Oregon HB 2005 Update?

[zomie]

I haven't heard anything about hb 2005 being challenged in court (searched the forum, google, off's site)? I thought the NRA offered to challenge this with a ceremony outside the house.

I know some of it is based on the Frame and Receiver rule, but the Supreme court garenteed this would be good for a least 2 years.

Read More

 

[PiratePast40]

House republican caucus, led by Representative Vikki Breese-Iverson, promised that they would fund a lawsuit. Here's her contact information from her web page: [email protected] 503-986-1459.

The NRA has a new information specialist for Oregon, Oscar Guzman. Might want to send him a quick email to see what he has to say, [email protected]

The house republican leader seems to be embracing the philosophy that, if you ignore people long enough, they'll forget your commitments. Perhaps things will change if enough people try to get a response from her again. I hope so, but not holding my breath.

BTW, I'm not trying to sound edgy. Just pointing out that these people generally ignore us unless we can overload them with requests for information. If we don't turn up the heat, we get nothing. There are some outstand legislators in both the house and senate that frequently update their newsletters and communicate with Oregonians. Dennis Linthicum and James Hieb are two in that category.

 

[PiratePast40]

Here's another thread that talks about the federal law:
https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/80-receiver-law-goes-into-effect.423940/page-9

I don't think that we're going to see much of an effort on the republican side in Oregon until SCOUTU hears the federal case it clears the lower courts again. Keep in mind that HB2005 was, for the most part, a "me too" bill by the liberals to show that they're doing something, even if it means nothing. Knopp even said it was no big deal since it mimicked the federal law.

The latest post in that thread links to the current status of the federal law: https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoni...un-regulations-in-5-4-ruling/?sh=1b0b3a672c46

 

[zomie]

The issue is that it doesn't mimic federal law. There are key differences:
1. It criminalizes procession of an unserialised firearm. The federal rule only required serialization in the event it went to an FFL, this is a total ban
2. It removed the right for an individual the manufacture their own firearm.
3. It changes up what an FFL must do with the firearm and how it is to be serialized.

In the vanderstok case there was an injunction put in place today:

Thank you for the followup, yes I agree I need to follow up with our reps.