Infringement of the 2nd amendment nullified by Ballot measure

I don't want people discourage for owning guns. I want them to understand the responsibility of owning guns.

 

Holding a gun owner responsible would require some sort of license to own. At least you would be required to register the gun someway to document you own that gun.

 

Looks like I edited my comment as you were responding. I changed it to seller -- (person to person was my intent). But, my point is that if the County Sherriff isn't going to enforce the law, it doesn't stop State Patrol or some other State Enforcement Arm from enforcing the law (i.e. prosecuting those who violated state law by not doing a background check in a private person to person sale) , does it? It might be a false sense of security. Or am I missing something here.

 

It's an interesting concept, but 20 years??? Wtf is that craziness????

 

Got it. I will be the first to admit I am pretty ignorant about guns and gun laws. I don't use guns and have never had a reason to have to encounter any of the laws restricting gun sales, etc.

 

It's pretty strict where I live in SoCal. It's almost impossible for me to have a conceal carry in LA county.

It's an infringement IMO.

 

I remember sitting on a jury on a criminal case. It was an unlawful use of a firearm case -- I won't go into the details. But the jury foreperson was a woman who was a pretty nice folksy lady and had a CHL. This was back in 2002, so quite a while ago. I remember her telling me that she used her CHL quite a bit when she was travelling across the country. I asked her, oh, so your CHL is valid when you travel down to California? She goes, "Oh, never really thought about that." I don't whether she was technically violating any laws, but her reaction was kind of interesting. Here is a law abiding citizen, good lady, who may have unwittingly violated many gun laws numerous times.

 

Yeah, her CHL was NOT good in California. Her class that she took could qualify her for a CHL in other states, but she still has to apply. There isn't a defacto CHL that allows you to carry in multiple states. For example, the NRA class in Oregon would also qualify for a CHL in Washington, but I would have to apply for that license. The Utah CHL class actually opens the door for many different states... but again, you have to apply for each state's license.

 

I disagree.

For example, you lock up your guns in your safe. You go on vacation. Someone breaks into your house, steals your safe, cracks it at their house, and then uses the gun in a crime in the future. You would want that original gun owner responsible, even though they did the appropriate thing by locking up their guns?

 

Oh okay, I was confused I guess.

 

Wow! Coos County voters get it, no organized push required! It passed with overwhelming support, 61% of the vote.

Funny, how none of the papers reporting this actually stated correctly what the objectionable law does;

"person-to-person gun sales"

It isn't restricted to sales, the law requires a back ground check on the "transfer" of any weapon from the current owner to another person.

 

Only the ignorant would be in favor of a law that falls into this category; (See above ^^^)

• Any law or regulation in violation of the U.S. or Oregon Constitution pertaining to the right to bear arms

 

Not true at all. Many people have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, most Sheriffs and Police Chiefs and even ordinary people like myself. in doing so, we are all expected to interpret what the Constitutions means, indeed it is the duty of every citizen. Like one Chief said, his duty, is to the Constitution first and everything else in the line of duty next.

This new law simply directs the Sheriff to use the judgement he is required to use in any case, and forgo enforcing a gun law that he deems infringes on Constitutional rights. If you folks in Portland want to force him into enforcing laws he doesn't think is Constitutional, then you all need to get the Court involved, perhaps even the Supreme Court. Three Counties now have taken this path.
perhaps it should have been implemented in the counties where the residents agree to submit to the infringement of their right. Stuffing it on those that do not agree is egregious, forcing them to enforce the egregious is ridiculous.

 

He would know nothing. And he'd be $100 or so poorer, if he even had the "extra" money lying around.

Criminals do not buy guns.