Oregon Assault Weapon, Handgun, & Magazine Ban - Initiative 43

[Greenbug]

@Howard1955
Appreciate you taking the time to make an informative video.
However, your bolt action savage rifle will not be considered an "assault weapon" (whatever that is) under this proposal as it is not semi-automatic. Not trying to split hairs here, but want to be fair in the description just like you were expressing the need for fairness in your video.

I do not support any type of "ban" but I do strive for accurate information so voters can make an informed decision.

Thank you again for making this video, it is very informative.

 

[MrMillspecer]

@Howard1955
Appreciate you taking the time to make an informative video.
However, your bolt action savage rifle will not be considered an "assault weapon" (whatever that is) under this proposal as it is not semi-automatic. Not trying to split hairs here, but want to be fair in the description just like you were expressing the need for fairness in your video.

I do not support any type of "ban" but I do strive for accurate information so voters can make an informed decision.

Thank you again for making this video, it is very informative.

Wasn't it the thumbhole stock and ability to get another magazine with more than 10 rounds ? Does it pertain to semi autos only ?

 

[Kruel J]

Wasn't it the thumbhole stock and ability to get another magazine with more than 10 rounds ? Does it pertain to semi autos only ?

Semi autos only guys.

 

[MrMillspecer]

 

[Howard1955]

@Howard1955
Appreciate you taking the time to make an informative video.
However, your bolt action savage rifle will not be considered an "assault weapon" (whatever that is) under this proposal as it is not semi-automatic. Not trying to split hairs here, but want to be fair in the description just like you were expressing the need for fairness in your video.

I do not support any type of "ban" but I do strive for accurate information so voters can make an informed decision.

Thank you again for making this video, it is very informative.

Didn't mean to mislead you - that's not me, but a video I came across on YouTube. Thought it might be interesting for you all.

Howard

 

[Voidshot9]

Semi autos only guys.

Who knows, maybe that's the original intent, but the wording is too loose within IP 43. One of the sections classifies an assault weapon as this:

• Semiautomatic pistol, or any semiautomatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

That paragraph can be interpreted legally this way:

• Subject #1: Semiautomatic pistol,
• Subject #2: or any semiautomatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine,
• Limitation: that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

It's Subject #2 here that is really broad. Any semiautomatic (comma), centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine (comma), that has a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Within that sentence, it is describing rifles with different qualifications: Semiautomatic, centerfire or rimfire with a fixed magazine. It's the use of the "or" conjunction that is problematic here. They could have said "Semiautomatic centerfire rifle or semiautomatic rimfire rifle" which would exclude bolt and lever action. But they didn't quite state it that way.

I think the wording is such that a court can interpret even a lever action .22 rifle with a fixed magazine as party to the restriction.

 

[brenty]

Do you think its likely that if this passed that people will go with Featureless AR's or Fixed Mag AR's along with some of the innovations companys have came up with for the folks in CA?

 

[turbo_vanner]

Do you think its likely that if this passed that people will go with Featureless AR's or Fixed Mag AR's along with some of the innovations companys have came up with for the folks in CA?

I guess if they have to buy more after the ban... If it ends up looking like it will pass, I plan to have as many lowers and mags as I will need.

 

[partsed]

Yeah, that looks pretty..... Ugly....

 

[Roger65]

This is starting to look less stupid:

Franklin Armory Reformation: Not a Rifle, Not a Shotgun, But a 'Firearm'

Not a rifle, not a pistol, not a shotgun. A "Firearm" without rifling, but straight cut grooves in barrel, so not a shotgun either.

 

[Voidshot9]

This is starting to look less stupid:

Franklin Armory Reformation: Not a Rifle, Not a Shotgun, But a 'Firearm'

Not a rifle, not a pistol, not a shotgun. A "Firearm" without rifling, but straight cut grooves in barrel, so not a shotgun either.

You know, prior to this year I would have probably considered that thing as just ridiculous. But I now find it rather intriguing.

Can't help but figure that they're just inviting legislation that broadens some definitions though..

 

[notazombie]

You should want one because you want it, not because it's the only option left.

 

[CountryGent]

That is incorrect, States that had a registry can keep them but there only a few, Hawaii was one, California was another but they cannot add them after that law was past. It is a fact.

I'm curious about your interpretation.

Using The Golden State as an example, all the registration requirements in California that I could find are post-FOPA (May 19, 1986).

• California's "assault weapons" registration of grandfathered arms started in 1989 (Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989).
• California's handgun registration was started in 1991.
• California's .50-caliber registration of grandfathered rifles was passed in 2004 and took effect in 2005 (.50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004).
• California's registration of rifles with "bullet buttons" passed in 2016 (Senate Bill 880 and Assembly Bill 1135).

That is cool. Did not Connecticut go ahead and do the AR 15 Registration?

Yes, in 2013, the AWB provisions in that state were greatly expanded.

 

[eklarsen]

I'm curious about your interpretation.

Using The Golden State as an example, all the registration requirements in California that I could find are post-FOPA (May 19, 1986).

• California's "assault weapons" registration of grandfathered arms started in 1989 (Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989).
• California's handgun registration was started in 1991.
• California's .50-caliber registration of grandfathered rifles was passed in 2004 and took effect in 2005 (.50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004).
• California's registration of rifles with "bullet buttons" passed in 2016 (Senate Bill 880 and Assembly Bill 1135).

Yes, in 2013, the AWB provisions in that state were greatly expanded.

If I am not mistaken, California had a registry for importation into the state sometime around 1923. It only applied to dealers but since it was a registry it effectively past the test of having one prior to 1986.

 

[eklarsen]

Okay here is a link to the 1923 law http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/AB263-Hawes-1923.pdf
and further here is another ruling in 1963;

In Galvan v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851 ... our
Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether a San
Francisco ordinance providing for the registration of firearms
was unlawful because it was in conflict with or impliedly
preempted by the state laws concerning weapons. The court
held that the ordinance was valid because the state Legislature
had not evinced the intent to preempt the field of gun
registration and the ordinance did not provide for a "license"
or "permit" in violation of Penal Code, section 12026.

Following the Galvan decision, the Legislature in 1969
enacted Government Code, section 9619, which effectively
eliminated any doubt as to the legislative intent to occupy the
entire field of registration and licensing of firearms.

 

[brenty]

I will probably just go with featureless ARs if this does pass. But frankly I am optimisic that we can WIN this fight. And I am gonna keep fighting it and keep trying to educate as many people as I can. I am gonna keep trying to pound the fighting attitude into peoples skulls ! lol

 

[tkdguy]

Does anyone know of any religious organization, church minister, rabbi, etc. in the greater Portland area that is pro 2 A? If so, would you be so kind to send me the contact information?

 

[eklarsen]

Does anyone know of any religious organization, church minister, rabbi, etc. in the greater Portland area that is pro 2 A? If so, would you be so kind to send me the contact information?

I'm an ordained minister and I love the 2nd amendment. best 40 bucks i ever spent and you get great parking at hospitals

 

[SUPER X]

They have to be in public, and most of them are door-to-door.

The day they allow signatures like that to be filled out online is the day before they pass the "4chan troll law" to stop idiots from trying to game the system.

Isn' everyone that has a ODL automatically registered to vote in Oregon now ?

 

[boogerhook]

I don't know about Oregon, but I believe in WA we need at least 1/3 of voters to cast a vote on an Initiative for it to be certified. If less than 1/3 vote, it doesn't matter how many yes votes an initiative gets. We have had elections when it would have been wiser to abstain than to vote against.