Oregon HB 978 Anti-Second A bill

[bunnybunny]

Edit:nvm read the amendment wrong

 

[dancinghippos]

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.

In other words, they rigged the debate. Good to know.

 

[MrBill10000]

As far as I can tell the change from amendment 1 to amendment 2 was addition of sections 10a. and 10.b. These allowed OHA to adopt more stringent standards for the locks, cables, and boxes for storage of firearms in foster homes.
This indicates why/how OHA ended up (stupidly) tasked with establishing the standards.

Amendment 3 appears to remove the added subsections and return to the same text as amendment 1. I believe amendment 1 and 3 are the same.

 

[Oohrah]

OK here it is folks. The first amendment to SB 978. Don't worry, it's only 44 pages. Gun Grabber's Dream Come True. Public Hearing April 2 at 8am

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/ProposedAmendment/14732

 

[Oohrah]

Not bad? Any firearm law is BAD, and is an infringment. There are over 230,000 of worthless ones that have not prevented crime nor stopped a single one. These demented Demorats will stop at nothing short of complete confiscation, and we have to be tougher, and fight harder, and replace any and all who would attempt to take away our given rights.

 

[Camelfilter]

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.

Don't FB.

Have you tried asking folks over there?

 

[MDL]

HUNDREDS of Oregon Gun Owners Rally at State Capitol Over Dangerous Gun Ban Bill

 

[Oohrah]

I've seen replies about the magazine ban being lifted on most of the gun groups in most of the states. Also many oppositions of many states, counties, and Sheriffs on the red tag laws. It appears not all, even a few Democrats are worried about party splits. They I think are beginning to see big money is dictating vote pressure. Nevada just Reno and Las Vegas are not pro firearms. Rest of the state seem to be taking a stand, much like Oregon. Just the high density populated seem to cling to the losing party. I believe too blinded to see any facts nor recognize any reason.

 

[arakboss]

Having one of these would be a Class B Felony if SB 978 passes in it's current form.
0% Billet AR-15 Lower Receiver

There must be millions of these in plastic and metal materials around the State. I want to form testimony around this, has anybody addressed this in their testimony?

 

[gjwill46]

Don't FB.

Have you tried asking folks over there?

The Globalist Progressive Socialist indoctrination machine, AKA the Social and Mainstream Medias, are working along with the Political Pedophiles, AKA Public Education, very hard to destroy the U.S. Constitution. Quite frankly, they are the enemy of anyone who believes in a Constitutional Republic. I'm toying with the idea of writing every SCOTUS Justice to ask if someone could tell me how so many of our Constitutional guarantees have managed to be so radically altered without the requirement of following the process of amending the Constitution. The answers provided up to now are unacceptable. The excuse used is that since we are a Republic, States Rights allows the states the ability to pass their own laws that "modify" certain issues within the Constitution for reasons of Public Safety, Common Good, etc. My question is, where in the Constitution does it say that State Legislatures can pass laws that either alter, or outright nullify the guarantees provided clearly in the Constitution, the "Supreme Law of the Land?" Moreover, where has the SCOTUS been for the last 150 years when all of this altering, modifying and reinterpreting of the Constitution has been taking place? Oh, they have been part of the process. Well, then whatever happened to the oaths they took to be seated on the bench of the SCOTUS? That oath was to protect and defend the Constitution, not alter and modify it.

The fact is that the population has become the preverbal frog in the pot of water on the stove. If a low flame is set under the pan and it therefore takes hours for the water to come to a boil and kill the frog, the frog does not seem to mind. Only if you try to put the frog into extremely hot water from the get-go will it immediately jump out. Citizens of the U.S. have been the frog for the last 150 years and the water is rapidly coming to a boil.

 

[Camelfilter]

The Globalist Progressive Socialist indoctrination machine...

That's all well and good, and I may, or I may not agree.

What I asked though, was if that user had asked over on FB. Have you?

 

[gjwill46]

That's all well and good, and I may, or I may not agree.

What I asked though, was if that user had asked over on FB. Have you?

I closed my FB account when I realized that I had begun to change into a very angry person since having it. Now that I hear on the news and on the web that many are doing the same with FB and Twitter because of the direct practice of censorship and manipulation of who can and cannot express themselves, what they can express, etc. That's why I referred to it along with the MSM and Public Education as a collective enemy of free speech and the right of self defense, i.e. the Constitutuion. So, no, I don't go on FB and will never do so.

