20 shells ????

W

Worth Mathewson

Active member

There are currently five bills regarding gun control in the Oregon Legislature. These bills include: gun permit required, 5 round magazine max, 30 day waiting period, define AR15 as assault weapon, require lockup of all firearms, require trigger locks, and increasing the age to purchasing firearms to 21.
But part of bill SB501 is amazing, if that is the correct word! It would limit the number of shells purchased to 20 per month. Of course that would mean the hunter would need to go in each month for his 20 shells. And in doing so, would need a background check each month. The fee for a background check is $10. With Democrats in firm control here in Oregon things certain ain't good! Best, Worth
 
its ridiculous, if passed it will be worse than our terrible home state of CT. My wife and I are loving it here, currently in monmouth.

But this crap is pushing off us buying a house here. it looks like this awesome state will become cali-lite shortly. so sad!

i saw a bill proposed to make 2-stroke leaf blowers illegal on OR too!
 
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, as someone once said.

I do a little bit of legislative advocacy, mostly defensive (ie, defending against bad ideas we don't like, mostly on the environmental/stream protection front), and I think it's really easy to get worked up about poorly-conceived legislative drafts. To add fuel to that fire, it's common for the "Action Alerts" about these bills to exaggerate how stupid the ideas really are, and the chance that something might pass.

Most years, the Maine legislature will holding hearings on somewhere between 1500 and 2000 proposed bills. Only a fraction of those ever get serious debate, and even fewer actually pass and become law.

So, be vigilant, testify and let your legislators know how you feel, but don't get too worked up over stupid bills that likely are not going anywhere.

PS Personally, I'd ban all 2 stroke motors for landscaping. The world would be a better place with less noise, particulates, and CO2, and a far better place if it took a little more work to maintain a huge expanse of lawn. Just don't make me give up my 2 stroke Yamaha 15. Go ahead and pass a law that makes me buy a 4 stroke or EFI 2 stroke when it finally dies, but don't make me change until it does.

From my cold dead hands, or something like that.
 
Its harder to buy ammunition in California than street drugs. As I understand the process you need to provide a thumb print whenever you buy ammo, no out of state purchases are permitted, prices have gone up and certain calibers such as 270 short mag are difficult to find. As a result thousands of Californians are now reloaders. Took 5 months for my brother to get his RCBS press, when he called the distributor they advised him they couldn't keep up with demand. I live in MN and have enough components on hand that I'm probably set for life.
???
I the end most of us simply will not comply as witnessed in the failure to register the assault weapons in NY & CT.

??.
 
I?m trying to run away from the stupid laws, but I can?t seem to get away!

There are 16 states with Constitutional Carry laws now though, so that?s good.
 
Trying to keep up on gun/ammunition laws in order to stay legal sometimes seems like a full-time job. Then trying to keep informed of all the ridiculous legislation coming down, and making one's voice heard to hopefully stop some of it...it's never ending. And that's the point...eventually some of these crazy laws will pass, and little by little our rights will disappear.

I was recently in CT and had some time to pass. I stopped in at the local gun shop and was browsing. Turns out only CT residents can purchase ammunition in CT. How ridiculous is that? How can anyone even think that a law like that is going to keep anyone safe or prevent any crime?
 
Oh Lord, I'm starting my finger stretching for my long NY story.....I'll start a new thread....
But your issue is straight out of Chris Rock stand up. You can You Tube "Chris Rock Bullet Control"

This is how it's done. Hilary wanted to ban lead projectiles on public land.
 
Last edited:
Overland said:
little by little
Click to expand...

That's exactly right OL. And THAT ^^^ is what you need to be vigilant against, not the thunderbolt onslaught of gun confiscation. It will be a tax on ammo, shortening of the seasons, increased licensing cost, ammo restrictions on and on.
And that long term chip chip chipping away will erode and erode and then it will be so unusual to own a gun, that the confiscations will come.
 
Paul Mc said:
Hilary wanted to ban lead projectiles on public land.
Click to expand...

That started long before Hillary ran for pres., its been coming up since the 90's when it was documented that raptors were getting lead poisoning feeding on deer carcasses out west.
After a couple of California Condors died or got sick was when it really became a thing.
I forsee a day when lead ammo will be a thing of the past, especially lead bird shot.
Talk to a skeet range that's had to do lead abatement and you'll understand why many of them are switching to steel shot only.

But I digress....
 
No doubt Carl, however when she framed it in the context of gun control and not an environmental concern, it changed the motivation of that decision. It's a metaphor of the larger tactic to prevent us from accusing them of wanting to ban guns, but "controlling" nearly every other thing that is associated with owning and firing one!
 
Worth Mathewson said:
There are currently five bills regarding gun control in the Oregon Legislature. These bills include: gun permit required, 5 round magazine max, 30 day waiting period, define AR15 as assault weapon, require lockup of all firearms, require trigger locks, and increasing the age to purchasing firearms to 21.
But part of bill SB501 is amazing, if that is the correct word! It would limit the number of shells purchased to 20 per month. Of course that would mean the hunter would need to go in each month for his 20 shells. And in doing so, would need a background check each month. The fee for a background check is $10. With Democrats in firm control here in Oregon things certain ain't good! Best, Worth
Click to expand...

