Oregon HB 978 Anti-Second A bill

[coyoteman5]

Isn't it unconstitutional/against the law to hide a meeting like that? Or another words hide the fact that they're going to have one, that seems like that's a little illegal to me especially on such an important topic. I classify that as being deceptive and in moral and unlawful but of course what does my opinion hold?

 

[Provincial]

Here are some.

Defend the 2nd Rally

I am not signed up for Facebook, so I cannot access the photos.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

My response has already been filed:

"The last minute gut and stuff of SB978 with 44 pages of very complicated and far reaching legislation pertaining to guns is very disappointing. Until today, SB978 was a few paragraphs dealing with a single minor issue. Opponents now will have only two business days to analyze, develop arguments, and respond to these major changes. It is obvious that the lengthy, numerous, and far reaching new contents of this bill have been planned and ready to insert for a long time, and that the proponents have been waiting to spring this new language on their opponents for quite a while. The ethics displayed by the proponents of this bill are sadly lacking.

There are several problems with the various areas this bill attempts to address in its present form:

1) Transfers involving a temporary loan between friends or family members on a hunting trip require that the transferor apply a cable lock, trigger lock, or place the firearm in a locked box before handing it to the transferee? How would that work and what possible benefit would accrue? I can see it now, a friend hands his unloaded shotgun (safe firearm practices already require that it be unloaded in such a situation) to me so he can cross a barbed wire fence, and he has to apply a trigger lock first, where it resides for 30 seconds before I hand it back to him? Then I do likewise with mine?

2) We make instant criminals out of people who previously owned 80% AR-15 lower receivers which remain unmodified, because they have never applied a serial number to them? The ATF has drawn a line at 80% finished, at or below which the lower receiver is not considered to be a firearm, but Oregon knows better than the federal agency tasked with regulating firearms nationwide, putting Oregon out of step with the federal government and every other state in the nation? At what point is a simple block of aluminum a firearm and when is it not? Is a piece of pipe a shotgun? This provision is so vague that it is probably unconstitutional on its face.

3) I actually do, by choice and out of prudence, adhere to most of the safe storage provisions in this bill. I have small children in my house and if a firearm is not on my physical person it is locked in a safe. My home defense handguns are in pistol safes that can be opened by touch, only by me, in the dark, in a matter of a couple of seconds. I have no quarrel with promoting that idea. However, I have a huge issue with laying strict liability and criminal penalties on firearms owners due to the illegal actions of others. When I was in law school I learned that for hundreds of years, in both American law and British common law, a basic premise of justice was that citizens could not be held responsible for foreseeing the illegal acts of others, and that no liability could be assigned in such a case. This bill proposes to change that ages-old basic premise of Anglo-Saxon law. It is unjust, and unfair. It unduly burdens a firearm owner with a liability due to circumstances over which he has no control. It chills the exercise of a constitutional right. I believe that this too would be unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny.

How much better and more palatable to those who love the law would it be if we used a carrot instead of a stick? Why not grant firearm owners who satisfy reasonable storage requirements strict immunity from any liability if their guns are stolen or misused by unauthorized persons? Anyone who does not adhere to those standards would be vulnerable to being liable in a lawsuit or, in cases of gross negligence, criminal prosecution.

And why is the definition of "safe storage" left up to the discretion of the Oregon Health Authority, which would presumably have the power to change that definition at any time, even after gun owners have spent thousands of dollars complying with a previous ruling? And why is such a responsibility assigned to an organization that on its face has no expertise or experience in regulating firearms?

4) And finally, where is the rash of unlawful or accidental shootings on college campuses and in other public government buildings by CHL holders that requires that we create a hopelessly complicated maze through which CHL holders must navigate when they try to legally carry a concealed firearm? Any trip or errand that merely passes through any of these buildings or their grounds would require that no firearm be carried throughout the totality of the trip in order not to run afoul of this statute. Must a CHL holder consult a lawyer, a title company, and a surveyor when planning any such trip? I can say from experience that it is not obvious to the average person exactly when one is on PSU or U of O property. And how does one ascertain what policy an institution has in place when driving down the street at the posted speed limit? There is a good reason that previous legislatures thought the firearms pre-emption law was a good idea. It made for uniform, understandable, consistently applied laws throughout the state, laws that the average person could understand and follow. Indeed, the USSC has from time to time reiterated that in order to be constitutional, laws must be fair, easily understandable, and consistently applied.

