www.koin.com/news/crime/portland-shotgun-in-guitar-case-arrest-park/
Man arrested for carrying shotgun in a guitar case in Portland park, police say
NewsView all comments
A man was arrested in Portland’s South Park Blocks on May 15 after police allegedly found him carrying a hoard of weapons — including a pump-action shotgun concealed in a guitar case — near the intersection of Park Avenue and Jefferson Street at approximately 7 p.m.
The hoard of weapons, plus shotgun.
Looks like pretty typical raider loot
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
Had to check what subreddit I was in. My whole feed has been Fallout lately.
Been watching the show?!! I binged and am on the last episode of this season. Can’t wait for season 2!
Go finish that episode!! I think a lot of people grew up playing the fallout games so it’s quite nostalgic. I love it
Plan to watch it this evening! I haven’t played much of the game but watched my spouse play it from start to finish.
There's a pdx mod for New Vegas if ya wanna google
Just beware of the horny deathclaws…
Bwahahahaha
Moderator removed comment
13d
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon.
(⌐■_■)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Released from jail May 16th.
Great, that seems safe for the rest of us.
Don’t worry though, he’s under “close supervision”
Cue GIF of Chief Wiggum attempting to follow behind Sideshow Bob.
Close supervision. Riiiight. He’s gone
Looks more like a cache than a hoard to me
At best. Seems like a stretch either way.
Urban EDC
Why I don’t support anymore gun laws. When a violent felony offender get caught with multiple felony firearm charges. Is just released by Portland judge. I don’t see the point in passing more laws that only law abiding citizens will follow.
Anarcho-tyranny.
Why pass any laws at all then, if only law-abiding citizens will follow?
thats a horrible take on the subject, and a childish response... Fine Can obviously means there are a multitude of ways to reduce gun violence by following laws that already exist, rather than waste millions of dollars and months of court time fighting constitutionally dubious and misguided ballot measures.
If LEVO wrote a new ballot measure insuring guys like this get held until a trial, and insure that they get a public defender in order to go to trial quickly, then this gun owner, and many like me, would be the first in line to sign it and vote for it.
You can do both. Both alternative methods of solving gun issues as well as prevent the average person (who has a non-zero chance of snapping) from owning weapons that have no explicit function beyond specifically killing large numbers of humans in a short period of time. Problem is people (read: legislators and the people who vote in the legislators) who are against the latter raaaaaaarely do the prior, only parroting the sentiment whenever they want people to shut up.
It's very "all lives matter" in the sense that people only starting saying it to shut up "black lives matter", but still didn't do a damn thing to improve "all lives" in reference to cops shooting unarmed legal citizens.
Ofc I don't know the nuances of where you stand on this, but if NRA-type people started actually giving a damn about making sure only law abiding, stable minded citizens had guns, then I feel like gun control advocates would quickly lose steam. But instead we get arguments about wild West hero "good guys with guns" and "overworked and underpaid teachers should also have guns in classrooms with 8 year olds", which is just utterly fantastical when put into the real modern world.
weapons that have no explicit function beyond specifically killing large numbers of humans in a short period of time.
you do realize there are all kinds of legitimate shooting sports that involve semi-automatic rifles right? And that certain states allow for hunting with semi-automatic rifles? Please try to educate yourself, or be less disingenuous if you already knew that. Or at least choose your words more carefully, since the Armalite rifle was designed for combat in the 1950s, It has many explicit functions today.
The real problem is unconstitutional laws like M114 wasting time and money in courts, and furthering the divide between anti-gunners and gun owners who would be receptive to enforcing gun laws we already have in an effort to reduce violence without getting into a legal or moral battle, which will stop progress in its tracks.
As for sides 'coming to the table' I'm a gun owner, and I'm here. I'm all for reforms that keep felons caught with guns, unlicensed folks caught with concealed guns, drug dealers caught with guns, etc. in jail until a trail, and if found guilty much harsher penalties. I'm for the restriction of gun rights from folks who abuse animals and the elderly, who commit bias and hate crimes and other forms of misdemeanor violent crimes that currently do not prohibit someone from passing a background check. In short, I'm all for tons of ways to reduce violence that do not interfere with the constitution or day to day life of the average law abiding person.
And for the record, I don't have any wild west anecdotes to share with you, as those are just as silly as anti-gun anecdotes. I don't expect a good guy with a gun to protect me anywhere, whether its a private citizen or a cop. I don't really have much of an opinion on teachers carrying guns either, other than it could certainly go wrong in a thousand and one ways. I would rather parents not raise their kids to solve their issues with guns, and to follow safe storage laws in order to prevent guns going to school in the first place.