 

[tiggers97]

Having one of these would be a Class B Felony if SB 978 passes in it's current form.
0% Billet AR-15 Lower Receiver

There must be millions of these in plastic and metal materials around the State. I want to form testimony around this, has anybody addressed this in their testimony?

This is what I submitted. I was going to try and improve on it at the suggestion I incorporate items from the recent magazine ban being lifted, but time/deadlines led me to hit the submit button sooner. Hope it helps.



Senator Prozanski and the Senate Judiciary Committee

If a law is just and easy to follow, it is transparent to a law abiding citizen. A just law burdens and impedes the criminal. An unjust law is onerous for the law abiding citizen to follow, enforces preconceived prejudice, or is ineffective at changing criminal behavior. An unjust and difficult law to follow is not respected (along with the governing body) by citizens and law enforcement.

SB978 is now an unjust bill with the addition of the omnibus amendment -1; an onerous proposal that does far more to hurt citizens while leaving criminals virtually untouched. The original purpose of SB978, to report on attempted unlawful firearm transfers by the Oregon State Police, should remain the focus of the bill. Research is important, and replacing it with a mishmash of various proposals on such short notice does not benefit the public.

There are several portions of Amendment -1 that do not make sense or lead to more questions;

Does the committee understand what the crime rates are of CHL holders in Oregon? Page 35, "LOCAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS" makes a fundamental flaw by not understanding the difference between Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders and criminals in illegal possession of firearms while in public places. The law assumes that CHL holders are a menace to society and must therefore be prohibited and discriminated against as to which buildings or public areas they may visit.

Perhaps before labeling CHL holders the committee should understand what the crime rates of law abiding CHL holders actually are? In states where those statistics are collected, they are on par with, or lower than, their own police. And far lower than the general populous.

The criminals reaction? They will continue to do what they were doing already; carrying firearms illegally where they please and without a license. Why not increase the penalties for illegally carrying a firearm without a license?

Why not understand the crime rates of CHL holders in Oregon before placing additional restrictions on them? Please do not assume that just because they are different, they are bad people.


Is HomeDepot going to start running background checks? Page 10-25 ""UNDETECTABLE AND UNTRACEABLE FIREARMS" and ""PROHIBITED POSSESSION AND TRANSFER". The recent scare with 3D printed guns is unfounded. These "firearms" (and I use that term loosely) are easily detectable by xray and body scanners now routinely used by the TSA and security checkpoints in government buildings. Current federal law also already prohibits all plastic firearms (section 16 of SB978). And due to their large size, they are not readily concealable. The Hollywood myth that a compact and fully functional firearm can be printed in hours is plain false. I know, I use 3D printing technology for my job. The use of the term 'Downloadable firearm' is a giveaway that the person desiring this law is lacking technical expertise to understand the subject. These are no more "Downloadable" than a dinner recipe from Yummly.com. These firearms are not "Untraceable" or "Undetectable". But they are unsafe, unreliable, costly to produce and just plain do not function well. Obtaining a real firearm via the current (unenforced) illegal means, or going to the hardware store to make a zip gun, would be a far more appealing option to the criminally minded.

The remaining sections of the law are ambiguous as to "unfinished frames or receivers". I have seen people fashion firearms from a shovel or aluminum soda cans. I have seen steel pipes and wood 2x4's from hardware stores used as well. Under this bill a 3-lb brick of aluminum could be considered an "unfinished frame or receiver" and require a serial number and background check. Being in possession of these items is defined as a Class C Felony. This is especially dangerous as many firearms prior to 1968 do not have serial numbers. It is also not clear if home hobbyists and gun smiths would also now be considered felons under this proposal. These are non-violent people who hurt no one. Why discriminate against them like this?

If a criminal makes a firearm they are already automatically in illegal possession and breaking current law. Punish them, not your average citizen.

If you want to punish prohibited felons and domestic abusers from attempted possession of a firearm, then do so. Insert the language that it applies to prohibited persons. But do not make it easy to turn law abiding citizens into felons simply because they offend someone else's sensibilities and imagination.

Federal law already states that a serial number must be applied to a firearm prior to transfer to another individual. The Oregon bill makes citizens into felons for mere possession of federally legal items such as heirlooms they have held legally and safely for nearly half a century.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also add that criminals have always had access to a file to remove serial numbers. Which is far easier that attempting to print parts or build a firearm. Also, what crimes have been solved by tracing a firearm via it's serial number?

