Importunate Tom

Uncooperative Oregonians

Recommended Posts

Oregon is proposing a ban on (assault weapons, our .22's) with all the desirable features, most importantly, a closed registry.

This means that those foolish enough to register their guns will be the last legal owners of those guns in that state and the guns will be confiscated upon their deaths.

This, in turn, means that the level of compliance will be the usual: about 15-20%, since most gun owners do not wish to have our guns confiscated.

Yes, it does have a provision allowing people to destroy their guns and keep the remnants. Apparently, grabberz think that gun owners will not see this as taking away any property, so nothing like confiscation. Yeah, that's not going to work either. We want to keep intact .22's.

They do allow current owners to keep their (assault weapons, .22's) if they sign up to have them confiscated, but using them is another matter if they're like me. From the exemptions:

While engaged in the legal use of the assault .22 or large capacity magazine, at a public or private shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed and built for the purpose of target shooting.

We walk down toward the swamp and use it for a backstop. We did put up a board to hang paper targets. But I'd bet the farm that the authors don't consider my yard to be designed and built for the purpose of target shooting.

Sometimes I think urbanites should be required to spend a week more than 1,000 yards from any asphalt before writing these rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

And people wonder why the NRA takes such a hard stand against gun grabbers. I have never been a NRA member but that may change soon. That scary telescoping stock serves the same purpose as an adjustable car seat .Not everyone is the same fucking size. The bit about bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds is a hoot.  My first AR had a bayonet lug and I cut it off to accommodate a hand guard.  So I replaced the bayonet lug with a scary barrel shroud. Which is deadlier, the lug or shroud? Hell, I may have to put together another one just so I have one of each.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My boat gun is a black .410 short-barreled shotgun with a black pistol grip. The first two loads are rubber. If I need more than that, you should have taken more personal responsibility.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

My boat gun is a black .410 short-barreled shotgun with a black pistol grip. The first two loads are rubber. If I need more than that, you should have taken more personal responsibility.

 

Good choice. Be careful with that pistol grip. It apparently makes it more dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Good choice. Be careful with that pistol grip. It apparently makes it more dangerous.

Hogue Tamer. Soft and excellent "gription," at least on my end of things. (:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, F_L said:

And people wonder why the NRA takes such a hard stand against gun grabbers. I have never been a NRA member but that may change soon. That scary telescoping stock serves the same purpose as an adjustable car seat .Not everyone is the same fucking size. The bit about bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds is a hoot.  My first AR had a bayonet lug and I cut it off to accommodate a hand guard.  So I replaced the bayonet lug with a scary barrel shroud. Which is deadlier, the lug or shroud? Hell, I may have to put together another one just so I have one of each.

 

Legislation like that is the NRA's best recruiting tool. If the FL version looks like it has some chance of passage, I'll definitely join.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussion on another forum caused me to realize that I got two important points wrong in the topic post.

The Oregon law does have a provision for inheritance, which looks remarkably like those I've seen from other states if you just skim it, but ends by saying this:

"...except the time for registering shall run from the date of acquiring title."

It's an exception to the closed registry that would allow people to inherit (but not buy nor sell) these guns, so at least some property rights would be retained. At least until the law changes and possession is made illegal.

The other one is the target shooting exemption, which does have a provision exempting private property owners. The way it is written, my wife could take her assault weapon out in the yard and shoot it. It's not clear whether I could because I'm her husband and the answer would depend on marital law and precedent. It's pretty clear that no guests could shoot it. The transfer exemption for target shooting is what I was referencing in the topic post, and that only applies at established shooting ranges.

And yes, Sloop, her assault weapon is still a .22 and I still appreciate the fact that you agree with me and disagree with TeamD about whether those should be banned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the grabberz make any provisions for people who might need these scary assault rifles for occupational use?

In Pusstralia we allow farmers who are classified as Primary Producers by tax dept to have these assault .22s with 10 round magazine and semi auto shotguns.

