Oregon HB 3223 Assault Weapon Ban

[arakboss]

It isn't just an "assault weapon" registration law, it is an "assault weapon" BAN. The registration part just allows for grandfathering of currently owned "assault weapons".



At least it doesn't include rimfires, unlike IP43 did.

Do you see an exemption for all rimfire firearms. If they resemble any of the firearm platforms specifically listed I think the type of cartridge will not matter, they'll all be banned. And for pistols it does not appear there is any exemption for rimfire pistols.

 

[BSG 75]

And for pistols it does not appear there is any exemption for rimfire pistols.

You are correct, it includes semiauto rimfire pistols. But it defines "assault weapon" rifles as semiauto centerfire rifles (and shotguns) with certain "evil" features. That excludes rimfire rifles.

 

[BSG 75]

It would be interesting if these legislators could be charged under the RICO act for conspiring to dissolve Constitutional rights. Or something along those lines.

Legislative immunity. That's not going to happen.

It would be nice if Trump's AG took national action of some kind to stop what these anti-gun states have been getting away with.

The Attorney General enforces laws, he can't overturn laws. But the Supreme Court of the United States can. This will end if the SCOTUS decides these state "assault weapon" bans are unconstitutional. So far they have declined to hear cases challenging those laws
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7a04bd394c62
Supreme Court rejects challenge to Maryland assault weapons ban
but that might change if Trump can get one more conservative on the court.

 

[guido1161]

I believe emergency stays means that it becomes law immediately after it passes. I still believe it has to be voted in committee before it can go to the floor for a vote. Anyone? Correct me if I'm wrong, according

Legislative immunity, also known as parliamentary immunity or parliamentary privilege, protects legislators from prosecution for doing their jobs, which is creating legislation.



If legislators pass an "unconstitutional" (in your opinion) law, you challenge it in court.

If you don't like the laws certain legislators are passing, you get a chance every couple of years to vote for better legislators.

If a majority of your fellow citizens like the laws the legislature is passing and keep on re-electing those politicians, you can always move to a state where most citizens have views more similar to yours. That's the federalism system the Founders created.

Yes, I understand that, legislators can't be sued for the legislation that bring forth. In other words if a law is passed that causes me a financial loss, such as having to surrender thousands of dollars in firearms, I have no standing in court to sue and recover my loss. However, the politicians take an oath of office to uphold the constitution and my understanding is the only way to remove the politician from office in Oregon is through a recall petition which is hard to pull off. I was thinking along the lines of a more expedient way to make them accountable for upholding their oath of office, just brainstorming is all. And seriously, this crap of if you don't like leave has to stop, if a stand is not made somewhere this will never end, it will follow you wherever you go. Oregon is my home and I'm making my stand here.

 

[G0nefishin]

contact your reps and voice your opposition to the bill. Show up for the ralley at the capitol. Do whatever you can, take newbies out shooting. We cannot make anyone else do anything but we can influence others. Dont get apathetic.

That's Saturday the 23rd right? I'm going to go I already emailed them I'll start calling soon.

 

[arakboss]

You are correct, it includes semiauto rimfire pistols. But it defines "assault weapon" rifles as semiauto centerfire rifles (and shotguns) with certain "evil" features. That excludes rimfire rifles.

These parts of Section 3 don't appear to distinguish between centerfire or rimfire rifles.

Section 3: (2) (a) Means the following semiautomatic rifles:
Long list of firearm platforms

Section 3 (2) (d) Includes any type, series or model of a firearm that is a variation, with minor differences,
of a firearm model described in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection, regardless
of the manufacturer.

If it resembles any of the specific platforms in their list it's banned (eg. rimfire ARs) . The rimfire exemption would apply to rifles not resembling the banned rifles. I am open to a different translation?

 

[PDXbiker]

If it resembles any of the specific platforms in their list it's banned (eg. rimfire ARs) . The rimfire exemption would apply to rifles not resembling the banned rifles. I am open to a different translation?

I take it to read as it has already defined assault rifle to be "centerfire". Therefore those parts of section 3 refer to "centerfire" only semi auto rifles, as already defined beforehand. So by that I would consider my 22lr S&W M&P 15-22 Sport to be safe, even though it incorporates many of the evil features of its centerfire cousins. Supposedly by my read of it.

