Central Oregon's News Leader - KTVZ NewsChannel 21, Bend, Oregon ktvz.com
Do you support a monthly limit on ammunition purchases in Oregon?
KTVZ Asked by KTVZ
1,833 Votes

Do you support a monthly limit on ammunition purchases in Oregon?

Yes, for safety.

3

No, not practical.

66

Yes, for safety.

3 Comments
Don Elsom
0
Don Elsom

It is beyond time to put limits on guns and ammunition. We should follow the lead of the New Zealand Prime Minister and just ban assault weapons. Enough is enough.

Reply
Sean Johnson
0
Sean Johnson

because if you need more than that to practice shooting your gun, you don't need a gun.

Reply
Sam Ackerman
Sam Ackerman

so said the person that appears to have never held a fire arm.

JohnWayne Kenneth Pool
JohnWayne Kenneth Pool

I've gone through several hundreds of rounds of ammo target shooting for fun in a DAY. Twenty a month sure isn't going to cut it. I'd have to save up for five months to make shooting worth it.

No, not practical.

60 Comments
Tracy H
5
Tracy H

Have we really come to a society where the children are the bosses that make the rules and decisions for law biding adult citizens!!! What is this country coming to?

Reply
Kenneth Gardner
3
Kenneth Gardner

this is a very stupid bill by individuals that have no knowledge of target shooting or sighting a firearm in before hunting and numerous other reasons that I can name.

Reply
Thomas W
2
Thomas W

The ownership of firearms is a Civil Right that belongs to all citizens. The private ownership of firearms is not the root cause of violent behavior in this society.

Reply
Jon Hatfield
2
Jon Hatfield

Limiting legal purchases has no affect on criminals or criminals use. Stop trying to punish law abiding citizens for criminals actions

Reply
Mike Edson
2
Mike Edson

This law will not stop a single crime...….. Again you come for the law abiding person. How about reloading ammo. does not limit them to 20 rounds a month.

Reply
Sharlene Pinckney
1
Sharlene Pinckney

NO REASON TO INFRINGE ON OUR SECOND AMEND RIGHTS

Reply
Connie Ward
1
Connie Ward

It encroaches on our 2nd amendment.

Reply
Brandy Barr
1
Brandy Barr

THE 2ND AMENDMENT WILL NOT BE INFRINGED ON PERIOD!!

Reply
Ben Wiborg
1
Ben Wiborg

This shouldn’t even be up for debate, but a group of high school kids all of a sudden have the governors ear....why?

Reply
Paul Carter
1
Paul Carter

It's stupid, idiotic, illegal and will do nothing to stop an evil person from harming another one.

Reply
Will Rueth
1
Will Rueth

Stop trying to infringe on our rights as law abiding gun owners due to crazy individuals. Impaired drivers kill,maim people each yr. I don't hear cries for background checks or limits on booze/cars

Reply
Matthew Carter
1
Matthew Carter

Silly! Practice is key with anyone who owns a gun. 20 rounds a month would limit the ability to practice efficiently.

Reply
Richard Kotyluk
1
Richard Kotyluk

Sometimes zeroing a rifle with a new scope takes a large amount of amo. Further target practice requires more amo to become proficient at the sport of target shooting.

Reply
JohnWayne Kenneth Pool
1
JohnWayne Kenneth Pool

I've gone through six hundred rounds in a day target shooting before.

Reply
Gramma Jean
1
Gramma Jean

It's infringement on my gun rights, and a sneaky form of gun control.

Reply
Ginger Waters Hearty
0
Ginger Waters Hearty

The Bill is designed to turn lawful responsible gun owners into felons.

Reply
Pat Ryan
0
Pat Ryan

This is just another way of gun control.

Reply
Kim Varner
0
Kim Varner

I do not believe that I should be limited any more than our ridiculous laws already do limit me. I am a law abiding citizen. I have not committed any crimes and have passed my back ground checks.