We allow Professional shooters to have all types of scary assault weapons with no magazine limits.

When grabberz talk about banning etc they never make exceptions for people who have occupational needs for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2018 at 12:51 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Legislation like that is the NRA's best recruiting tool. If the FL version looks like it has some chance of passage, I'll definitely join.

Pretty doggone funny. The situation is developing. One side is vibrant, and forward-looking. The other side is static after 35 years of "no retreat, no surrender."

Quote

Meet NRA Prez Bob Corbin, the force replaced by Wayne LaPierre

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=153191

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Do the grabberz make any provisions for people who might need these scary assault rifles for occupational use?

Of course not.

There are exceptions for government employees and those who manufacture and sell guns to government employees.

This makes sense because only the government goes to war and so only governments could possibly have an occupational use for battlefield .22's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming Bad latte is one of these uncooperative Oregonians, right?  He did move an assault rifle from CA to OR for the express purpose of hiding it from CA and avoiding his own state laws to move it to OR where there were more librul gun laws.  He then turned around and sold it on the open market and that assaulty gun is back on the street after BL made a point of saying we should have to give up our assault rifles.  That seems "uncooperative" to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2018 at 12:21 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm assuming Bad latte is one of these uncooperative Oregonians, right?  He did move an assault rifle from CA to OR for the express purpose of hiding it from CA and avoiding his own state laws to move it to OR where there were more librul gun laws.  He then turned around and sold it on the open market and that assaulty gun is back on the street after BL made a point of saying we should have to give up our assault rifles.  That seems "uncooperative" to me.

I find it amusing that BL (now) advocates for those same rifles to be taken away by the gov't. If that happens, do you think he will return the money?

Of course, we all know his principles are down the list from money - so I find it unlikely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2018 at 12:21 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm assuming Bad latte is one of these uncooperative Oregonians, right?  He did move an assault rifle from CA to OR for the express purpose of hiding it from CA and avoiding his own state laws to move it to OR where there were more librul gun laws.  He then turned around and sold it on the open market and that assaulty gun is back on the street after BL made a point of saying we should have to give up our assault rifles.  That seems "uncooperative" to me.

It's only bad if you fail to carry a large TeamD! banner while doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It's only bad if you fail to carry a large TeamD! banner while doing it.

Which banner did Judge Taney carry? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oregon ballot initiative to ban (assault weapons, ordinary .22's)

Well, that's not quite the certified title, but would be if I got to write it.

I always check to see how such laws would apply to our arsenal of assault weapons. This one bans my .22 because the fixed magazine holds more than ten rounds and bans my wife's .22 because of that naughty telescoping stock, among other military features.

It has an odd provision on inheritance. Inheritance is the ONLY way that future generations of Oregonians will be able to own an ordinary .22 in the future, but it's clearly allowed. You can't move to the state with an ordinary .22 and keep it but you can be born to parents who had the foresight to buy one and you're good for life, as are all your descendants.

Those who didn't think ahead and buy an ordinary .22 prior to the date of the ban and all of their descendants would be unable to reverse that oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oregon Senator Proposes Common Sense Assault Weapon Ban
 

Quote

 

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.


 

Because that's the only kind of assault weapon ban.

They've adopted the Puerto Rican standard of "large capacity" magazines, also used by militaries around the world: 5 rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Oregon Senator Proposes Common Sense Assault Weapon Ban
 

Because that's the only kind of assault weapon ban.

They've adopted the Puerto Rican standard of "large capacity" magazines, also used by militaries around the world: 5 rounds.

You forgot to mention:

No firearms under 21.

Proof of safety course.

Requires a permit, which will cost a "reasonable fee". Permits expire in 90 days.

One rifle/shotgun and pistol per month.

The permit is a 4x copy, so it is registration.

Only allowed to buy 20 rounds of ammunition per month. Requires a background check to purchase. Does not apply to ammo sold and used at a range.

      I guess life will just suck for anyone there who is like I am.. The ranges I go to are clubs, they do not sell ammo or firearms.

