Oregon HB 3223 Assault Weapon Ban

[arakboss]

You mean as opposed to sitting on our asses and doing nothing?

Exactly, the SOOAADN plan is hasn't been very effective. We can't rely on gun rights groups to bail us out of this. We need every 2A loving soul, including the do not compliers, the always pessimistic, the deniers, the come and get it's, etc to band together to shut down these bills down. If they pass any of these heinous anti-2a bills like HB 3223, we need to direct our energies straight towards the most vulnerable of those who voted for the bill and vote them out of office
in their next election.

I believe the network of members here at NWFA are the best positioned group around to get things moving in a focused direction. We should take advantage of the wealth of knowledge and dedication among members here and start our own grassroots effort to slow this BS train down. Abundant action is necessary now!

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[Jcon268]

Requires person who owns assault weapon on effective date of Act to register assault weapon or take other specified action within one year of effective date of Act

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB3223/Introduced


View attachment 553718
Carla Piluso was the first woman to serve as chief of the Gresham Police Department in Gresham. In 2014, she won election as a Democrat to the Oregon House of Representatives, representing District 50.

What a statist. I know personally many higher ups that were in the Gresham PD and have since retired, including chief of police and none of them would stand for this. She is extremely politically biased as is obvious by her pushing this propaganda. She is a disservice to the State of Oregon and should resign immediately.

 

[j8tnub]

How do we go about getting the county electoral college like voting going? Rabat way multnonah and lane counties don't run this state anymore.

 

[JuglansRegia]

So basically they just copied the California "assault weapon ban" so how are they going to implement and enforce it? California spent millions on a system to allow gun owners to register their now banned firearms, they charged a fee that they expected to cover that cost and then some but compliance was so pathetically low that they never came close. Does Oregon have a budget to follow the same path, it appears the will is there, but the $$$ is going to be the problem, thank god.

 

[tiggers97]

The problem is that they recognize the mass-mailed emails and disregard them. Use the names and emails and mailing addresses and send individual correspondence. I heard this from two Democrat-voting gun owners who usually lobby their Dem legislators for other things. Write your own email/letter. You can use material you learned from others, but it should be in your own words.

This bears repeating. They do tend to have an "eh" reaction when receiving copy-paste en masse correspondences. It doesn't have to be a long email/letter/post-card either.

 

[tiggers97]

Oh Geez. I'm well aware of the case.

So let me see if I understand this...you think that SCOTUS reviewing a single gun case in damn near a decade constitutes a consistent and reliable pattern of behavior?

I'll say it again...only slower just for you...IT IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE IF SCOTUS WILL EVEN AGREE TO HEAR A GUN CASE.

They have already agreed to hear the case. But not until next year, it seems.
The good: gun-control groups are freaking out because it might actually set a minimum standard to judge constitutional 2nd amendment cases by. Seeing as many gun laws are upheld under the flimsiest of standards, even a low-threshold could see a good chunk of laws being overturned. (example: last gun ban that was turned down by the SCOTUS was upheld by a lower court primarily because the judge thought it was within the legislatures ability even if the only outcome was only to calm a frightened public, and not actually make them safer. That is a pretty low standard).

The bad: Did I mention they won't hear it till next year? (Silver lining is that maybe a 3rd pro-2nd judge might be seated by then). The gun-control groups are also supposedly pressuring NYC to revise their law, thereby keeping the SCOTUS from having a reason to review a case that is 99.9% sure to lose.

 

[PDXbiker]

If they pass this, I am not going to comply. Why the hell would I register a firearm I legally purchased?

That's you, me and several thousand others. Won't comply. Fast forward a few more years and you'll see an outright ban coming.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Does anyone know when any of the potential new laws would take effect? I mean if any r passed, not this specific bill necessarily, when would they actually start? Thanks!

 

[Jabba]

Who is "we"? You mean through a ballot initiative?

Yes.

As I said earlier, legislative immunity doesn't protect legislators who commit criminal acts such as murder or bank robbery. But you said if a court found a law to be unconstitutional that should be justification to "throw out" those legislators. How? Under what authority would you do that? Who would enforce it?

You have pointed out two exceptions to legislative immunity. There is no reason more could not be made, but that is besides my point. I think you are misunderstanding my argument. I believe firing someone is not a judicial punishment for a criminal act. This is the heart of my argument; legislative immunity is from criminal prosecution. If a cop does something wrong but doesn't get convicted because of qualified immunity, his department may very well be capable of firing him for his conduct. They do not need a trial or judge to approve of that, it's an administrative action. A new law could likewise direct a new administrative action for sponsoring an unconstitutional measure(deemed to be by courts and appealed as far as possible). They could not fine or put a lawmaker in jail because of their immunity, but that protection does not extend to continuing to hold their job, just like in the cop's case. If I'm mistaken on that, please correct me.

And yes, this is not a feasible law that will likely ever pass, but I still believe it would be legal.

 

[BSG 75]

You have pointed out two exceptions to legislative immunity. There is no reason more could not be made, but that is besides my point.

The "exceptions" are for truly criminal activity that are not part of normal legislative duties. The things you want to remove legislators for - sponsoring bills, voting on bills - are legitimate legislative activity and are protected by legislative immunity. It doesn't matter if the law is later held to be unconstitutional. The legitimate legislative action - sponsoring bills, voting on bills - that created a law that is later held to be unconstitutional is still protected by legislative immunity. The legislators pass laws that have been reviewed by their lawyers to not be blatantly unconstitutional. The legislators can't be held responsible for not being clairvoyant and not being able to predict one of the laws they pass will eventually be held unconstitutional years or decades in the future.