This part of the proposed statute is a solution in search of a problem. Again I ask, where is the rash of unlawful or accidental shootings on college campuses and in other public government buildings by CHL holders? Far from being trigger happy vigilantes or criminals, as a class CHL holders are 6 times less likely to break the law than are police officers. I can only conclude that this part of the bill is intended as punishment for being willing to be responsible for one's own protection and that of others from violent crime. It is a fact that a licensed CHL holder stopped the mass shooting at Clackamas Town Mall. It is a fact that several mass shootings have been ended or prevented by CHL holders. Is that the behavior we wish to discourage?

This bill is a bad bill that does nothing to will increase the safety of our citizens from criminals and insane people with guns, while putting new burdens on people who obey the law. I urge you to vote NO on SB978."

 

[simpleguy]

I have a request as I am going to be writing our representatives.
From our side.....
1. Is there a common them a coordinated message that speaks in such a way the Anti-Rights politicians will hear us?
2. We NEED a common message. I would like to better control the conversation.
3. I would like to hear how others are approaching their opposition to this bill.
4. One thing I hate is how the Anti-Rights groups do an AMAZING job at controlling the conversation, at using talking points, EVEN WHEN THE FACTS ARE WRONG.
5. I'm on the Giffords email list.......I get no less than 5 e-mails a day from them, they are all propaganda and funding requests and they keep hitting away at their incorrect and inaccurate facts, however, in the words of Tom Gresham "A lie left unchallenged becomes the truth".

I'm not seeing anything out there anything like this.....if I'm wrong, please show me where. I'd like to hit back with something they are more likely to hear, something that sounds more intelligent.

Respectfully,
simpleguy

 

[JadeFox]

The Left hates bigotry. Yet, they paint law-abiding, voting, tax-paying gun owners, who have supported Oregon, and its inhabitants for eons, with a broad and dismal brush. Our current batch of pretend law-makers act in lock-step to turn us into felons. We are berated by their puppet media poodles. They use children who are under the influence of the soviet propaganda government schools to think they are writing law, then, in an act of political pedophilia, attempt to give these children, the ability to vote on their finger paintings. This is the very essence of bigotry.

 

[tkdguy]

Sent the Federal Judge's California Unconstitutional Magazine Ban Decision to the SB 978 Committee members and 30-40 other Senators and Representatives. Nice the judge noted that the state can not take weapons from lawful citizens that may be necessary to protect the citizens from the state.

 

[tkdguy]

How do I send the California decision as a pdf to the committee?

 

[Pete F]

I sent emails to the Republicans on the committee and Prozanski prior to the amendments to SB978 and another round after the amendments and included the Senate President. I probably wasn't as polite as I could have been, but I am sure that I got my message across - Oregonians deserve better from our legislature.

 

[tkdguy]

I just sent an attachment of the Fed Judge's decision ruling the magazine ban in California was determined to be unconstitutional. Having sent to 30-40 Senators and Representatives this morning, I just forwarded same to 4 of the Committee Counsel members and to two committee members suggesting for distribution to interested parties.

I am wondering if the California decision regarding the unconstitutional ban on magazines will have any effect here in Oregon or will the legislature ignore the Cali judge's decision. Any ideas?

 

[tiggers97]

Nice video on testifying and general access to information available from Salem.

 

[tkdguy]

Finally showing up on FB the Cali Fed Judge decision declaring mag ban unconstitutional; see Oregon Firearms Advocates. None of my posts on same were posted and in fact were under review but ultimately deleted. Do not know what is going on.

 

[dancinghippos]

I just sent an attachment of the Fed Judge's decision ruling the magazine ban in California was determined to be unconstitutional. Having sent to 30-40 Senators and Representatives this morning, I just forwarded same to 4 of the Committee Counsel members and to two committee members suggesting for distribution to interested parties.

I am wondering if the California decision regarding the unconstitutional ban on magazines will have any effect here in Oregon or will the legislature ignore the Cali judge's decision. Any ideas?

It is about pleasing their constituents. I don't expect antis to care if the state wastes money in litigation they could have forseen losing. It's not their money.