Edit: just did a random click thru of testimony and found this little bit as well:

"BATF controls classification of firearms, not the State and yet this bill attempts to usurp Federal jurisdiction over 80% assemblies. This bill blatantly attempts to wrest control of Interstate Firearms commerce from the Federal Government. It attempts to usurp or block Federal Law that allows interstate sales and commerce."

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

THIS IS WHY H.CLINTON WANTED THE 2ND AMENDMENT REINTERPRETED

 

[arakboss]

This is what I submitted. I was going to try and improve on it at the suggestion I incorporate items from the recent magazine ban being lifted, but time/deadlines led me to hit the submit button sooner. Hope it helps.



Senator Prozanski and the Senate Judiciary Committee

If a law is just and easy to follow, it is transparent to a law abiding citizen. A just law burdens and impedes the criminal. An unjust law is onerous for the law abiding citizen to follow, enforces preconceived prejudice, or is ineffective at changing criminal behavior. An unjust and difficult law to follow is not respected (along with the governing body) by citizens and law enforcement.

SB978 is now an unjust bill with the addition of the omnibus amendment -1; an onerous proposal that does far more to hurt citizens while leaving criminals virtually untouched. The original purpose of SB978, to report on attempted unlawful firearm transfers by the Oregon State Police, should remain the focus of the bill. Research is important, and replacing it with a mishmash of various proposals on such short notice does not benefit the public.

There are several portions of Amendment -1 that do not make sense or lead to more questions;

Does the committee understand what the crime rates are of CHL holders in Oregon? Page 35, "LOCAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS" makes a fundamental flaw by not understanding the difference between Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders and criminals in illegal possession of firearms while in public places. The law assumes that CHL holders are a menace to society and must therefore be prohibited and discriminated against as to which buildings or public areas they may visit.

Perhaps before labeling CHL holders the committee should understand what the crime rates of law abiding CHL holders actually are? In states where those statistics are collected, they are on par with, or lower than, their own police. And far lower than the general populous.

The criminals reaction? They will continue to do what they were doing already; carrying firearms illegally where they please and without a license. Why not increase the penalties for illegally carrying a firearm without a license?

Why not understand the crime rates of CHL holders in Oregon before placing additional restrictions on them? Please do not assume that just because they are different, they are bad people.


Is HomeDepot going to start running background checks? Page 10-25 ""UNDETECTABLE AND UNTRACEABLE FIREARMS" and ""PROHIBITED POSSESSION AND TRANSFER". The recent scare with 3D printed guns is unfounded. These "firearms" (and I use that term loosely) are easily detectable by xray and body scanners now routinely used by the TSA and security checkpoints in government buildings. Current federal law also already prohibits all plastic firearms (section 16 of SB978). And due to their large size, they are not readily concealable. The Hollywood myth that a compact and fully functional firearm can be printed in hours is plain false. I know, I use 3D printing technology for my job. The use of the term 'Downloadable firearm' is a giveaway that the person desiring this law is lacking technical expertise to understand the subject. These are no more "Downloadable" than a dinner recipe from Yummly.com. These firearms are not "Untraceable" or "Undetectable". But they are unsafe, unreliable, costly to produce and just plain do not function well. Obtaining a real firearm via the current (unenforced) illegal means, or going to the hardware store to make a zip gun, would be a far more appealing option to the criminally minded.

The remaining sections of the law are ambiguous as to "unfinished frames or receivers". I have seen people fashion firearms from a shovel or aluminum soda cans. I have seen steel pipes and wood 2x4's from hardware stores used as well. Under this bill a 3-lb brick of aluminum could be considered an "unfinished frame or receiver" and require a serial number and background check. Being in possession of these items is defined as a Class C Felony. This is especially dangerous as many firearms prior to 1968 do not have serial numbers. It is also not clear if home hobbyists and gun smiths would also now be considered felons under this proposal. These are non-violent people who hurt no one. Why discriminate against them like this?

If a criminal makes a firearm they are already automatically in illegal possession and breaking current law. Punish them, not your average citizen.

If you want to punish prohibited felons and domestic abusers from attempted possession of a firearm, then do so. Insert the language that it applies to prohibited persons. But do not make it easy to turn law abiding citizens into felons simply because they offend someone else's sensibilities and imagination.

