Oregon HB 2005 4-11-2023

[PiratePast40]

Lol I agree. I don't think anyone could argue that I am an idiot and it is a fool's errand. I had to try and figured if enough had an outrage such as what happened with sb3501 that there may be an impact.

I had good luck in the past talking to reps and senators on bipartisan issues and at the very least they would offer information or connect you to someone to continue the cause.

The learning is that with that on something partisan such as gun control there is no discussion unless you are bringing enough money that affects a political outcome.

I guess per these points you can only donate to the court cases or move. Ideally shut up and stop sharing what an idiot you are online too

I didn't mean to call you an idiot, only pointing out that I've been there too, and relating my experience.

I do believe there are some issues where there might be a bipartisan discussion, but gun control doesn't seem to be one of them. I even sat with my Democrat senator for 30 minutes a few weeks ago, hoping that I could have a discussion with real numbers. It was a futile discussion. Subsequent emails from her staff have parroted the party line and reinforced what I've learned about negotiating with terrorists. There are others that are making effort after effort to make meaningful change that are sharing the same learning experiences.

I'm also learning that, at this point in the process, trying to have them make changes to unconstitutional laws isn't in our best interest, and it only makes it harder when we go to court. They are going to do whatever it is they want. Our jobs will be to fight them in court. It really is a good idea to not interrupt the enemy when they are making mistakes. At this point, with hearings and discussions over, let them pursue their unconstitutional actions. It's easier for us to get injunctions when there is legal precedent on our side.

 

[CamoDeafie]

They are going to do whatever it is they want. Our jobs will be to fight them in court. It really is a good idea to not interrupt the enemy when they are making mistakes. At this point, with hearings and discussions over, let them pursue their unconstitutional actions. It's easier for us to get injunctions when there is legal precedent on our side.

Or we could.. I don't know... become ungovernable and do what we want, they can't get everyone all at once. And are we such spineless citizens that when they make very public examples of some of us, that the rest would just comply and support them via inaction? (thinking Matt Hoover as an example) Edit.

Cold comfort knowing that 2A and some court cases are on our side when State and Federal agencies just continue to do what they want with no real consequences.

 

[solv3nt]

Better get an instant today or I'm going to have a Stacatto in no man's land.

It won't quite be no man's land, I don't believe HB2005b requires the permit to purchase, so you just have to wait.

 

[PiratePast40]

Don't forget that the 3 day release ends with HB2005 too.

I don't believe that's the case immediately. There are references to permits but, I believe those are talking about 1 July of 2024 implementation dates. SB348 and 393 have the three day hold. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Koda]

Does HB2005 affect handgun slides as "uppers"?

 

[zomie]

I'm also learning that, at this point in the process, trying to have them make changes to unconstitutional laws isn't in our best interest, and it only makes it harder when we go to court. They are going to do whatever it is they want. Our jobs will be to fight them in court. It really is a good idea to not interrupt the enemy when they are making mistakes. At this point, with hearings and discussions over, let them pursue their unconstitutional actions. It's easier for us to get injunctions when there is legal precedent on our side.

I give you credit for taking to one in person in regards to this and thanks for sharing your experience. You implied anyone who talked to them about being gun control being anything other than positive was an idiot from their perspective. I just agree that I am one of those It is just sad.

My main concern for why I reached out to them was the timeline. One of the reps did reply that she felt like moving it back allowing time for serialization to take place was reasonable, so it wasn't like you couldn't get through to them. I am not saying I had any impact. I am guessing based on the serialization requirements and funding for the Oregon State Police to process more background checks. It was likely the Oregon State Police that pushed that out as it takes time to hire and they are already way behind.

I just hated seeing felons happen over night and had to say something. I have been to plenty of matches lately where people are running around with unsterilized lowers or p80 frames that have no idea what is coming down.

I don't believe that's the case immediately. There are references to permits but, I believe those are talking about 1 July of 2024 implementation dates. SB348 and 393 have the three day hold. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

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

I don't believe hb2005b covers the waiting period, it is the senate bills as they rebuild M114.

 

[jayR]

I don't believe that's the case immediately. There are references to permits but, I believe those are talking about 1 July of 2024 implementation dates. SB348 and 393 have the three day hold. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

My reading comprehension isn't what it used to be but this is on page 13 of B-engrossed.

 

[PiratePast40]

My reading comprehension isn't what it used to be but this is on page 13 of B-engrossed.
View attachment 1415907

They are inserting the bill language into existing law. In this case it's ORS 166.xxx. The text in bold is new text introduced with the piece of legislation. Text in italic is being removed. Standard text is a part of existing law.

Needing the unique approval number is part of existing Oregon law. The release after 3 days of the start of the BCG is part of federal law. Some FFLs are releasing firearms in 3 days according to Federal law.

 

[jayR]

thanks.

They are inserting the bill language into existing law. In this case it's ORS 166.xxx. The text in bold is new text introduced with the piece of legislation. Text in italic is being removed. Standard text is a part of existing law.

Needing the unique approval number is part of existing Oregon law. The release after 3 days of the start of the BCG is part of federal law. Some FFLs are releasing firearms in 3 days according to Federal law.

ah thanks for the education..

 

[PiratePast40]

Does HB2005 affect handgun slides as "uppers"?

