Why Oregon's Measure 114 is a bad idea

1 The facts show large capacity magazines do not result in worse injuries; the intent of the criminal with the gun is more important than the ability to spray bullets everywhere. Look at the science https://gunculture2point0.com/2017/10/25/are-semiautomatic-weapons-with-large-capacity-magazines-andor-other-military-style-features-more-criminal-andor-dangerous

 
2 Furthermore, it's the criminal, not the gun owner, who causes gun crime. We should focus on criminals, not legitimate gun owners, and better fund prosecution, public defenders, and the courts, all of whom are desperately underfunded.

3 The mechanism required by the measure was very ill thought out. It required the FBI to conduct background checks, which it does not do, thereby making ownership impossible.  

4 It also required a mental health professional to advise, and Oregon is already desperately short of those doctors and counselors, which would be another impossible hurdle to clear.

5 It required a firearm proficiency demonstration, another unfunded mandate when existing gun clubs and ranges have years-long waiting lists to join.

6 It put the permitting process in the hands of local sheriffs without providing them any added funding; guess which task would get zero priority from law enforcement?

7 Civil rights advocates from the Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian American, LBGTQIA+ communities protested assigning the regulation to local sheriffs, as they were greatly concerned that their right to self protection would not be honored by some Oregon sheriffs. 

8 It would eliminate effective self protection from armed and violent criminals and put that burden on already overloaded police forces. 

9 It ignores the fact that existing concealed permit holders have been shown, nationwide, to be over a thousand times more law-abiding and peaceful than the police who would be our only means of protection. Remember, when seconds count, police are typically at least ten minutes away.

Lastly, our Constitution is crystal clear we do have the right to arms, for legitimate use including but not limited to self protection. Shall we shred the Constitution, when the Legislature can come up with constitutional regulation instead, that isn't so badly broken?