Federal law already states that a serial number must be applied to a firearm prior to transfer to another individual. The Oregon bill makes citizens into felons for mere possession of federally legal items such as heirlooms they have held legally and safely for nearly half a century.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also add that criminals have always had access to a file to remove serial numbers. Which is far easier that attempting to print parts or build a firearm. Also, what crimes have been solved by tracing a firearm via it's serial number?

Edit: just did a random click thru of testimony and found this little bit as well:

"BATF controls classification of firearms, not the State and yet this bill attempts to usurp Federal jurisdiction over 80% assemblies. This bill blatantly attempts to wrest control of Interstate Firearms commerce from the Federal Government. It attempts to usurp or block Federal Law that allows interstate sales and commerce."

Very nice! No offense to others but @tiggers97 this is the best testimony I've seen yet. Great job covering details while still getting big picture digs in. I would email this to all 30 Senators and to all 60 Reps.

 

[Mikej]

This is what I submitted. I was going to try and improve on it at the suggestion I incorporate items from the recent magazine ban being lifted, but time/deadlines led me to hit the submit button sooner. Hope it helps.



Senator Prozanski and the Senate Judiciary Committee

If a law is just and easy to follow, it is transparent to a law abiding citizen. A just law burdens and impedes the criminal. An unjust law is onerous for the law abiding citizen to follow, enforces preconceived prejudice, or is ineffective at changing criminal behavior. An unjust and difficult law to follow is not respected (along with the governing body) by citizens and law enforcement.

SB978 is now an unjust bill with the addition of the omnibus amendment -1; an onerous proposal that does far more to hurt citizens while leaving criminals virtually untouched. The original purpose of SB978, to report on attempted unlawful firearm transfers by the Oregon State Police, should remain the focus of the bill. Research is important, and replacing it with a mishmash of various proposals on such short notice does not benefit the public.

There are several portions of Amendment -1 that do not make sense or lead to more questions;

Does the committee understand what the crime rates are of CHL holders in Oregon? Page 35, "LOCAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS" makes a fundamental flaw by not understanding the difference between Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders and criminals in illegal possession of firearms while in public places. The law assumes that CHL holders are a menace to society and must therefore be prohibited and discriminated against as to which buildings or public areas they may visit.

Perhaps before labeling CHL holders the committee should understand what the crime rates of law abiding CHL holders actually are? In states where those statistics are collected, they are on par with, or lower than, their own police. And far lower than the general populous.

The criminals reaction? They will continue to do what they were doing already; carrying firearms illegally where they please and without a license. Why not increase the penalties for illegally carrying a firearm without a license?

Why not understand the crime rates of CHL holders in Oregon before placing additional restrictions on them? Please do not assume that just because they are different, they are bad people.


Is HomeDepot going to start running background checks? Page 10-25 ""UNDETECTABLE AND UNTRACEABLE FIREARMS" and ""PROHIBITED POSSESSION AND TRANSFER". The recent scare with 3D printed guns is unfounded. These "firearms" (and I use that term loosely) are easily detectable by xray and body scanners now routinely used by the TSA and security checkpoints in government buildings. Current federal law also already prohibits all plastic firearms (section 16 of SB978). And due to their large size, they are not readily concealable. The Hollywood myth that a compact and fully functional firearm can be printed in hours is plain false. I know, I use 3D printing technology for my job. The use of the term 'Downloadable firearm' is a giveaway that the person desiring this law is lacking technical expertise to understand the subject. These are no more "Downloadable" than a dinner recipe from Yummly.com. These firearms are not "Untraceable" or "Undetectable". But they are unsafe, unreliable, costly to produce and just plain do not function well. Obtaining a real firearm via the current (unenforced) illegal means, or going to the hardware store to make a zip gun, would be a far more appealing option to the criminally minded.

The remaining sections of the law are ambiguous as to "unfinished frames or receivers". I have seen people fashion firearms from a shovel or aluminum soda cans. I have seen steel pipes and wood 2x4's from hardware stores used as well. Under this bill a 3-lb brick of aluminum could be considered an "unfinished frame or receiver" and require a serial number and background check. Being in possession of these items is defined as a Class C Felony. This is especially dangerous as many firearms prior to 1968 do not have serial numbers. It is also not clear if home hobbyists and gun smiths would also now be considered felons under this proposal. These are non-violent people who hurt no one. Why discriminate against them like this?

If a criminal makes a firearm they are already automatically in illegal possession and breaking current law. Punish them, not your average citizen.