Reply
Sharon Preston
0
Sharon Preston

It's unconstitutional and would leave us vulnerable. Also the Pittman Robertson Act of Federal Excise taxes on firearm and ammunition sale for ODF&W and Conservation is Oregon would evaporate.

Reply
Josh Workman
0
Josh Workman

Absolutely not. What part of "Shall not be Infringed" is so damned difficult to understand?.. Keep poking the sleeping bear..

Reply
Kevin Crabtree
0
Kevin Crabtree

Whats the limit How would Trap shooters and other shooters even be able to continue in there sport.

Reply
Dennis Allen
0
Dennis Allen

Oregon has adequate gun control laws and this was re-enforced by the presence of several thousand 2nd amendment supporters at the State Capital March 23rd. Where was Z21's rally coverage?

Reply
Teri Williamson-Lewis
0
Teri Williamson-Lewis

This will just place it one step to taking away our rights to bear arms.

Reply
Bongo Wabongo
0
Bongo Wabongo

Because I'm not a loony liberal gun grabber.

Reply
Pam W
0
Pam W

No and HELL NO!! That infringes on our 2nd amendment rights.

Reply
Jim Van Osdell
0
Jim Van Osdell

Impractical, knee jerk reaction that will accomplish nothing positive while making so many criminals. It will not restrict true criminals just the rest of us.. .foolish!

Reply
Shea Carlson
0
Shea Carlson

What about us handloaders? Is the state going to limit how many primers I can buy. Or how many shells I can reload. Kate brown does not speak for all of oregon.

Reply
Dave DuRette
0
Dave DuRette

Don, move to New Zealand. Don't infringe on my rights

Reply
Darryl James Palmer
0
Darryl James Palmer

It is unpractical for gun owners to be limited to such a small amount of ammunition. For a CCW or hunter or for folks that own guns for self protection, they need to practice to be proficient.

Reply
Sam Ackerman
0
Sam Ackerman

The only gun laws that need to be passed are the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and the sportsman hearing protection act.

Reply
Andy West
0
Andy West

Takes away our freedom.

Reply
indigo ant
0
indigo ant

The bill which includes this ammunition purchase limitation is so blatantly unconstitutional that no comment is needed. "Not practical"?? Give me a break!

Reply
orarcher O
0
orarcher O

Not practical at all, I bird hunt and hunt big game when I am able. Shotgun shells are sold in boxes of 25 and on a weekend hunt I may shoot 3 boxes.

Reply
Thomas Wood
0
Thomas Wood

Guns and ammo are my choice to make. Do not infringe on my constitutional rights.

Reply
Felix Pressler
0
Felix Pressler

the problem is not the access to the amount of ammo, but the automatic weapons meant for military/warfare use.

Reply
Sam Ackerman
Sam Ackerman

"automatic weapons"!!! you have no clue at all what it takes or the cost to buy a "automatic weapon"

Darryl James Palmer
Darryl James Palmer

Fail, sorry troll. you are out of your realm here. You can't even distinguish semi auto action firearms to "automatic firearms"

Thomas W
Thomas W

You obviously have no knowledge of firearms. Why is an ignorant person like yourself tryin to make choices for the trained, practiced, proficient, and safety conscious people who own and use firearms?

Tom Armstrong
0
Tom Armstrong

should be no limit on ammo,not enforceable

Reply
Richard Dillard
0
Richard Dillard

This will not stop anyone wanting to commit mass murder.

Reply
Larry Bryant
0
Larry Bryant

This proposal is impractical and counterintuitive. To remain competent and safe in any skill or endeavor takes practice. A serious shooter spends hours per month shooting hundreds of rounds.

Reply
Frans Hager
0
Frans Hager

iT WOULD INSTANTLY MAKE MANY CENTRAL OREGONIANS CRIMINALS. WE MUST PRACTICE TO BE COMPETENT & SAFE WITH OUR FIREARMS. SELF DEFENSE IS OUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT. THIS WOULD , NO DOUBT, INFRINGE ON THAT

Reply
Tyler Jennings
0
Tyler Jennings

"...shall not be infringed."