 

[cigars]

Yes, I understand that, legislators can't be sued for the legislation that bring forth. In other words if a law is passed that causes me a financial loss, such as having to surrender thousands of dollars in firearms, I have no standing in court to sue and recover my loss. However, the politicians take an oath of office to uphold the constitution and my understanding is the only way to remove the politician from office in Oregon is through a recall petition which is hard to pull off. I was thinking along the lines of a more expedient way to make them accountable for upholding their oath of office, just brainstorming is all. And seriously, this crap of if you don't like leave has to stop, if a stand is not made somewhere this will never end, it will follow you wherever you go. Oregon is my home and I'm making my stand here.

While obviously I'm no legal eagle, my sentiments are front and center. Legislative immunity is just a get out of jail free card for radical leftists. When some states enjoy their Constitutional rights and radicals in other states prevent the same enjoyment, something has to be done.

 

[BSG 75]

Yes, I understand that, legislators can't be sued for the legislation that bring forth. In other words if a law is passed that causes me a financial loss, such as having to surrender thousands of dollars in firearms, I have no standing in court to sue and recover my loss. However, the politicians take an oath of office to uphold the constitution and my understanding is the only way to remove the politician from office in Oregon is through a recall petition which is hard to pull off. I was thinking along the lines of a more expedient way to make them accountable for upholding their oath of office, just brainstorming is all. And seriously, this crap of if you don't like leave has to stop, if a stand is not made somewhere this will never end, it will follow you wherever you go. Oregon is my home and I'm making my stand here.

It's not just you can't sue them, you can't prosecute them or remove them from office for passing laws, even if those laws are later found by a court to be unconstitutional. They can't use legislative immunity to avoid prosecution for murder or bank robbery, but it does apply to passing laws.

Taking a stand makes sense if you have a reasonable chance of winning. Otherwise you just end up like Custer at Little Bighorn. Custer took a stand too, and look what happened to him.

California gun owners have been taking a stand for years, and their situation went from bad to worse to completely ridiculous, but the Democratic legislature just won't stop. Taking a stand has not worked at all in California.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

just wanted to see if anyone knows when any of the potential new laws would take effect? I mean if they r passed, when would they actually start? Thanks!

Ps some of these proposed laws r nuts. Like the one that bans assault weapons in OR and existing owners would have to register or destroy theirs within 1 year:

HB 3223: End the proliferation of military-style guns
Prohibits manufacture, transfer, or sale of military-style assault weapons with exceptions. Civilians who legally own described firearms must register the firearm within one year of the effective date of the law or dispose or permanently disable the firearm.

Regulating military-style firearms – Ceasefire Oregon

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Contact all Oregon reps using the OFF auto mailer here Votility

 

[BSG 75]

When some states enjoy their Constitutional rights and radicals in other states prevent the same enjoyment, something has to be done.

That's the way the Founders intended Federalism to work. States are free to be laboratories to find a balance between liberty and law and order. If a state legislature goes too far and actually violates their state or the US constitution - as with segregation and Jim Crow laws - that's what the courts are for.

Legislators have lawyers that review bills for them to determine if they are blatantly unconstitutional. Legislators are not going to pass a law that their lawyers tell them is blatantly unconstitutional so it ends up getting overturned by a court. Their lawyers tell them if in their opinion the law would withstand judicial scrutiny.

 

[arakboss]

I take it to read as it has already defined assault rifle to be "centerfire". Therefore those parts of section 3 refer to "centerfire" only semi auto rifles, as already defined beforehand. So by that I would consider my 22lr S&W M&P 15-22 Sport to be safe, even though it incorporates many of the evil features of its centerfire cousins. Supposedly by my read of it.

What previous section to section 3 (2) (a) specifies centerfire rifles

 

[guido1161]

It's not just you can't sue them, you can't prosecute them or remove them from office for passing laws, even if those laws are later found by a court to be unconstitutional. They can't use legislative immunity to avoid prosecution for murder or bank robbery, but it does apply to passing laws.

Taking a stand makes sense if you have a reasonable chance of winning. Otherwise you just end up like Custer at Little Big Horn. Custer took a stand too, and look what happened to him.