If you want to punish prohibited felons and domestic abusers from attempted possession of a firearm, then do so. Insert the language that it applies to prohibited persons. But do not make it easy to turn law abiding citizens into felons simply because they offend someone else's sensibilities and imagination.

Federal law already states that a serial number must be applied to a firearm prior to transfer to another individual. The Oregon bill makes citizens into felons for mere possession of federally legal items such as heirlooms they have held legally and safely for nearly half a century.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also add that criminals have always had access to a file to remove serial numbers. Which is far easier that attempting to print parts or build a firearm. Also, what crimes have been solved by tracing a firearm via it's serial number?

Edit: just did a random click thru of testimony and found this little bit as well:

"BATF controls classification of firearms, not the State and yet this bill attempts to usurp Federal jurisdiction over 80% assemblies. This bill blatantly attempts to wrest control of Interstate Firearms commerce from the Federal Government. It attempts to usurp or block Federal Law that allows interstate sales and commerce."

This it truly a beautiful thing. Unfortunately I believe the ruling party in Oregon doesn't bother reading, or even thinking about such things. They have their minds made up I'm afraid. Proof of that will be them continuing full steam ahead is spite of the recent ruling in California by Justice Benitez.

 

[gjwill46]

This is what I submitted. I was going to try and improve on it at the suggestion I incorporate items from the recent magazine ban being lifted, but time/deadlines led me to hit the submit button sooner. Hope it helps.



Senator Prozanski and the Senate Judiciary Committee

If a law is just and easy to follow, it is transparent to a law abiding citizen. A just law burdens and impedes the criminal. An unjust law is onerous for the law abiding citizen to follow, enforces preconceived prejudice, or is ineffective at changing criminal behavior. An unjust and difficult law to follow is not respected (along with the governing body) by citizens and law enforcement.

SB978 is now an unjust bill with the addition of the omnibus amendment -1; an onerous proposal that does far more to hurt citizens while leaving criminals virtually untouched. The original purpose of SB978, to report on attempted unlawful firearm transfers by the Oregon State Police, should remain the focus of the bill. Research is important, and replacing it with a mishmash of various proposals on such short notice does not benefit the public.

There are several portions of Amendment -1 that do not make sense or lead to more questions;

Does the committee understand what the crime rates are of CHL holders in Oregon? Page 35, "LOCAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS" makes a fundamental flaw by not understanding the difference between Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders and criminals in illegal possession of firearms while in public places. The law assumes that CHL holders are a menace to society and must therefore be prohibited and discriminated against as to which buildings or public areas they may visit.

Perhaps before labeling CHL holders the committee should understand what the crime rates of law abiding CHL holders actually are? In states where those statistics are collected, they are on par with, or lower than, their own police. And far lower than the general populous.

The criminals reaction? They will continue to do what they were doing already; carrying firearms illegally where they please and without a license. Why not increase the penalties for illegally carrying a firearm without a license?

Why not understand the crime rates of CHL holders in Oregon before placing additional restrictions on them? Please do not assume that just because they are different, they are bad people.


Is HomeDepot going to start running background checks? Page 10-25 ""UNDETECTABLE AND UNTRACEABLE FIREARMS" and ""PROHIBITED POSSESSION AND TRANSFER". The recent scare with 3D printed guns is unfounded. These "firearms" (and I use that term loosely) are easily detectable by xray and body scanners now routinely used by the TSA and security checkpoints in government buildings. Current federal law also already prohibits all plastic firearms (section 16 of SB978). And due to their large size, they are not readily concealable. The Hollywood myth that a compact and fully functional firearm can be printed in hours is plain false. I know, I use 3D printing technology for my job. The use of the term 'Downloadable firearm' is a giveaway that the person desiring this law is lacking technical expertise to understand the subject. These are no more "Downloadable" than a dinner recipe from Yummly.com. These firearms are not "Untraceable" or "Undetectable". But they are unsafe, unreliable, costly to produce and just plain do not function well. Obtaining a real firearm via the current (unenforced) illegal means, or going to the hardware store to make a zip gun, would be a far more appealing option to the criminally minded.

