Posted on 07/15/2023 11:15:55 PM PDT by zeestephen
Oregon voters in November narrowly passed Measure 114, which requires residents to undergo safety training and a background check to obtain a permit to buy a gun...The legislation also bans the sale, transfer or import of gun magazines with more than 10 rounds...
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Yep, and I always feel that the residents of Lincoln City, Newport, even Astoria, etc., are more like us than Portlanders. Unfortunately, they and us don’t count for much at voting time.
A reminder that Trump banned more guns than Obama did. And he did so unilaterally through Executive Order.
Well, have to give those hard-working, patriotic, senators a break...
After all, they were incredibly busy finalizing the elimination of obamacare, massively constructing a border wall, eliminating the federal agencies that are educating & indoctrinating the children, and rapidly eliminating the Bush DHS & FISA...
Just living up to their repeated election promises...
Her reasoning is that the average person doesn’t “need” more than 10 rounds. It’s a Bill of RIGHTS, not a bill of what the government thinks you need.
A lot of the stories I see of cops unloading on perps are 40+ rounds fired. People always say “He was dead after 3 or 4...why keep shooting?” Maybe cops should be issued single-shit pistols, since they seem to have plenty of help.
👍👍👍👍
Immergut Decision - Large capacity magazines “are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment...”
= = =
So our military, with ‘large capacity magazines’ - do they ever do ‘self-defense’? How often
i believe NY has limits on mag sizes- plus other asin9ine gun regulation laws from their ‘safe act’
LOL...Thanks...
its even worse than that- she stated that (paraphrased) ‘because criminals in mass shootings shoot lots and lots of rounds, while law abiding citizens rarely shoot over 9 rounds, it is constitutionally allowable to restrict magazines to 10 shots’
in other-words- she is suggesting that if she were to call large capacity mags legal, people woudl be ‘more prone to becoming criminals who shoot lots and lots of bullets- therefore large capacity mags shouldn’t be allowed’ or some such nonsense-
Her logic is totally twisted-
saw a clip of a cop who fired and hit a perp 9 times, and the perp kept coming at the cop with a knife- and walked away- with 9 shots in him- the video ended as the perp was walking away- but likely died a short while later- but it goes to show that no=- it is not true that a person only needs a couple shots- single perps hopped up on drugs can still be a threat even after gettign hit several times- not to mention that when attacked by several people with guns- the defender needs as much ammo as possible to fend them off, and should have every right to have as much ammo in a mag as needed to safely defend themselves against heavily armed thugs-
I saw s FB post from a guy that claimed to be a Portland area lawyer, gun owner, and a CCW holder. He said that he voted for Measure 114, believing that he was unlikely to ever encounter a criminally wielded gun, but if he did, at least he would know that he would be as well armed as the criminal. How do you reason with that kind of mind?
What a cop carries is determined by a lot of things. I’d assume that those were the infamous lung-blowing-out 9 mm hollow points. It provides for easy carry of a reasonable number of rounds...15+ in the pistol, and 50 more in spare mags, if the cop is smart. Minus the need for easy portability, as in home defense, rifle calibers in 30 round magazines would deliver more power, to potentially more threats.
So does California, but I believe it’s because nobody carried
out the appeal to the SCOTUS.
I believe the SCOTUS did strike down one case trying to limit
the size not too long ago.
Some entities don’t recognize the SCOTUS rulings to be the
law of the land anymore. Forcing those places to defend
their actions in front of the SCOTUS is a must.
Just you wait; Henry Higgins!!
Just you wait!!
"Lord; open the eyes of my servant so that he may see..."
He wants (wishes) that the unlikely danger to him would be even less likely to be a danger to him.
So it’s okay for the criminals to have standard capacity, but the law abiding must be limited to 10 rounds.
Thats what liberal ideology boils down to evidently.
Caetano v Massachusetts...New York Rifle & Gun Club v Bruen
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.