By Scott Unger • Of the News-Register • 

Starrett takes aim at gun measures

Only current online subscribers may access this article and/or our N-R e-editions.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3.

For all subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please

Comments

fiddler

Starrett: so, you will not accept any control on fire arms, but you’re first in line to legislate a woman’s body?

Is your campaign money from NRA? We need some controls because of this school shootings and suicides.

Please resign.
.

Easy Writer

What is your fascination with guns, Mary? It's so offensive. Fiddler's right. Please resign.

Bigfootlives

What is the obsession with murdering innocent babies in the satanic ritual of abortion? And you think wanting to protect our second amendment is offensive? Maybe you should go buy a permit, take a class, pass a test and ask permission before you post THOSE opinions to the NR. 1st amendment, or 2nd amendment, what’s the difference.

Moe

The Second Amendment underpins all of the others.

So important is the Second Amendment that it is covered in detail in the Constitution itself: Article I, Section 8.

Tyler C

The idea that the 2nd Amendment allows for unlimited possession of any gun by any person in the US is a relatively new idea. It started when the NRA switched over from a gun safety and sporting club to a lobbyist group for the gun manufacturing industry in the 70s and 80s.

I support citizens owning guns and practicing reasonable gun safety. But people who base their entire personality on owning guns will eventually have to contend with the spiritual and moral decay that comes from constantly planning to take another human's life.

bonnybedlam

Like a lot of gun owners, I think, I'm not opposed to the permit to purchase in concept. In fact, it seems like it should streamline the purchase process since permit holders will have already passed an intense background check. But these new laws are not only relying on continuing the same point of purchase background check we already have, they want it to take longer. How does this make any sense?

The other problem is the state is too busy making new laws to add onto Measure 114 to actually figure out how to implement it. I'd love to take a class and get a permit if, as I said, it would eliminate the hours, sometimes days, long wait for a BG check to clear. But there's no process in place for that to happen. And now, for reasons that don't even make sense, if I did have that permit, issued by the state and approved by my local sheriff, I'd still have to do that BG check and then wait 72 hours. Why have the permit at all if it's not actually good enough to make the purchase? And why hasn't the state made any moves whatsoever in the 2.5 years since the law was passed to create a permitting system?

It's almost as if this doesn't have anything at all to do with public safely and is just a means to end legal gun sales in Oregon.

Garden Variety

Many things we want in life take time to make happen. Planning ahead is what responsible, thoughtful people do. The requirement to pass a background check for every new purchase and the time it takes to clear protects the purchaser as much as it does the public, as it gives the newly suicidal time to rethink. Maybe you think this could never be you, but it might also be someone you love.

treefarmer


Another school shooting in Florida today, I hope we can all agree that not everyone should have access to firearms.

As a responsible gun owner who values our 2nd amendment rights, I am troubled by Starrett’s assertion that this bill has “ONE PURPOSE.” It is a problem when one of our representatives asserts that the only reason to regulate gun ownership is to inconvenience law-abiding gun owners. I am aware that her brother, Kevin Starrett, is executive director of Oregon Firearm Federation, and historically she has opposed attempts to regulate gun ownership. A few years ago she tried to have local law enforcement refuse to enforce gun laws, and now she suggests her fellow Republicans are a “disappointment” if they aren’t willing to use a “nuclear option” to prevent a quorum. I do wonder if there is anything she would consider to be a fair and reasonable approach to reducing gun violence?

  • Most viewed
  • Most commented
Web Design and Web Development by Buildable