The remaining sections of the law are ambiguous as to "unfinished frames or receivers". I have seen people fashion firearms from a shovel or aluminum soda cans. I have seen steel pipes and wood 2x4's from hardware stores used as well. Under this bill a 3-lb brick of aluminum could be considered an "unfinished frame or receiver" and require a serial number and background check. Being in possession of these items is defined as a Class C Felony. This is especially dangerous as many firearms prior to 1968 do not have serial numbers. It is also not clear if home hobbyists and gun smiths would also now be considered felons under this proposal. These are non-violent people who hurt no one. Why discriminate against them like this?

If a criminal makes a firearm they are already automatically in illegal possession and breaking current law. Punish them, not your average citizen.

If you want to punish prohibited felons and domestic abusers from attempted possession of a firearm, then do so. Insert the language that it applies to prohibited persons. But do not make it easy to turn law abiding citizens into felons simply because they offend someone else's sensibilities and imagination.

Federal law already states that a serial number must be applied to a firearm prior to transfer to another individual. The Oregon bill makes citizens into felons for mere possession of federally legal items such as heirlooms they have held legally and safely for nearly half a century.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also add that criminals have always had access to a file to remove serial numbers. Which is far easier that attempting to print parts or build a firearm. Also, what crimes have been solved by tracing a firearm via it's serial number?

Edit: just did a random click thru of testimony and found this little bit as well:

"BATF controls classification of firearms, not the State and yet this bill attempts to usurp Federal jurisdiction over 80% assemblies. This bill blatantly attempts to wrest control of Interstate Firearms commerce from the Federal Government. It attempts to usurp or block Federal Law that allows interstate sales and commerce."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well thought out and well written. Unfortunetly, the Oregon State Legislature does not care what anyone who is not on the extreme left thinks. They have no concern for rational thought or logic when it comes to the issue of firearms in the hands of the citizens. They don't care that the criminals will still be fully armed because they ignore the law. The anti-American, anti-Constitutionalist legislators only care about control and power over the populace because they know they will be abusing them. They are coming after the guns of the law abiding citizen becase they plan to keep coming after the wealth and property of these people and they don't want them armed. For this reason all the logical and reasonable arguments will fall on deaf ears. THEY DON'T CARE!

The only hope the average citizen has in a Blue state is that organizations like the NRA will sue them for relief from their oppression and violations of the Constitution and be upheld in the Federal Courts, primarily the SCOTUS. I really hate it that we have to put our faith in a branch of government that is unelected. But the elected part is failing us. When I moved to Oregon 26 years ago it was strongly independent. It is now as bad as California. I have no family here, I am retired so I don't have to put up with it anymore. I will be moving to Alabama a year from now. All of the states I was considering two years ago (waiting for my younger wife to retire) have either turned Blue or have turned Purple on their way to Blue. Vast numbers of Californians have realized how totally messed up the state is and are leaving in droves. Sadly, they have not connected the dots and don't take responsibility for the part they have played in its demise and are transporting their sick politics where to move to. Oregon and Washington are on their way to the same fate. My property tax increased 70% is less than 7 years and if some current legislation being considered passes, it will go up another 40% in two years. All the while the homeless and the drug addicts flood to Portland and more illegals are being state supported, and they are ignoring more and more property crimes just like San Francisco and Seattle and this is why they don't want armed citizens. People will be forced to leave, or take a stand, or roll over and play dead.

 

[tiggers97]

Thank you for the complements. Everyone, please feel free to take and use what you like as your own. I've had time to think about it, but don't consider myself well versed in my writing skills. Word smiths, have at it

One thing the antis do well is to pick a message and drum it in like the beat in a rock song. "I keep hearing it so it must be true" phenomena in play. So if you find something sticks, go for it.

 

[tiggers97]

Thank you for the complements. Everyone, please feel free to take and use what you like as your own. I've had time to think about it, but don't consider myself well versed in my writing skills. Word smiths, have at it

One thing the antis do well is to pick a message and drum it in like the beat in a rock song. "I keep hearing it so it must be true" phenomena in play. So if you find something sticks, go for it.

Also to add to the pile: this could also outlaw non-functioning firearms and props as the non-function pieces filling in for the receiver would be defined as a "unfinished frames or receivers". Goodbye Hollywood movie and TV show stage props filmed in Oregon!

And could an air-soft gun be used as an "unfinished receiver"? These are reasons why the ATF and NFFS came up with national standards and definitions. Oregon trying to redefine these terms (by non-firearm people) is going to cause confusion and unintended consequences.

 

[arakboss]

Where would the manufacture put the serial number on this guy so you wouldn't mill it away? And what box would you check on the old Form 4473 when transferring it?