      Are these unlimited ammo-selling ranges supposed to keep track of how much ammo someone walked in with  and bought - and recount on the way out?

       It doesn't mention reloading, but that is probably in a different bill.

 

But it did seem to have reasonable transfer rules.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

You forgot to mention:

No firearms under 21.

Proof of safety course.

Requires a permit, which will cost a "reasonable fee". Permits expire in 90 days.

One rifle/shotgun and pistol per month.

The permit is a 4x copy, so it is registration.

Only allowed to buy 20 rounds of ammunition per month. Requires a background check to purchase. Does not apply to ammo sold and used at a range.

      I guess life will just suck for anyone there who is like I am.. The ranges I go to are clubs, they do not sell ammo or firearms.

      Are these unlimited ammo-selling ranges supposed to keep track of how much ammo someone walked in with  and bought - and recount on the way out?

       It doesn't mention reloading, but that is probably in a different bill.

But it did seem to have reasonable transfer rules.

Honestly, I don't have that much of a problem with most of that but 20 rounds / month is stupid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

Honestly, I don't have that much of a problem with most of that but 20 rounds / month is stupid.  

How about this?

Quote

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.

In Canada, New Joisey, and other places they've been tried, these bans cause a LOT of boating accidents.

I would think sailors would unite in opposing them just for the boating safety benefits alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dogballs Tom said:

How about this?

In Canada, New Joisey, and other places they've been tried, these bans cause a LOT of boating accidents.

I would think sailors would unite in opposing them just for the boating safety benefits alone.

Honestly?

I think that authoritarian democrats and republicans are frantically trying to replace weed possession with anything they can muscle through.    As I've said before, it's way easier to prove possession than intent and I think ammo clips are the new marijuana.

To me, the purpose of the 5 round clip limit is to try and shut down sport shooting clubs and things like '3 gun' competitions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

do you gun nuts ever stop babbling about guns?

Are you new?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom resurrects a tiresome gun thread from 9 months ago to chat about his dogballs.

SAD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go Oregon.  Perhaps the gnutz will think twice in the future about commandeering a Federal facility or acting like asshole on the streets of Portland.  

Fuckin' guns.  And fuckin' dogballs in particular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again . .  . 

Guns are for cowards. 

Vets For Peace 

And also again - If guns are supposed to keep us safe and free, why are we neither? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Once again . .  . 

Guns are for cowards. 

I liked your previous position better.

On 10/31/2018 at 12:09 PM, AJ Oliver said:

Except for simple varmint weapons, guns are for cowards  


Of course, that allowed for the possibility that squirrel shooters like my wife and I own might fit the exception. So the exception had to go, didn't it?

6 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Honestly?

I think that authoritarian democrats and republicans are frantically trying to replace weed possession with anything they can muscle through.    As I've said before, it's way easier to prove possession than intent and I think ammo clips are the new marijuana.

To me, the purpose of the 5 round clip limit is to try and shut down sport shooting clubs and things like '3 gun' competitions.  

Prohibitions are never about the object and are always about the people. The drug war is that way and has been since Nixon started it:

On 3/24/2016 at 7:25 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Erlichman Says Nixon's Drug War Targeted Political Enemies

 

Quote
“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

 

 

Of course, Nixon didn't invent lying and dividing people just to get more power for government.


The drug war was his effort to punish people for voting TeamD.

The gun war is an effort to punish people for voting TeamR.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Once again . .  . 

Guns are for cowards. 

Vets For Peace 

And also again - If guns are supposed to keep us safe and free, why are we neither? 

Will these be on the test??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Of course, that allowed for the possibility that squirrel shooters like my wife and I own might fit the exception. So the exception had to go, didn't it?

You must be a really shitty shot if you need more than 5 rounds to kill a varmint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Olsonist said:

You must be a really shitty shot if you need more than 5 rounds to kill a varmint.

You must be really frightened of gun owners to grasp at a SOLution like banning magazines with more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now