tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post4075104085661965738..comments2024-01-05T12:03:52.460-05:00Comments on No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money: Bloomberg's Minions Win In OregonJohn Richardsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03151468462458613615noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-63919040737350440962015-05-09T12:30:23.472-04:002015-05-09T12:30:23.472-04:00The guy responsible for Oregon's ban on blacks...The guy responsible for Oregon's ban on blacks is also why California's Constitution has no RKBA clause. See http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2599851, and for an examination of the ineffectiveness of background check laws: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2249317Clayton Cramerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03258083387204776812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-76776082145152179532015-05-08T16:56:30.824-04:002015-05-08T16:56:30.824-04:00"For the purpose of hunting, trapping or targ...<i>"For the purpose of hunting, trapping or target shooting, during the time in which the transferee is engaged in activities related to hunting, trapping or target shooting;"</i> is one of the exceptions.<br /><br />That covers "at the range", even a completely informal "open spot in the woods by a hill", with no requirement of being a relative - because it doesn't mention "at a range" or any other limitation other than the <i>activity</i>, which is admirably broadly defined.<br /><br />(The first exception I quote is to the definition of "transfer"; such a loan is not "a transfer".<br /><br />The relative/spouse exception is for the background check <i>on transfers</i>.<br /><br />As I read it, the law, while bad, does not prohibit that kind of loan; no specific statutory definition of common terms is required - legal practice is to use common meaning, so long as it's unambiguous enough to not cause a Constitutional problem.<br /><br />I'm not going to be worried about running afoul of the law handing a friend a gun while plinking, though I oppose the law on principle.)Sigivaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16152366541957466049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-61768027382067541772015-05-07T11:09:10.982-04:002015-05-07T11:09:10.982-04:00"Crappy" by design, it's designed to..."Crappy" by design, it's designed to suppress gun culture by trapping people in flypaper and hindering informal teaching. We'll see what happens with legal challenges, in Washington as I recall the authorities promised not to enforce these parts of the law.ThatWouldBeTellinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16910231314995266781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-58380289064648395282015-05-07T06:42:47.746-04:002015-05-07T06:42:47.746-04:00We should congratulate Oregon for resurrecting Jim...We should congratulate Oregon for resurrecting Jim Crow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-38559807017054455792015-05-06T12:09:29.137-04:002015-05-06T12:09:29.137-04:00So if there are any readers from Oregon and Gov. B...So if there are any readers from Oregon and Gov. Brown hasn't signed this yet, please <a href="http://notonemoregunlaw.blogspot.com/2015/05/bad-news-on-sb-941.html" rel="nofollow">take my advice and light up her Contact form</a> with pro-woman, pro-gun messages. Kate Brown made her political bread and butter - and most of her endorsements - wooing "women's rights" and "gay rights" groups. Hit her in the heartstrings with pro-self-defense stories told from a woman's perspective, and remind her that per <i>Haynes v. U.S.</i>, no criminal can be forced to undergo background checks or register their firearms (one and the same under S.B. 941), as it's a violation of 5th Amendment rights.<br /><br />I doubt it will help sway her much, but it's worth a try.Archerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09378629103793458871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-8153887757653970512015-05-06T12:04:43.918-04:002015-05-06T12:04:43.918-04:00No, off the top of my head (IANAL, but being a res...No, off the top of my head (IANAL, but being a responsible Oregon gun owner I've read through Oregon's gun statutes more times than I care to think about), there's no formal, legal definition of "shooting range", even though it appears a few times in the statutes. That said, the statute on "unlawful use of a weapon" (ORS 166.220) exempts (among other things) "Persons discharging firearms, blowguns, bows and arrows, crossbows or explosive devices upon public or private shooting ranges, shooting galleries or other areas designated and built for the purpose of target shooting", so by context, you can get an idea what a "shooting range" is supposed to be.<br /><br />But yes, it's a ban on loaned firearms except for direct family and their spouses or at a range, provided the <i>range</i> owns the firearms being loaned (this provides a loophole for rental firearms). Person-to-person loans are still considered illegal transfers unless they fall under the familial or spousal exemption, even at a range.<br /><br />Crappy, huh?Archerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09378629103793458871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-14752092131115460812015-05-06T11:25:00.241-04:002015-05-06T11:25:00.241-04:00So a ban on loans during informal, not at a "...So a ban on loans during informal, not at a "range" plinking? And does the law sufficiently define "range", or is deliberately negating that apparent grant like I remember reading the Washington initiative did, by saying "authorized range", but not defining what those need words of art were?ThatWouldBeTellinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16910231314995266781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-17396617840013347252015-05-06T08:25:26.408-04:002015-05-06T08:25:26.408-04:00That would be an interesting question. I think the...That would be an interesting question. I think they may have had the votes since the start. As I remember it, some pro-gun Democrats reps lost in the 2014 Democratic primaries because they were pro-gun.John Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03151468462458613615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-45636226991780602792015-05-06T00:05:16.091-04:002015-05-06T00:05:16.091-04:00Be interesting to know how many of the Democrats w...Be interesting to know how many of the Democrats who voted against it are from conservative leaning districts and voted no for political cover once they knew that they had the votes to pass in both houses.heresolonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00461382067580153600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-51679763965601489912015-05-05T22:14:12.653-04:002015-05-05T22:14:12.653-04:00That was interesting. I never, ever, knew that.
B...That was interesting. I never, ever, knew that.<br /><br />By contrast, you think of a state like Utah which is presumed to white Mormon Republicans. While the state is predominately white, Mormon, and Republican, there are a number of Latino, African-American, and Asian members of the Utah Legislature. Some are Democrats and some are Republican.John Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03151468462458613615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-9119632257845412852015-05-05T21:40:03.571-04:002015-05-05T21:40:03.571-04:00When you mentioned how white the Oregon legislatur...When you mentioned how white the Oregon legislature was, I remembered this very interesting article about how white the state actually is:<br />http://gizmodo.com/oregon-was-founded-as-a-racist-utopia-1539567040nguyenhm16https://www.blogger.com/profile/05802312197132931711noreply@blogger.com