California gun owners have been taking a stand for years, and their situation went from bad to worse to completely ridiculous, but the Democratic legislature just won't stop. Taking a stand has not worked at all in California.

Let's do some math, 4.1 million people in Oregon and approximately 25% own firearms or just north of 1 million firearm owners. Granted I'm speaking in generalities here but I believe if we had some leadership and organization that the numbers are there to make a difference.

 

[DB is Here]

I'd peruse the Legal & Political forum, great threads on that very subject.

 

[BSG 75]

Let's do some math, 4.1 million people in Oregon and approximately 25% own firearms or just north of 1 million firearm owners. Granted I'm speaking in generalities here but I believe if we had some leadership and organization that the numbers are there to make a difference.

Let's do some math.

Oregon's total population of 4.26 million (2019 estimate) includes children who are too young to own guns. 21.1% of Oregon's population is under 18 U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Oregon so that means there are 3.36 million Oregonians who are 18 or over.

If 25% own guns (a reasonable estimate) that means 840,000 gun owners in Oregon. Now not every eligible voter is registered to vote, but for the sake of argument let's assume 100% of Oregon gun owners are registered to vote. Of course that's not true but let's be as generous as possible.

There are currently 2.76 million registered voters in Oregon. 840,000 divided by 2.76 million means only 30.4% of registered Oregon voters at best are gun owners. In most places 30.4% is a minority. A significant minority, but still a minority.

Even worse, gun owners don't vote as a block and certainly are not 100% Republican. Many of the gun owning members here are Democrats who will continue voting for Democrats even if they don't like the gun control laws those Democratic politicians are passing. Even worse, some gun owners - from both parties - actually support gun control as long as their guns and their favorite shooting activities aren't affected or are minimally affected. Those gun control supporting gun owners have a nickname that rhymes with dud but I won't repeat it here.

When you take that all into consideration the percentage of Oregon registered voters who decide who to vote for based primarily on gun rights is probably in the 20s or maybe even in the teens. That is known as being outnumbered and surrounded, like Custer.

 

[Savage Jav]

Did they just copy and past the old assault weapons ban for list of guns? Most the stuff listed hasnt been available sine the 90's.

 

[guido1161]

Let's do some math.

Oregon's total population of 4.26 million (2019 estimate) includes children who are too young to own guns. 21.1% of Oregon's population is under 18 U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Oregon so that means there are 3.36 million Oregonians who are 18 or over.

If 25% own guns (a reasonable estimate) that means 840,000 gun owners in Oregon. Now not every eligible voter is registered to vote, but for the sake of argument let's assume 100% of Oregon gun owners are registered to vote. Of course that's not true but let's be as generous as possible.

There are currently 2.76 million registered voters in Oregon. 840,000 divided by 2.76 million means only 30.4% of registered Oregon voters at best are gun owners. In most places 30.4% is a minority. A significant minority, but still a minority.

Even worse, gun owners don't vote as a block and certainly are not 100% Republican. Many of the gun owning members here are Democrats who will continue voting for Democrats even if they don't like the gun control laws those Democratic politicians are passing. Even worse, some gun owners - from both parties - actually support gun control as long as their guns and their favorite shooting activities aren't affected or are minimally affected. Those gun owners have a nickname that rhymes with dud but I won't repeat it here.

When you take that all into consideration the percentage of Oregon registered voters who decide who to vote for based primarily on gun rights is probably in the 20s or maybe even in the teens. That is known as being outnumbered and surrounded, like Custer.

View attachment 553848

Man, it must be tiring to that pessimistic all the time, but hey I like your spirt. No wonder we're getting our rights taken away from us, if you think you've lost before you ever attempt stand up for your rights you will surely loose them.

 

[Black Dog]

See that's where Custer made his mistake he took a stand. Out numbered. You only pick a fight you know you can win. (or pretty sure) Pick a few here and a few there. Never show your face and do it long range. Remember how the British got the boot from here and how the U S got the boot in Nam.

 

[cigars]

R

See that's where Custer made his mistake he took a stand. Out numbered. You only pick a fight you know you can win. (or pretty sure) Pick a few here and a few there. Never show your face and do it long range. Remember how the British got the boot from here and how the U S got the boot in Nam.

Remember Rogers Rangers? They didn't play by the rules. Just saying...