 

[gjwill46]

• 
  
  
  ANTI-2ND AMENDMENT ALERT..
  
  For two weeks the leadership in Salem Oregon has been trying to hide an upcoming GUN CONTROL HEARING. Well word has finally snuck out that Senate Bill 978 is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 2nd at 8 a.m. On the surface this bill does not seem like a big deal but in fact it is a placeholder bill in which both the language and intent of the bill can be replaced with ANY anti-gun language they want once they hold this public meeting.
  
  This is why they have been keeping this hearing under wraps. Two pro-gun lobbyists have been told that a new bill will be created that contains a wish list of extreme new gun control measures likely to combine many of the extreme gun control measures contained in other bills like;
  * Assault rifle ban
  * Magazine Capacity ban
  * Age restrictions
  * Tax increases on guns and ammunition
  * Monthly purchase limits
  * Waiting periods
  * Gun Registration
  * Storage laws
  * Expand "gun-free zones" where law-abiding citizens are left defenseless against criminals who simply ignore such arbitrary boundaries.
  * Impose additional government red tape in order to obtain a Concealed Handgun License.
  
  On the heels of our large gathering of 2nd Amendment supporters last Saturday at the Defend the 2nd Rally we need to turn that support into political action.
  
  We need YOU to show up on Tuesday, April 2nd at Committee Room 50 in the basement of the Capitol.
  
  Public testimony before the committee will be limited to 2 minutes per person. If you would like to testify, please sign up outside Hearing Room 50 ‪beginning at 7:30 AM‬. Individuals who do not wish to testify do not need to sign up. If you are unable to testify in person, please submit written testimony for the committee meeting record to [email protected]
  
  Be there! SPREAD THE WORD.
  • Like
• · Reply
• · 58m

I have submitted the following as written testimony.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED



2ND Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nearly 228 years ago, on December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights that had been adopted into our United States Constitution, became effective. Since that date the Constitution of the United States and its ten Bill of Rights, along with subsequent Amendments have been the supreme law of our country. During the first 170 years there were a few Supreme Court rulings involving Second Amendment issues, most of the active controversy over the Second Amendment has taken place since the 1950s. Since the mid-50s there has been a lot of attention on what this amendment means, and how it applies to modern-day America.

It would be pointless and way too time-consuming to go over all the controversy, the explanations, the examinations, and the scholarly definitions of the words and meaning of this amendment. However, this amendment is basically the subject of SB 978, because this Bill is a gross infringement on the rights guaranteed by that amendment. Having said that, what I want to point out are the issues surrounding the issue.

· Who and what's behind this Bill? For decades the left has always asserted that nobody is out to take anyone's guns away. "All we want is reasonable gun control." This Bill is the unmasking of that big lie. The nibbling around the edges of the Second Amendment has gone on long enough. Now with a super majority of both chambers of the State Legislature, it feels safe enough to let the cat out of the bag. What's even more troubling is how much gamesmanship has been going on (including the ridiculous requirement of putting it out attached to the emergency clause) in the development of this Bill. Obviously even the legislature knows it's not the will of the people. If that were untrue than this would be on a ballot measure before the people and not in a legislative Bill. The fact is, one or two out-of-state billionaires with an anti-gun agenda have paid their way into having more influence over Oregon politics and gun policies, then the citizens of Oregon. I challenge the legislature to take the language of this Bill and put it on a ballot measure. If it's the will of the people, they will get their way. If it isn't, they will get their answer. I know this won't happen. So, what is really behind this Bill? And please spare me the platitudes and insults to my intelligence by saying it's about Public Safety.

