Talk:Oregon Ballot Measure 114

"Current owners of high capacity magazines would be able to keep them legally" is an inaccurate statement
Section 5-a only provides an affirmative defense to previously owned "large-capacity" magazines. Affirmative defense is a specific legal concept wherein one admits they have committed an illegal act but are otherwise justified in doing so, and the burden is on the accused to prove they meet the conditions. You can be charged and found guilty of the crime of possessing one even if you had it beforehand. 50.39.192.55 (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting. Do you have a third party source that explains this and verifies how this would work? Steven Walling &bull; talk  17:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Its pretty much implied in the name. You would have to raise the fact that you owned a "high capacity" magazine before the ban went into effect after you have been arrested and charged. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Basic grammar
its not it’s 104.191.80.87 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation Must Be Corrected
The article claims that 114 creates a Catch-22 by which a gun permit is required to take the class required to obtain the same permit. Whoever wrote that did not read the initiative. The claim is repeatedly contradicted in the text. I happen to strongly oppose 114 and hope it will be struck down by the courts, but the article as written is quite simply false. Whether it's a lie depends on whether the author knew it was false; I cannot know the writer's intent, so I will call it false rather than a lie. I would edit it myself, but I am a veteran of Wikipedia's insane edit wars so I will leave that to someone else with more patience than me. 2605:59C8:47E:4210:2CE1:5C73:8B6F:74C5 (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. This should be a big improvement, I think. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)