Reply
Ellen Colton
0
Ellen Colton

Hunting and sport shooting has long been an American past time. The people putting this bill forward have no idea of this way of life and the limitations this would cause. It's an overreach of power

Reply
Nik Myles
0
Nik Myles

This is merely the disarming of law biding citizens who have done nothing wrong. I guarantee that criminals are not going to abide by such a ridiculous law. This law would make criminals the innocent

Reply
David Hengsteler
0
David Hengsteler

Because I'm a citizen and not a gang member criminal. I don't need big brother to impose anti-2nd Amendment unconstitutional laws on me.

Reply
Ka San
0
Ka San

I don't support limiting ammo for those who own guns. I do support reasonable bkgrd checks to keep guns away from some who shouldn't have them. No one is trying to take guns away from lawful folk!

Reply
DDD Lewis
0
DDD Lewis

we have gone through this before.The law makes most 22 caliber rifles illegal. Read your history books for once. Leave our guns alone!

Reply
Corey Shelby
0
Corey Shelby

This law would solve ABSOLUTELY nothing! First off, law abiding citizens (who could diffuse a mass casualty situation with proper engagement of a violent subject) being limited on they’re ability....

Reply
Shawn Drew
0
Shawn Drew

It’s a rediculous attempt to step on law abiding citizens second amendment rights. Just another attempt to disarm gun owners

Reply
Kim Jensen Wilson
0
Kim Jensen Wilson

Look at your history. All socialist governments came into power by disarming their citizens. We are on a slippery slope. Gun violence is a matter of the heart. Stop blaming guns!

Reply
Debbi Snider
0
Debbi Snider

Shall not be infringed upon!!!!

Reply
Tim Adams
0
Tim Adams

Limiting law-abiding gun owners will have no effect on criminals. I can get all the ammunition I want in Idaho, and carry it back to Oregon, just like Idaho residents do with marijuana.

Reply
Tim Adams
Tim Adams

I can also reload as much ammunition as I choose.

Randy Statton
0
Randy Statton

What will this accomplish other than making participating in shooting sports more difficult and limiting training? No crimes will be stopped. Just a way to limit legal gun usage.

Reply
Susan Alley
0
Susan Alley

There is no need in punishing the honest person. Crinmals will find a way to get there hands on ammunition.

Reply
Teri Williams
0
Teri Williams

This is punitive and ridiculous for law abiding citizens. One more way to continue to take our guns.

Reply
Vickie Scebold Kotyluk
0
Vickie Scebold Kotyluk

I believe in gun control, but limiting ammunition to 20 rounds a month is not practical. For those people who like the sport of target shooting, 20 rounds doesn’t make a drive to the range worth it

Reply
Chuck Rystedt
0
Chuck Rystedt

I could not be any more against this stupidity at its fullest

Reply
Barb Bass
0
Barb Bass

Does not even give enough ammo to use each month to learn safe & efficient handling of weapon. Does NOTHING to stop criminals from using THEIR ammo!!!

Reply
Heidi Owen
0
Heidi Owen

Against our rights!!! This is one of the most ridiculous ideas, extremely childish.

Reply
Bar Lee Setters
0
Bar Lee Setters

This would be a big negative effect on an individuals profession, like mine! I'm a Professional Gun Dog Trainer, and I shoot for training more than the proposed limited monthly amount,... Daily!

Reply
Should the U.S. open the strategic oil reserves to lower gas prices?
KTVZ Asked by KTVZ
293 Votes

Should the U.S. open the strategic oil reserves to lower gas prices?

Yes!

9

No!

7

Yes!

5 Comments
Gabe West
1
Gabe West

Biden needs to open the keystone pipeline and resume oil exploration

Reply
Paul Owen
1
Paul Owen

The strategic oil reserves are for times like this. We should also keep an eye on the oil companies and make sure they are not making extreme profits off the backs of the American citizens. After all that petroleum is being pumped from American taxpayers land that has been leased to these oil co.