I thought I worded it in such a way that if you could find a viable purpose for the weapon then it'd be excluded from my argument, which would agree with your argument. I never mentioned specific guns beyond "weapons with no explicit function beyond killing large numbers of humans in a short period of time". You saying that there are weapons used for hunting or competition would naturally exclude those from my theoretical ban/restriction, so I (mostly) have no issue with that. Competition can be a bit wishy-washy considering how anything could ultimately be turned into a competition. Not guna die on that hill though.
I think you and your average anti-gunner/pro-control person agree on a lot of these issues, from what it sounds like. I think most people on the anti-gunner side of the issue really just want to know that when weapons are sold, they're sold to current and future law abiding citizens, which is difficult to account for when the whole system is hamstrung by NRA style people that tend to spout the nonsense it seems you and most people disagree with.
As I mentioned prior, if we actually took the issue seriously then "gun bans" and whatnot would be mostly unnecessary (sans tanks and actual machine guns and whatnot, id imagine). If we knew that every person owning a weapon was of sound mind and was skilled in the usage and storage of the weapon then we'd probably see a dropoff in gun-related violence overnight, regardless of the removal of the weapons. But so often "common sense gun reform" has such a negative connotation that it doesn't matter what's included or excluded, people are either for or against it.
Idk. Ultimately this is more indicative of the larger polarization we have in the world with everyone only thinking in two dimensions, either for or against. If we really wanted nuance in politics then we'd be pushing for alternatives to the current vote system in order to strengthen non-party-line choices. That's a separate argument though.
well said.
Being on the shitter is where the best thinking happens lol
you do realize there are all kinds of legitimate shooting sports that involve semi-automatic rifles right?
This is stupid logic. Do you think I should be able to own any weapon, as long as I can come up with a legitimate sport to play with it? What if I want to play soccer with tanks, do I have a right to own 22 tanks?
You think you're making intelligent points here, but that's because these ideas are focus-tested with other pro-gun nuts, who don't challenge your logic because they like the results.
Do you think I should be able to own any weapon, as long as I can come up with a legitimate sport to play with it?
One, I didn't imply that line of logic, you just jumped to an arbitrary conclusion. And two, having a sport associated with a gun has nothing to do with any sort of measure of whether or not that gun is legal in the country or state. Its pretty childish to legitimately think that, or disingenuous at best to pretend to do so.
I made a statement in rebuttal to an assumption that certain weapons have the explicit function of killing humans. No more and no less.
You think you're making intelligent points here
the irony is almost too much to bear here, lol. You either didn't even understand my post pertaining to explicit functions of certain weapons, or are purposely being disingenuous. Either way, lol.
I've never met a gun nut who actually understands the history and intention of the second amendment. The entire conversation is dominated by disinformation, half-truths, and edgy memes. The second amendment was never intended to create an individual right to own guns. It was only intended to limit the federal government's power. Local gun laws were normal and uncontroversial in 19th century America. "Don't take your guns to town" was a common regulation in many "Wild West" communities.
About 150 years after the amendment was written, an activist Supreme Court decided that it also applied to states. People who are extremely attached to an individual right to own guns are not constitutional originalists, and do not respect the intentions of the founding fathers (which is fine, they were obviously wrong about lots of things). You are clinging to judicial overreach from an activist court. And that's exactly why the foundation of the current interpretation is essentially flimsy nonsense, and is subject to reinterpretation by a future court.
If you're informed on this issue and the history, you should understand that there is no reason to have an individual right to bear arms under our constitution. It was made up by judges and was a dumb idea. There's nothing sacred about it and no reason not to to change that mis-interpretation.
What do you base your interpretation of the second amendment on? Any actual legal precedent? Genuinely curious if there is anything other than vague wild west assumptions.
I'm just trying to abide by the current legal interpretation.
1776 wasn't so long ago you can just go make stuff up and think that we won't know you're wrong. But you keep doing you.
Your argument wouldn't even hold water if that was the case, because states also passed constitutions which recognize the rights of individuals to own firearms and you can't just go ignoring those constitutions either.
Like it or not, that's the main argument of your average gun advocate. And it's a silly one because the next question should be, "why have laws at all?"
You can either realize your initial argument is deeply flawed, or you can double down and call names.
By the way the constitution and the people upholding it are both deeply flawed as well, so the idea that it can't and shouldn't be questioned is as ridiculous as your first assertion
Gun advocates don't argue genuine. Gun advocates have shown us time and time again, that any gun control no matter what is too far. Even if it's just asking them to have responsibility over their own firearms. They love to say just enforce existing laws, but in most states those laws are mostly non-existent, don't have the mandate from up above to enforce, and won't spend the money to do it.