· A big part of this Bill involves the personal liability of Oregon gun owners. This concept would be unique to the ownership of guns. It's not unlike the attempt of other states to make gun manufacturers liable for what people do with their products. The hypocrisy of these positions is deeper than Crater Lake. Example; automobiles. If someone steals my car and subsequently runs over another person and kills them, am I libel for the death of that victim? Of course not! Or, how about this, if a drug company that manufactures opioids, manufactures 10 times the opioids that the legitimate market needs, are they held liable for the overdose deaths of tens of thousands of people a year? Of course not! Even though they knowingly overproduce their deadly product, they're not held liable. Why? With more than 70,000 overdose deaths last year, is that not a real public safety issue? Where is your outrage and where is your legislation to address that? None! Why? Because there's no money in it for you. In fact, attempting to do something about that issue might cost you campaign funds. You are obviously not interested in public safety. No gun control legislation ever submitted anywhere had anything to do with public safety. Not even a little bit. Gun control is about control. It's not about guns and it's not about public safety. Everyone knows that none of these measures will change the outcomes of crime statistics one little bit. That is a fact and can be evidenced by pointing to every City or State with extremely restrictive gun control measures that also have the highest crime rates. Let's be clear and honest, the purpose of this bill is to make owning a firearm so onerous, and so risky that people ultimately give it up. The goal of this bill, coupled with whatever other Bills will be coming next, is the disarmament of the Oregon citizen.

Why is it that Progressive, Democratic Socialist governments, state and national, are always conniving to disarm the law-abiding American citizen? Because they are afraid of an armed citizenry. This of course begs the question, why are they so afraid of a population of law-abiding citizens which happen to be well armed?

Let's go back to the Second Amendment. Why is it there? Because its ultimate intention was to create a citizenry of well-armed people. The reference to the "Militia" is a reference to the "People." The authors of the Second Amendment had one great concern and that was the intrinsic and inevitable growth of government and its desire to control and take from its citizenry. The Second Amendment is designed to be a check on a tyrannical government. The militia it refers to is an armed people because no government controlled military unit, i.e. National Guard, can be a check on the government. The only viable check on an out of control government, is an armed citizenry. What this Progressive Oregon Legislature is doing, is everything it can to eliminate the "Militia." Why? That's not only unconstitutional, it's also frightening. It is obvious that we have an out of control, anti-American, anti-Constitution State Government, that is afraid of an armed citizenry. It has become what our founding fathers feared most. It has become what the 2nd Amendment was established for and made Supreme Law of the Land. Every supporter of this Bill is violating their oath of office. It's why we need a citizenry armed with every weapon imaginable. Our State Government needs to stop suppressing its law-abiding citizens and start supporting them.

 

[tkdguy]

I have submitted the following as written testimony.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED



2ND Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nearly 228 years ago, on December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights that had been adopted into our United States Constitution, became effective. Since that date the Constitution of the United States and its ten Bill of Rights, along with subsequent Amendments have been the supreme law of our country. During the first 170 years there were a few Supreme Court rulings involving Second Amendment issues, most of the active controversy over the Second Amendment has taken place since the 1950s. Since the mid-50s there has been a lot of attention on what this amendment means, and how it applies to modern-day America.

It would be pointless and way too time-consuming to go over all the controversy, the explanations, the examinations, and the scholarly definitions of the words and meaning of this amendment. However, this amendment is basically the subject of SB 978, because this Bill is a gross infringement on the rights guaranteed by that amendment. Having said that, what I want to point out are the issues surrounding the issue.

· Who and what's behind this Bill? For decades the left has always asserted that nobody is out to take anyone's guns away. "All we want is reasonable gun control." This Bill is the unmasking of that big lie. The nibbling around the edges of the Second Amendment has gone on long enough. Now with a super majority of both chambers of the State Legislature, it feels safe enough to let the cat out of the bag. What's even more troubling is how much gamesmanship has been going on (including the ridiculous requirement of putting it out attached to the emergency clause) in the development of this Bill. Obviously even the legislature knows it's not the will of the people. If that were untrue than this would be on a ballot measure before the people and not in a legislative Bill. The fact is, one or two out-of-state billionaires with an anti-gun agenda have paid their way into having more influence over Oregon politics and gun policies, then the citizens of Oregon. I challenge the legislature to take the language of this Bill and put it on a ballot measure. If it's the will of the people, they will get their way. If it isn't, they will get their answer. I know this won't happen. So, what is really behind this Bill? And please spare me the platitudes and insults to my intelligence by saying it's about Public Safety.