IN THE REAL WORLD

Does immunity mean lawmakers are …

... above the law?

No. Two years ago in Minnesota, for example, the secretary of state stopped issuing the "legislative immunity" cards carried by lawmakers, who considered them a prized perk, according to the Star Tribune. Historically, the cards were issued to keep powerful interests from arresting lawmakers to prevent them from voting, the newspaper reports. But the cards caused confusion and raised concern that legislators could avoid arrests for drunken driving or other illegal behavior. The attorney general clarified that "legislators have no immunity from arrest for criminal activity, including the crime of driving while intoxicated."

… protected from malicious litigation?

Yes. At least 43 states have provisions similar to the U.S. Constitution's "speech or debate" clause, which protects lawmakers from having to answer questions in court about what they have said or done in their capacity as legislators. The protection ensures that legislators are able to do their work without being pressured or threatened by interests among the executive or judicial branches, or the public, who might be hostile toward particular legislation.

http://www.ncsl.org/bookstore/state-legislatures-magazine/yes-no-maybe-so-july-august-2016.aspx

I think you are misunderstanding my argument. I believe firing someone is not a judicial punishment for a criminal act. This is the heart of my argument; legislative immunity is from criminal prosecution. If a cop does something wrong but doesn't get convicted because of qualified immunity, his department may very well be capable of firing him for his conduct. They do not need a trial or judge to approve of that, it's an administrative action. A new law could likewise direct a new administrative action for sponsoring an unconstitutional measure(deemed to be by courts and appealed as far as possible). They could not fine or put a lawmaker in jail because of their immunity, but that protection does not extend to continuing to hold their job, just like in the cop's case. If I'm mistaken on that, please correct me.

And yes, this is not a feasible law that will likely ever pass, but I still believe it would be legal.

• Legislative immunity IS NOT immunity from criminal prosecution, as I have said over and over and over again. Legislators can be prosecuted for truly criminal behavior. Legislative immunity DOES protect normal legislative activity like sponsoring bills and voting on bills, the things you want to punish them for.
• Legislators are not employees the way cops are. Legislators are not hired and fired the way cops are. Legislators are elected by voters, not hired by the legislature. So your analogy does not apply. There is no "boss" for legislators who can fire them, other than the voters who elected them. Voters are the only "boss" who can "fire" a legislator. They do that during an election, including a recall election if one is held.

 

[NW Backpacker]

Does anyone know when any of the potential new laws would take effect? I mean if any r passed, not this specific bill necessarily, when would they actually start? Thanks!

This particular AW Ban takes effect 1 year after passage. That gives you one year to register your AWs, sell them, destroy them, make them inoperable, etc. OR you could move out of the state.

 

[dancinghippos]

They "registered" guns that offended legislators in California a few years ago. They were rewarded shortly thereafter with a new law requiring they turn them in.

 

[dancinghippos]

#WillNotComply.... register this, ya labeshian beatch!

There are many people in the area with whom we share the common interest in the Second Amendment, and all the rights of self-protection that it implies. Those people are also part of the LGBTQ community. They may be left on social issues, but they can still be supporters of the rights of self-defense. What is the point of offending those who could be a big help? You think a bunch of rainbow banners in front of the Capitol on March 23 would hurt us? Or help us?
There are people in PDX who are arming and training themselves because they are being assaulted by gay-bashers. Today it is them. Tomorrow, it could someone or some group you are close to. I consider those people potential allies and real examples of why the Second Amendment is good for the US instead of bad. Please refrain from making enemies out of allies.

 

[dancinghippos]

If you have sympathetic representatives in the legislature, maybe they could add this into every piece of gun legislation: "Every restriction contained within this law shall also apply to the security staff assigned to protect Oregon legislators and the Oregon governor while they are on duty, whether they sworn officers or private security".

 

[partsed]

No protection to them at all. Creates a level playing field.....

 

[dancinghippos]

No protection to them at all. Creates a level playing field.....

The optics are better when they are observed exempting themselves from laws they apply to us. If we aren't allowed to have a certain gun, neither should they.

 

[tiggers97]

I know personally many higher ups that were in the Gresham PD and have since retired, including chief of police and none of them would stand for this.

Sounds like they need to be encouraged to get involved! A few phone calls, testimony, letters to the editor, etc would have a big impact. Even writing something for them that they would be willing to sign (make it easy for them).

 

[tiggers97]

There are many people in the area with whom we share the common interest in the Second Amendment, and all the rights of self-protection that it implies. Those people are also part of the LGBTQ community..... You think a bunch of rainbow banners in front of the Capitol on March 23 would hurt us? Or help us?

Very good point. I get the identity politics as it is 98% one political party that is driving the anti-2nd amendment crusade. But we need new allies, and not cold-shoulder them. We are stronger together on this subject, and can argue about our differences later.

And I am sure Rep Piluso, based on her background, is well aware of just how organized, aggressive and active the gay community can get. And she does NOT want to be on their bad side. I want them on my side, when the time comes.

 

[dancinghippos]

And I am sure Rep Piluso, based on her background, is well aware of just how organized, aggressive and active the gay community can get. And she does NOT want to be on their bad side. I want them on my side, when the time comes.

It would be a good thing if we can find members of LGBTQ community who are FOR self-defense to contact her and express their concerns about this.