Only 14 states in the US have a law that you must report a missing/stolen firearm. Only 1 state opens you to civil penalties for not reporting the lost/stolen firearm. It's not going to magically recover the firearms, but it helps police and prosecutors when they find these firearms one state over on a prohibited person when they can find when it was stolen/lost based on a serial number. Something that normal people want, but gun advocates massively don't want because they feel it's tracking and eventually the government will just seize their firearms.
And ALL of these gun advocates each have their own single thing that doesn't exist that they would actual vote on. It's different for every gun advocate. But nothing else. Nothing that is actually reducing gun violence/gun suicides.
To your point about bad faith arguments see, all we have to do is look at the parent comment in this thread with like 30 upvotes on it. The guy is commenting about how gun laws do nothing and therefore we shouldn't even attempt to pass any more.
If you only focus on what they didn't do versus what they did do, I guess you could come to this conclusion, but it would obviously be in bad faith. Unless I'm mistaken, this man was charged with gun crimes, had them taken from him, and will get processed thru the court system at a later date. I'd prefer it if this lunatic were still in jail, but attempting to use this very example as an argument that existing gun laws do nothing at all is just the kind of disingenuous argument you expect to read from gun people at this point.
I'm agreeing with you. "Why pass any laws at all then, if only law-abiding citizens will follow?" is a bad faith argument.
It's impossible to be a gun advocate and vote anything conservative. If laws and bans don't work, why are they doing that when it comes to books, LGBTQ people, and abortions? Clearly, they don't believe their own rhetoric.
Yep, just piggybacking on what you touched on, I'm in total agreement
Same time. Same peeps that upvoted that are likely also the same people who wanted the recriminalize of most drugs. I'm not against the new law, but I will bet there is a lot of overlap in the venn diagram of (why have laws, must criminalize drugs).
You smell that? Smells like straw, man.
This is not a Portland only thing. It's a nationwide problem in most states and the District of Columbia.
Gun crimes have a much higher burden of proof. They don't have schedules like drugs which make it easy to charge a person where they can just talk to a lawyer and plead out without needing a lengthy trial.
Firearm offenders are waiting up to two years for the trial which is why we get some offenders that have several firearms altercations/shootings before they are finally jailed for murdering someone. It takes way longer to send someone to jail for firearms crimes. They typically involve a court and a jury which takes time. They don't always have qualified public defenders which adds to the wait. If prosecutors/LEO have to go through the ATF for information, that takes weeks/months due to the gun lobby making it hard for alphabet agencies to share information and not being able to have a gun database. Jurys don't trust cops and a lot of offenders are able to get off on circumstance stuff which is depressing for officers and people who want less gun violence.
Same time, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen's bad decision really flipped the script on a bunch of firearms laws that were decided law for decades. Voting matters and the supreme court matters too.
You should support gun control as it does work. Making it difficult for a prohibited person to get a firearm is way cheaper than the increased costs to policing after they have firearms. It really jacks up increased medical costs (directly affecting your insurance), lost productivity, increased police & criminal justice costs, and cost that come with aftercare for victims of firearms violence. Oregon pays more than the national average but is making efforts that will reduce that tax money that is just thrown away because firearms are too easy to get.
Cities do a coordinated top down solution that involves several parts of government working together to focus on fixing issues around gun crime and actually follow through on it. It can be done as places like New York and New Jersey have dramatically turned around their state by enforcing their strict firearms laws. Oregon is tackling something similar. But still can't get around the time investiment.
“Bruen’s bad decision”
Tell me youre anti tun without telling me youre anti gun.
Its fine to be anti gun just dont force that shit in me when guys who were carrying bloody machetes 24 hours ago re enter the public. Be a pussy on your own time, im going to protect myself, lawfully of course.
Excellent comment. And regarding
the gun lobby making it hard for alphabet agencies to share information and not being able to have a gun database
I would only supplement with a link to this short video for anybody looking for a glimpse into how the trolling “gun control doesn’t work” crowd has deliberately hobbled the process.
So gun registration is bad because it leads to the unlawful restriction of rights based off possession of inanimate objects. For example, Visa and Mastercard are now tracking and releasing data on all firearm and ammunition purchases without the consent of the purchaser. Additionally, civilians such as Dexter Taylor are civilians being charged with 30 year sentences despite not breaking any law and local judges are disregarding Constitutional rights entirely in these sentencings. I cant wait until judges retort “the 1st amendment doesnt exist in my courtroom” like “Judge” Abena Darkeh said about the 2nd Amendment.
If there is a registry it will be used by anti gun politicians and alphabet groups to illegally and without due process discriminate obstruct and infringe on the rights on millions of Americans. Being anti gun is one thing but Hitler and Mao used gun registries as the first step to mass de weaponization of its people.