· A big part of this Bill involves the personal liability of Oregon gun owners. This concept would be unique to the ownership of guns. It's not unlike the attempt of other states to make gun manufacturers liable for what people do with their products. The hypocrisy of these positions is deeper than Crater Lake. Example; automobiles. If someone steals my car and subsequently runs over another person and kills them, am I libel for the death of that victim? Of course not! Or, how about this, if a drug company that manufactures opioids, manufactures 10 times the opioids that the legitimate market needs, are they held liable for the overdose deaths of tens of thousands of people a year? Of course not! Even though they knowingly overproduce their deadly product, they're not held liable. Why? With more than 70,000 overdose deaths last year, is that not a real public safety issue? Where is your outrage and where is your legislation to address that? None! Why? Because there's no money in it for you. In fact, attempting to do something about that issue might cost you campaign funds. You are obviously not interested in public safety. No gun control legislation ever submitted anywhere had anything to do with public safety. Not even a little bit. Gun control is about control. It's not about guns and it's not about public safety. Everyone knows that none of these measures will change the outcomes of crime statistics one little bit. That is a fact and can be evidenced by pointing to every City or State with extremely restrictive gun control measures that also have the highest crime rates. Let's be clear and honest, the purpose of this bill is to make owning a firearm so onerous, and so risky that people ultimately give it up. The goal of this bill, coupled with whatever other Bills will be coming next, is the disarmament of the Oregon citizen.

Why is it that Progressive, Democratic Socialist governments, state and national, are always conniving to disarm the law-abiding American citizen? Because they are afraid of an armed citizenry. This of course begs the question, why are they so afraid of a population of law-abiding citizens which happen to be well armed?

Let's go back to the Second Amendment. Why is it there? Because its ultimate intention was to create a citizenry of well-armed people. The reference to the "Militia" is a reference to the "People." The authors of the Second Amendment had one great concern and that was the intrinsic and inevitable growth of government and its desire to control and take from its citizenry. The Second Amendment is designed to be a check on a tyrannical government. The militia it refers to is an armed people because no government controlled military unit, i.e. National Guard, can be a check on the government. The only viable check on an out of control government, is an armed citizenry. What this Progressive Oregon Legislature is doing, is everything it can to eliminate the "Militia." Why? That's not only unconstitutional, it's also frightening. It is obvious that we have an out of control, anti-American, anti-Constitution State Government, that is afraid of an armed citizenry. It has become what our founding fathers feared most. It has become what the 2nd Amendment was established for and made Supreme Law of the Land. Every supporter of this Bill is violating their oath of office. It's why we need a citizenry armed with every weapon imaginable. Our State Government needs to stop suppressing its law-abiding citizens and start supporting them.

Very nicely written. Thanks.

 

[tkdguy]

Any impression on the impact of the California Unconstitutional Mag Ban on the present bills before the Oregon Legislature?

 

[MrBill10000]

At the SB978-1 hearing today the Judicial committee gave equal time to the pro and opposing testimony.
Apparently, the hearing ended when the 21 speakers in support were heard. Among the 21 was the Governor, the AG, and the OHA State Health officer.
Easily 200 speakers in opposition were not heard.

 

[tiggers97]

At the SB978-1 hearing today the Judicial committee gave equal time to the pro and opposing testimony.
Apparently, the hearing ended when the 21 speakers in support were heard. Among the 21 was the Governor, the AG, and the OHA State Health officer.
Easily 200 speakers in opposition were not heard.

About the same as (actually about twice as much) as sb941 that didnt get called. Prozanski got a lot of flack for favoring only one side by cling the meeting short. Sounds like he needs to felt the heat again.

Any way to get an exact number of who signed up to opose ?

 

[MrBill10000]

About the same as (actually about twice as much) as sb941 that didnt get called. Prozanski got a lot of flack for favoring only one side by cling the meeting short. Sounds like he needs to felt the heat again.

Any way to get an exact number of who signed up to opose ?

There were sign up sheets. I observed them on page 13 x about 50. So I suspect something around 800 by the time they were done signing up.

 

[gjwill46]

There were sign up sheets. I observed them on page 13 x about 50. So I suspect something around 800 by the time they were done signing up.

The sad fact is that with a super majority in both the chambers of the Legislature, they just don't give a damn.

 

[MrBill10000]

Two additional amendments to the bill were made at 08:15 this morning. Has anyone determined what was changed?

Judiciary Senate 2019 Regular Session - Oregon Legislative Information System

Also you have until the end of the day Thursday to submit testimony for today's hearing.

There is another work session Monday 4/8.