Reply
Gabe West
Gabe West

Biden needs to resume oil exploration and open the keystone pipeline

Greg Moore
Greg Moore

No, the reserve is not for time like this, it is for times when we don't have oil available. We do have oil available now, and a LOT of oil available. It is just that Biden (and pseudo-environmentalists) don't want us to use it.

Nik Myles
0
Nik Myles

The US shouldn't be relying on foreign sources of energy when we have more than enough to be energy independent again. We were energy independent just over one year ago. But that ended on day one of this administration.

Reply
Steven Huillet
0
Steven Huillet

Absolutely! Prices are way too high! Just another attempt of oil companies taking advantage of a big situation like in the 1970's.

Reply
Gabe West
Gabe West

Bide the keystone pipeline and resume oil exploration

Greg Moore
Greg Moore

Explain why oil companies would not provide as much oil as possible at a time when prices are sky high. No, the prices are high due to speculation of shortage, given Biden's refusal to open up the spigot (the oil leases he claimed unused are not proven, exploration still necessary. ANWAR is KNOWN

Loretta Jones
0
Loretta Jones

Price is getting ridiculous. Average working person can't afford commuting to and from work.

Reply
Gabe West
Gabe West

Biden needs to resume oil exploration and the keystone pipeline

No!

5 Comments
Matt Cyrus
1
Matt Cyrus

We may need our reserves for war before this is over. Increase supply and lower costs by reversing Biden's orders and policies. https://americansforprosperity.org/biden-policies-raising-gas-prices/?fbclid=IwAR3jOvKpxrWnyT1iz2JrBflODu-aV7aHZdj_B4JgTndUI-8XFvAwXp3M1Jw

Reply
David Tucker
0
David Tucker

Absolutely not. Oil prices (and therefore gas prices) would drop dramatically if Congress would just reverse the disastrous executive orders Biden has put into effect restricting U.S. oil production.

Reply
Greg Moore
0
Greg Moore

Why tap into a reserve that is meant for when Oil is unavailable? We have plenty of oil available, it is just that irrational environmentalists don't want us to use it: https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2022/03/07/greenpeace_environmentalism_allowed_putin_to_invade_ukraine_820399.html

Reply
Ben Hargis
0
Ben Hargis

Don't waste the reserves......open the keyst one pipeline, increase production and exploration in the West

Reply
John Philo
0
John Philo

OPEN THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE!

Reply
Do you think home buyers should be able to send letters to sellers?
KTVZ Asked by KTVZ
378 Votes

Do you think home buyers should be able to send letters to sellers?

Yes, they should be able to!

7

No, I don't think it's fair!

0

Yes, they should be able to!

7 Comments
Amanda Wallace
3
Amanda Wallace

These letters allow people who can't financially compete with investors the opportunity to stand out.

Reply
Rob Mozz
2
Rob Mozz

It's your property, you should be able to use whatever information you want to decide the sale. Say I'd rather sell my property to a local family instead of a corporate developer that should be my choice.

Reply
Sussie Due
2
Sussie Due

Yes they should. That is how I sold a piece of real estate I had. Happened four years ago. Was given a higher offer from a developer but I went with the people that sent me the letter. I was able to pick who was going to live next door to me. Have never regreted it. They are the best neighbors!

Reply
Ben Hargis
0
Ben Hargis

Who cares? How is it not fair? Anyone can write a letter. Just another issue liberal politicians waste time and money on.

Reply
Robert Northrup
0
Robert Northrup

We have a Democrat controlled legislature that thinks it should have total control over our lives even to the extent of taking away our freedom of speech.

Reply

No, I don't think it's fair!

0 Comment
No one has commented yet

We use cookies to ensure you get the best possible experience on our website. Learn more OK, GOT IT