They used the ATF definitions for firearms. For handguns, the frame is the firearm. For long guns, the receiver is the firearm. For the AR platform, and a few other specific firearms, the ATF has a separate carve out since the firearm has two receivers, i.e., an upper and a lower. For the AR platform, they designate the lower receiver as the firearm.

The authors of HB 2005 left out the ATF definition of firearm for the AR platform. Therefore, according to HB 2005B, both upper and lower receivers are firearms for AR platform firearms. It's hard to tell if it's hubris, ignorance, or arrogance, that lead them to that decision, but I suspect it's huge doses of each for the authors.

ETA: The gist of it is that anything that can be made into a firearm, without a serial number, is a ghost gun. Common sense tells us that ghosts scare children and liberals so must be banned!

 

[arakboss]

Don't forget that the 3 day release ends with HB2005 too.

I think it only ends for frames and receivers?

 

[Librarian]

Interesting - May 1

Republican Leader Statement on Senate Floor Session Recess

Republicans are Committed to Defending Transparency
SALEM, Ore. – Today, Senator Suzanne Weber (R-Tillamook) made a point of order on the Senate floor that HB 2285 fails to meet readability standards laid out in subsection 5 of Senate Rule 13.02 and Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) ORS 171.134. This bill, and many others, are unlawful and we will not pass them.
Article IV, Section 21 of the Oregon Constitution requires every legislative act to be "plainly worded, avoiding as far as practicable the use of technical terms". Subsection 5 of Senate Rule 13.02 requires all measure summaries to comply with ORS 171.134 which requires all measure summaries prepared by the Legislative Assembly to "be written in a manner that results in a score of at least 60 on the Flesch readability test."
"Government attorneys are required to write bill summaries in clear and simple language so every Oregonian can understand what their elected representatives are doing in the Legislature. This is made clear in Senate Rules, in Oregon's Constitution, and further clarified in statute. We will not conduct business until a remedy is agreed upon. Transparency and accountability are required for our system to thrive. We have been very clear about this since the start of session and our commitment was further exemplified in today's point of order," said Senate Republican Leader Tim Knopp (R-Bend).
The Senate is standing in recess until there is a legal ruling from the presiding officer.

OK - they're finding some reason(s) to stay off the floor. About noon, Kevin at OFF posted "SENATE SHUT DOWN FOR TODAY!!! NO QUORUM!!!!" on MeWe.

See also Twitter, https://twitter.com/ORSenateGOP and https://www.kgw.com/article/news/po...2023/283-56243719-11aa-4e72-94b0-6dcadca21fb1

SALEM, Ore. — Senate Republicans in Oregon didn't show up for a legislative session Wednesday, calling the action "a constitutional protest" over what they claim are violations of Senate rules.

Democrats accused Republicans of walking out over opposition to two bills about to go before the Senate. The bills focus on abortion and gender-affirming care, and gun safety.

 

[FireArm]

Did my part: wrote and told them (Republicans) to walk out.

thats the plan it sounds like

 

[CZP07]

Not sure what exactly will happen as the blue hold the majority, but its interesting

 

[Jade Falcon]

I hope they have a better argument than "we can't understand it".

 

[awags_86]

We need to write emails thanking them for doing this. It may not have an impact in the end but at least they're trying with the limited tools they have

 

[Lilhigbee]

It almost sounds like he got his balls out of his wife's purse and put them on!!

 

[awags_86]

I hope they have a better argument than "we can't understand it".

I could be way off base here but I think they cited that as the reason because it may shield them from the measure 113 walkout law. Not positive

 

[CamoDeafie]

I hope they have a better argument than "we can't understand it".

They do have a point. What Federal law and citations/guidelines are there to serialize an AR upper or similar firearm upper? Similarly, there are no Federal definitions of "unfinished firearms"; the ATF has in the past said that 80% items are not firearms and did not require FFL transfers..

Also, there's no such thing as "undetectable" firearms made "wholly of not metal" even the 3d printed Liberator pistol is detectable, the TSA has said on record that they can detect them without needing metal detectors, thus the X-ray machines and such.

Edit and there is no "public emergency" involving 3d printed/unfinished/80% guns being used en-mass for criminal acts around Oregon, so the only "emergency" I can see is a national one of Fed Courts striking down gun control things and taking the DOJ/ATF by their small balls and the whole post-Bruen court landscape... along with a growing number of Constitutional Carry States

 

[PiratePast40]

They do have a point. What Federal law and citations/guidelines are there to serialize an AR upper or similar firearm upper? Similarly, there are no Federal definitions of "unfinished firearms"; the ATF has in the past said that 80% items are not firearms and did not require FFL transfers..

Also, there's no such thing as "undetectable" firearms made "wholly of not metal" even the 3d printed Liberator pistol is detectable, the TSA has said on record that they can detect them without needing metal detectors, thus the X-ray machines and such.

Edit and there is no "public emergency" involving 3d printed/unfinished/80% guns being used en-mass for criminal acts around Oregon, so the only "emergency" I can see is a national one of Fed Courts striking down gun control things and taking the DOJ/ATF by their small balls and the whole post-Bruen court landscape... along with a growing number of Constitutional Carry States

Great points, but the objection is in the Senate. HB 2002 and 2005 are House Bills.