I foresee lots of mail order ammo sales coming.

And how exactly does this prevent crimes utilizing guns? Thank god criminals follow the laws of the land.

Mark
 
Mark W said:
Worth Mathewson said:
There are currently five bills regarding gun control in the Oregon Legislature. These bills include: gun permit required, 5 round magazine max, 30 day waiting period, define AR15 as assault weapon, require lockup of all firearms, require trigger locks, and increasing the age to purchasing firearms to 21.
But part of bill SB501 is amazing, if that is the correct word! It would limit the number of shells purchased to 20 per month. Of course that would mean the hunter would need to go in each month for his 20 shells. And in doing so, would need a background check each month. The fee for a background check is $10. With Democrats in firm control here in Oregon things certain ain't good! Best, Worth
Click to expand...

I foresee lots of mail order ammo sales coming.

And how exactly does this prevent crimes utilizing guns? Thank god criminals follow the laws of the land.

Mark
Click to expand...

It isn't Mark. It is about controlling the population. Story as old as time....
 
That is just plain liberal bravo sierra! Time for sane folks in Ore and Wash to start making their hired help follow THE CONSTITUTION, of have they forgotten it on the left coast.[mad]
 
No George we havent forgotten but.......both OR and WA are now controlled by the large population centers on the I-5 corridor. Even if the whole of the rest of the state population could band together it is barely a majority (in WA anyway). We are just screwed. It?s just a matter of time.
 


I foresee lots of mail order ammo sales coming.

Mark[/quote]



Good luck with that, as they will ban mail order ammo sales like they did here.
 
Vince Pagliaroli said:
Good luck with that, as they will ban mail order ammo sales like they did here.
Click to expand...

Vince, I see that you're from NY as well. Most people believe NY banned mail order ammo sales but this is incorrect. There was legislation pending to ban it years ago, and as a result almost all companies and businesses stopped shipping ammo to NY. The legislation didn't pass but no businesses lifted their restrictions. budsgunshop.com sells ammo to NY and is where I purchase almost all of my ammo (and most guns). The ammo gets delivered right to my door, no FFL required.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Overland -


Thanks for the info. It will be of great help.

I had no problem prior to "The Safe Act". After it's passage few businesses wanted much to do with NY state, and it's citizens that wanted to buy ammo legally.

Since moving here in Oct. 2010, I'm still trying to figure things out. There seems to be a endless flow of anti gun legislation presented, and now a days new laws passed.


Best regards
Vince
 
Paul Mc said:
Overland said:
little by little
Click to expand...

That's exactly right OL. And THAT ^^^ is what you need to be vigilant against, not the thunderbolt onslaught of gun confiscation. It will be a tax on ammo, shortening of the seasons, increased licensing cost, ammo restrictions on and on.
And that long term chip chip chipping away will erode and erode and then it will be so unusual to own a gun, that the confiscations will come.
Click to expand...

I'll bite.

(1) We already have a tax on ammo and guns. It goes to the feds and comes back to the states. It's probably the most effective wildlife conservation program in the world. In my state, it provides about half the revenue used to fund wildlife biologists at the state wildlife agency. I am not opposed to this--I don't mind paying for management of the resource that is important to me. We should also think about broadening the base for this tax so more wildlife users pay. Should the same tax apply to binoculars to engage bird watchers? Probably it should.
(2) Sometimes seasons should be shortened. Conservation matters. Seasons and bag limits need to be adjusted from time to time depending on how the resource is doing.
(3) There are excellent reasons to consider ammo restrictions. The ban on lead shot for waterfowl has saved millions of ducks. There is strong evidence that lead from ammo causes significant issues for some predators, especially California condor, but also other raptors. As a consumer of meat, I decided I didn't want to be eating lead with my venison or moose, and went to all copper bullets to avoid it. They are not noticeably more expensive that similar quality lead bullets, are at least as accurate of out my 30-06, and I don't have to worry about whether an eagle scavenging a gut pile I leave in the woods dies of lead poisoning.

That doesn't mean that every proposed tax or season change or ammo restriction makes sense. They should each be evaluated on their merits--and reasonable people of good will may come to different conclusions. But it is not an anti-hunting or anti-gun conspiracy every time a new rule gets proposed.
 
Certainly all valid points Jeff IF they are coming from people and institutions that have a track record of environmental vigilance. If however, the person or organization has a history of participating in anti-gun reform and now packages their cause as "tree-hugging".......then you know where it's coming from and where it's heading.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, paranoid, or a pessimist. Living on Long Island is ground zero for extraordinary restrictions that many people out on the prairie may not be aware of (not saying you) and it's not about "seeing it coming" it's here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top