazy or stupid 
to do their jobs in a way that is Constitutional?

I don't see that option in the Constitution where is says THE RIGHT OF 
THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED unless it's LAZY STUPID DEMOCRATS 
making laws and then it's OK to infringe on the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE who 
weren't found guilty with due process of the law...  SO if a criminal 
gets due process why are the innocent NOT innocent until proven guilty 
in a court of law using due process and the innocent are now being 
subjected to the same punishment as the people guilty of crimes 
determined by due process?    ALL THE PEOPLE are being deemed guilty of 
a crime with/out due process and subjected to the same search and 
seizure of their RIGHT to keep and bear arms...
> As for the training, Anthony Johnson, spokesperson for the Measure 114
> campaign, said the measure doesn't require live-fire training, but
> hands-on training that demonstrates the applicant knows how to fire a
> gun, through dry-fire training using an unloaded pistol, or mock or
> laser gun.
> 

The word *REQUIRE* sounds like your RIGHT to keep and bear is being 
infringed. Where is that DUE PROCESS to show they have been convicted of 
a crime so that they are considered a slave as per the 13th Amendment, 
in order for the constitution to allow you to require they do something 
(if you do it ; then you can exercise your right) to exercise a RIGHT 
the people already have in the Constitution without the law telling them 
they can use it but only if they meet the standards of the (if/then) law.

The problem with that is that the U.S. Constitution has the SUPREMACY 
CLAUSE that says the U.S. Constitution and FEDERAL LAW which is supreme, 
has the ultimate higher authority where both have jurisdiction.... which 
means that if the Feds have the Constitutional power to make gun laws 
then State laws can't over rule them. And if the Feds are NOT delegated 
and the States are denied the power to make gun laws then it's a RIGHT 
of the people.  Or if it's openly stated in the Constitution that it's a 
RIGHT of the people then there is NO power delegated to the feds and the 
States are being denied that power all in the same sentence (the right 
of the people to keep and bear Arms).

The State laws are meaningless and Federal laws are telling the Feds and 
the States they have ZERO JURISDICTION about the RIGHT of the people to 
keep and bear arms. Which means State laws mandating you do things to be 
allowed to exercise your RIGHT would allow States to mandate that you 
pay a tax or get State approved education before you can Pray to your 
God. Or before you Speak To PEOPLE, it's the RIGHT of the people to 
exercise their RELIGIOUS beliefs. And the States can't limit that 
freedom to tell you what God or Prayer your RIGHT can be limited to.

> Oregon State Police would still have authority to fashion specific
> rules governing training, with oversight of lawmakers, Johnson said.
> 
> The measure also bans the manufacture, purchase, sale, possession or
> transfer of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10
> rounds, excluding law enforcement and the military. A violation would
> be a class A misdemeanor.
> 

Making you own arms is a RIGHT.  No one can ban a person NOT convicted 
with due process from making a gun. If you commit a crime and are 
convicted with due process you are a slave.

  *Amendment XIII*
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except as a* 
*punishment for crime* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, 
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their 
jurisdiction.

Which means that your sentence can include slavery as a punishment. And 
Denying RIGHT like the RIGHT to keep and bear arms or denying freedom to 
choose a religion are able to be denied if it's part of the punishment.

But if denying the slave a gun it can only be denied by the time they 
are being punished so denying the right to vote own a gun or exercise a 
religion is a life time punishment or it's for a time limited by the 
time they serve the prison sentence.

A non violent crime hardly seems worthy of a life time sentence to deny 
voting or exercising a religion or to deny the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

> Licensed dealers who already own larger-capacity magazines have 180
> days from the day the measure takes effect to sell them to an
> out-of-state gun dealer or other person out of state or to destroy
> them.
> 

NOT constitutional!

> After the 180 days, gun dealers can sell or transfer only newly
> manufactured high-capacity magazines marked with a special stamp
> denoting they're for military or law enforcement use – two exceptions
> under the law.
> 
> People who already own the magazines can keep them in a private home
> or on private property, use them at a shooting range or in a shooting
> competition, or for recreational purposes such as hunting as allowed
> by state law.
> 

Or apparently make then for themselves.  Like the 80% milled "Ghost 
guns" that Democrats tell us are somehow illegal when making a gun got 
your self is NOT illegal Maybe the U.S.P.S. won't ship them, but they 
are legal under the U.S. Constitution and the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

> Similar bans are in place in Washington and California. However, both
> Washington's and California's bans are facing court challenges.
> 
> While the passage of Measure 114 shows the strength of the gun safety
> movement right now, it's too early to tell if the law will survive
> constitutional scrutiny in the wake of the major U.S. Supreme Court
> ruling in late June overturning a New York gun safety law, said Adam
> Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA School of Law.
> 
> One court challenge already has been filed in Oregon seeking to keep
> provisions of the measure from going into effect.

Being unconstitutional means the court has no jurisdiction.  It also 
means the LAW MAKERS attempting to enact that law are violating our 
RIGHTS and should have to prove that they have the RIGHT to pass that 
law at the supreme court before it's ever enacted.  If it's important 
then the Supreme Court will get to it promptly.

If it's held up by all the other laws being challenged then so be it. I 
guess they should make sure their laws are constitutional.
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court weeks later also vacated a decision in a San
> Diego case that had upheld California's nearly identical ban to
> Oregon's on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. The high court
> sent the case back to a lower court to reconsider in light of its
> decision in the New York case. The matter is now back before a federal
> district judge in San Diego.
> 

Chicago was more safe when you could buy a MACHINE GUN over the counter 
at any hardware store....

They had fewer deaths on the holidays and weekends. Mass deaths were 
rare before guns were being banned.  Guns made us safe.


> -- Maxine Bernstein
> 
> Email [email protected]; 503-221-8212
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-That's Karma-

*IF YOU'RE READING THIS YOU ARE A SURVIVOR*
*The first rule of SURVIVAL CLUB* is we talk about it, we hate 
censorship. Never trust what Democrats or Marxists tell you. Make them 
prove it with actual verifiable facts and science. And if you didn't 
find the duplicitous lies in what the Marxist-Democrats told you then 
you didn't dig deep enough. The *Gruber* *Doctrine* is the 
Marxist-Democrat plan that says it's "to the Democrats advantage to have 
a lack of transparency and then lie about everything".
https://rumble.com/vkt8ld-call-it-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-or-whatever.-how-libs-exploit-t.html

*The next rule of SURVIVAL CLUB* is
158 - The way to let the private sector grow is to slow the growth of 
the Government. ALL government growth comes at the expense of the 
private sector GDP growth and JOBS.