Oregon’s Gun Control Measure 114: Earlier Tuesday night, it appeared like a plan to improve Oregon’s gun rules would be adopted, but that margin would shrink as the evening progressed.
The official tally from the Oregon Secretary of State’s Office was 50.62 per cent in favour and 49.38 per cent opposed.
As part of Measure 114, it is illegal to possess a magazine that carries more than 10 rounds or can be converted to carry more than 10 rounds, and permission is needed to obtain a firearm.
We have covered all the angles by speaking with proponents and opponents of the bill. You can read about our journey down below:
Measure 114 in Oregon
Proponents say it is long overdue and basic sense regulation of firearms. Opponents argue that this is an attempt to criminalise lawful gun ownership.
On July 18, the Reduction of Gun Violence Act was officially certified as a ballot initiative.
About a month after that, a shooter opened fire inside a Bend Safeway, taking the lives of two shoppers. The topic of gun regulation became personal in Central Oregon, a region many had thought was safe from the rest of the world’s senseless bloodshed.
There is a fault line along the middle of the United States Constitution and the Second Amendment because of the heated debate over this proposal.
To paraphrase: “There has been enough bloodshed. As Thiel Larson of Lift, Every Voice put it, “We need to have something change.” Measure 114 was put on the ballot by a religious alliance. “This country is loaded with firearms.”
While Larson agrees that “responsible gun ownership is fine,” he stresses the importance of putting an end to the senseless slaughter of children and other innocents.
It is a view shared by many advocates of the second amendment.
Lessening gun violence is a central goal of the ballot initiative. According to Oregon Sport Shooting Association President Rick Coufal, “I don’t know of anybody in Oregon who is against lowering gun violence and preventing major shootings.”
‘The problem is the way this bill is drafted and how poorly it was written,’ said Coufal.
He cites the lack of allocated funds, the absence of training standards, and the presence of several superfluous restrictions as examples of the bill’s sloppy construction.
There will be no change to the current purchasing age of 18 for most firearms and 21 for some pistols if Measure 114 passes.
Obtaining a gun purchase licence would cost $65, and the licence itself would be required. There would be a five-year validity on the permission. There would be a $50 renewal fee after that.
A purchaser would need to submit to fingerprinting and complete the required safety training.
In addition, instead of the present three-day waiting period, a buyer may have to wait up to 30 days while a criminal background check is conducted.
However, Coufal argued, “the background check policy is already there.” In the words of one proponent, “if we had a solid mental health programme, we wouldn’t have that problem.”
In their view, the current system is failing, hence proponents of 114 propose a change.
Larson argued that a background check, permits, and training would all serve to reduce gun use.
Measure 114, if passed, would also establish a registry of firearm owners across the state.
The ban on magazines that can store more than ten bullets has also generated a lot of debate. The shooter at Safeway had a large number of high-capacity magazines, according to the police. The gun he used would be legal under Measure 114, but the high-capacity magazine would be outlawed.
Coufal claims that “millions of high-capacity magazines” are already present in people’s houses.
Violators face up to a year in prison, a fine of over $6,200, or both for each offence.
High-capacity magazines are allowed to be kept by their owners, according to the measure. However, they may only be used on the owner’s property or at a designated shooting range.
For some, the unspoken implications of Measure 114 are as clear as its explicit language. Those who are against the bill claim it is just the first step in watering down the Second Amendment.
To paraphrase, “I think that’s the big picture. They’re taking it one baby step at a time, as Coufal put it.
Those who support Senate Bill 114 argue that this isn’t the case.
I seriously doubt that we intend to steal all of your firearms. I believe our goal is to implement measures that are both reasonable and effective in preventing mass shootings. Larson emphasised the significance of this.
The Oregon State Sheriff’s Association
There is opposition to the legislation from the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association. In a video posted on October 24th, OSSA president and Deschutes County Sheriff Shane Nelson expressed concern that the proposal will divert resources away from responding to calls and toward overseeing a handgun licencing system. And it happens when many organisations are already struggling with insufficient staff.
According to the OSSA, it would cost law enforcement agencies over $49 million annually to implement the permission procedure that Nelson indicated would have to be created and funded out of municipal budgets. While it’s true that issuing permits will increase revenue, exactly how much would be based on how many people actually apply.
Whether Measure 114 passes in November or not, it will set a precedent for gun restriction across the country and be studied by other states considering similar legislation.
You can visit www.focushillsboro.com for the latest news. If you have any queries or suggestions can put them in our comment section.