Oregon HB 2005 4-11-2023

[PiratePast40]

For fun let's see if we can match up parts of this definition to the parts of an AR. The more I read it, the less sense it makes that it applies to the upper and lower requiring serialization.

(13) "Receiver" means the part of a rifle, shotgun or projectile weapon other than a
handgun, or a variant of a rifle, shotgun or projectile weapon other than a handgun, that
provides housing or a structure for the primary component designed to block or seal the
breech prior to initiation of the firing sequence, even if pins or other attachments are re-
quired to connect the component to the housing or structure.


At first glance I thought the housing/structure was referring to the upper receiver and the primary component blocking the breech was the BCG. If that was the case this last part wouldn't make much sense:

"even if pins or other attachments are re-
quired to connect the component to the housing or structure."


My interpretation is that the AR15 lower receiver is the housing or structure and the primary component is the upper receiver, which is held on by pins.

This definition has been around for a while and has not often applied to AR upper receivers in the past.

Let's try this one more time:

 

[arakboss]

Let's try this one more time:

View attachment 1416964

That is federal definition, let's focus on Oregon's definition in HB 2005.

 

[PiratePast40]

That is federal definition, let's focus on Oregon's definition in HB 2005.

I'll do this one more time and then I'm done:

The definition in HB 2005 IS the federal definition. The screenshot I posted is from 27 CFR 478 and is the carve out for AR platform firearms, and others. That is the carve-out that makes the lower receiver a firearm for the AR platform under federal law. HB 2005 neglects to include the AR platform carve-out so makes the upper a firearm under Oregon law and is in addition to the federal law making the lower the firearm.

I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

 

[arakboss]

I'll do this one more time and then I'm done:

The definition in HB 2005 IS the federal definition. The screenshot I posted is from 27 CFR 478 and is the carve out for AR platform firearms, and others. That is the carve-out that makes the lower receiver a firearm for the AR platform under federal law. HB 2005 neglects to include the AR platform carve-out so makes the upper a firearm under Oregon law and is in addition to the federal law making the lower the firearm.

I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

HB 2005 doesn't need to provide a carve out if my interpretation is correct.

 

[arakboss]

I'll do this one more time and then I'm done:

The definition in HB 2005 IS the federal definition. The screenshot I posted is from 27 CFR 478 and is the carve out for AR platform firearms, and others. That is the carve-out that makes the lower receiver a firearm for the AR platform under federal law. HB 2005 neglects to include the AR platform carve-out so makes the upper a firearm under Oregon law and is in addition to the federal law making the lower the firearm.

I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

If you are correct that HB 2005 identifies the AR upper as the firearm then that means the lower is not one under the HB 2005 receiver definition.

 

[PiratePast40]

It's not necessary to spend any more time on this. They'll pass what they want without our input, and at this point, we should let them continue to do stupid stuff. It's the philosophy of not interrupting your enemy while they are making a mistake.

I almost wish I hadn't even talked about this part of 2005. My purpose was to get people fired up to do something. I believe I helped and encouraged people to write and call about a walkiout. There is no further need for us to help Democrats correct their mistakes with their unconstitutional pieces of garbage legislation.

 

[E4mafia]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1659368541248733184

 

[dinky450]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1659368541248733184

There will be lawsuit from the senators. 113 is illegal per Oregons constitution and that doesn't work voters can always write in. These senators have done a great job and it should not go unrecognized.

 

[Saladfarmer]

On top of commending the Senators that are denying the quorum needed, we have also been asked by the senate minority leader to write the Democrat senators and tell them we: A .Approve of what the absent senators are doing.
and
B. The garbage bills :2003, 2005 etc., are useless unlawful legislation.
and more..

 

[arakboss]

There will be lawsuit from the senators. 113 is illegal per Oregons constitution and that doesn't work voters can always write in. These senators have done a great job and it should not go unrecognized.

Measure 113 sounds like voluntary term limits.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Measure 113 sounds like involuntary term limits.

Fixed it for you.

 

[PiratePast40]

Measure 113 sounds like voluntary term limits.

There comes a time when trying to find ways to comply with unlawful decrees is no longer productive, and can be costrued as aiding and abetting the enemy.

 

[Librarian]

C-engrossed version published June 15

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2005/C-Engrossed

I believe bold text is new-for-this-version.

SECTION 10. (1) The amendments to section 4 of this 2023 Act by section 8 of this 2023 Act become operative on September 1, 2024.
(2) The amendments to section 5 of this 2023 Act by section 9 of this 2023 Act become operative on September 1, 2024.

SECTION 11. In addition to and not in lieu of any other appropriation, there is appro-
priated to the Department of State Police, for the biennium beginning July 1, 2023, out of the General Fund, the amount of $356,816, for implementation of the provisions of this 2023 Act.

SECTION 12. This 2023 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2023 Act takes effect on its passage

 

[jayR]

Carve out for frame & receiver definition. - ar upper receivers do not require serialization..
(5)"Frame" has the meaning given that term in 27 C.F.R. 478.12
(13) "Receiver" has the meaning given that term in 27 C.F.R. 478.12
CFR ->
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-II/subchapter-B/part-478
scroll down for .12

 

[PiratePast40]

Even with the changes, possession of an unserialized 80% frame or receiver will make you a criminal. Not completed, just the hunk of aluminum or plastic.

 

[parallax]

So I guess ( hoping ) they dropped the magazine limit of 10 rounds dropped the assault weapon definition and ban ? The local news channel is worthless on any real information

 

[CamoDeafie]

So I guess ( hoping ) they dropped the magazine limit of 10 rounds dropped the assault weapon definition and ban ? The local news channel is worthless on any real information

We won't truly know until they pass whatever

 

[Mono1]

Not completed, just the hunk of aluminum or plastic.

Yes. How Ridiculous is that. ?

Aircraft Aluminum Block NEW 6" x 6" x 6" NEW 22 lbs. | eBay

We will do our best to describe and test every item. Weighs 22 lbs. Let's both be prompt and fair. We will work hard to make it right.

www.ebay.com

 

[CamoDeafie]

Yes. How Ridiculous is that. ?

View attachment 1438343

Aircraft Aluminum Block NEW 6" x 6" x 6" NEW 22 lbs. | eBay

We will do our best to describe and test every item. Weighs 22 lbs. Let's both be prompt and fair. We will work hard to make it right.

www.ebay.com

Needs to be a bar stock of roughly 5" by 2" by 10" edit; for billet lowers

 

[Mono1]

Needs to be a bar stock of roughly 5" by 2" by 10" edit; for billet lowers

OK, did they actually define that in the bill?