Support Local Journalism!        

Link to Owner Dr. Robert B. Pamplin Jr.

FONT & AUDIO

MORE STORIES


Columnist: The measure likely wouldn't survive a U.S. Supreme Court challenge and also isn't practical.

Before Oregonians vote on Measure 114 on Nov. 8, they should know the truth about its actual effects before voting.

So far, the "yes" campaign and their loyal lapdogs in the local media have been deceptive about its true effects. Measure 114 requires a permit to purchase, unlike any other constitutional right; I do not believe that it would survive a SCOTUS challenge due to the recent Bruen decision.

(Editor's note: The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a June ruling in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, overturning a New York gun safety law.)

In order to obtain a permit to purchase under Measure 114, law abiding citizens would undergo a background check and law enforcement agencies could delay approval indefinitely, for any reason. This is both arbitrary and capricious. Measure 114 would also require law abiding citizens to receive training from underfunded and understaffed law enforcement agencies that are not obligated to provide training. Citizens would be required to receive live-fire training from law enforcement agencies. Most law enforcement agencies don't own their own ranges, making it an uphill climb for citizens to receive live-fire training. For various liability reasons, most private ranges would not allow such training to take place after speaking with some of them. Finally, the proposed magazine limit is constitutionally suspect, as SCOTUS recently vacated the ruling upholding California's magazine ban.

The supporters of Measure 114 claim that it is about safety, knowing full well that it is an effective ban on future sales of all firearms. How safe are Oregonians if they have no means of defending themselves against violent criminals that DA's like Mike Schmidt refuse to prosecute? During 2020-21, the sales of firearms in Multnomah and Washington counties exploded for very understandable reasons. Violent crime was on the rise, while the numbers of law enforcement officers declined. Both counties are majority Democrat, so that demonstrates that the right of self-defense is a bipartisan issue. The good people of the metro area understood that they were ultimately responsible for the defense of themselves and their families with understaffed law enforcement agencies.

Before the pandemic, many of us in both parties didn't realize that there was no right to be protected by law enforcement agencies. We certainly do now. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year: of those occurrences, a very small percentage results in the discharge of a firearm. Anti-Second Amendment groups will often ignore FBI DGU's and quote non-law enforcement statistics from agencies such as the untrustworthy CDC.

Most outrageously, the supporters of Measure 114 knowingly make the false claim the gun owners support their so-called gun safety measure. They absolutely do not support one word of this proposal. The magazine ban is a complete joke. I can cycle a new magazine in less than two seconds.

If this passes, their next target is so-called assault weapons, which would outlaw many shotguns, handguns and small caliber rifles used for target shooting; these are not "weapons of war or anything close to it."

Before you vote on Measure 114, would you bet your family's safety on understaffed police responding to a dangerous situation in time? If the answer is no, then vote "no" on Measure 114.

Larry McDonald is a resident of Wilsonville.


You count on us to stay informed and we depend on you to fund our efforts. Quality local journalism takes time and money. Please support us to protect the future of community journalism.


Have a thought or opinion on the news of the day? Get on your soapbox and share your opinions with the world. Send us a Letter to the Editor!

Go to top