When a violent felony offender get caught with multiple felony firearm charges. Is just released by Portland judge.
You can blame the 9th circuit for this one, judge is just following the law.
Wait until you find out the Supreme Court said the NFA (National Firearms Act) doesn’t apply to felons.
So you and I can get 10 years for EACH violation of the NFA. It’s as innocent as having the wrong stock or foregrip on a pistol. However, a felonious POS can have a chopped shotgun, illegal silencers, machine guns, etc. and they only face 5 years as a felon in possession of a firearm.
Gun laws are effective at disarming the responsible citizens who don’t want the liability. Criminals not only don’t care about the consequences, but it turns out the harshest consequences only apply to non-felons. What sense does that make?
Can you cite your sources on that? I can't find anything backing up what you're saying. All I can find are articles about whether or not felons can own guns.
Haynes Vs United States 1968
Do you have any sources where that has been applied? Because there's nothing in the wiki article that says what you're saying.
Moderator removed comment
13d
I think he wants to know if your sources show up on scholar.google.com. I'm sure that is also what you were referring to in offering to teach him, correct?
Looks like the guns he had were taken away, which checks notes were because he broke the law.
What gun laws? Every time we try to make the smallest sensible change (no large capacity) it makes it way to the SC who has not seen a law it likes since being bought and paid for by the Republicans.
The most liberal circuit in the U.S. just shut down Felon in Possession laws, so don't blame the SC.
No large capacity isn't sensible it doesn't do anything you just carry more mags for you rampage.
You're right. Let's ban all semi-automatics.
Revolvers, pump action, lever action, bolt action, work great for sporting, and personal defense.
Also work great for killing lots of people almost as if guns are inherently deadly. And if you say we should ban all guns while cops are murdering innocent people with impunity your just an idiot.
User deleted comment
12d
Funny, that you think limiting deadly weapons is anti-society. Some real cognitive dissonance going on there... or stupidity.
If the government has them, then citizens should have them. Its the check and balance thats needed. What if Trump wins and claims he’s never leaving? Claims he can pass down the Presidency to his son? The majority of the military are Conservatives…
People in 1930’s Germany never thought in their wildest dreams that it was possible their own government could execute its own citizens. One night of Long Knives later and next thing you know its give me your guns and get in the gas chamber.
Keep the governmental bootlicking to yourself.
Guns should be completely outlawed
That's like saying "dumb comments" (like the one you posted) should be outlawed. I do not have the time, nor the crayons to explain this to you. Good luck making it through life.
I'm sorry you ate your crayons.
Moderator removed comment
13d
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon.
(⌐■_■)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Dumb ideas should be too
What a dumb idea …..
Meh. Same amount of logic as what you said. 🤷♂️
Yeah sure thing.
User deleted comment
12d
No
Handguns most definitely should be.
EXACTLY !!!!!!!! and all gun laws are anti-constitutional !!! and illegal and for decades legal gun owners have compromised and said ok , Ok , Ok , Ok..... and they keep stripping more and more and more. Give and inch and they take a mile to disarm. Democrats are Fascists and hate freedom.
Regardless, conceal carry license is the dumbest thing ever. If you're legally allowed to purchase you shouldn't need to ask for pemission to carry your firearm. Because no criminal goes..... "you know what??? I was going to carry my weapon today concealed but i dont have a license for that, i need to go apply" ITS SO STUPID AND A TAX ON OUR RIGHTS
NO ONE EVER READS THE LAWS THEY ARE PASSING, they start it off with a law that already exists so everyone can agree with it like Background checks. Because everyone even gun owners are ok with background checks..... FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ALREADY EXIST!!! People read that and say YEAH i'm voting for that, and ignore all the fine print under it to strip you of all your rights. Sadly the people who are neutral on the matter are the one who are fearmongered.
Was this the same guy throwing cans from the roof at same location?
That's what the surfing l shotgun is for.. It's the first leg of the meth triathlon . Pull!
Dang! That's a pretty good-looking kukri.
Probably just a cheap Chinese knock-off though.
I have one that's very similar in terms of looks. While it's perfectly serviceable, it is by no means a quality handmade tool/weapon in the sense of being an authentic kukri.
Shit. Hope I’m never pulled over and searched in Portland if that’s a “hoard” of weapons. Thats less than my edc in my jeep. I carry a pistol vs shotgun is the main difference is all. Hahahaha. Portland is wack!
You're not on pre-trial release or a convicted felon.
Dude, i fuckin love your Reddit name! Fuck yeah! (Not my mom tho, for your sake and hers HA!)
This is true. I’m squeaky clean and have my CHL. But still.