Oregon HB 978 Anti-Second A bill

[nammac]

Here is my testimony for the unfinished receiver aspect of the bill, what do you guys think ( @LuckySG )?


"I would like to address the restrictions proposed in SB 978 regarding "unfinished" receivers and frames. These regulations would be impossible to legally implement as FFL's would be unable to legally transfer them as SB 978 requires. Federal Agencies do not generally classify unfinished receivers or frames as firearms (unless they are over 80% complete) and do not provide an option for transferring them on the forms used to transfer firearms, specifically Form 4473. I spoke with two different FFL's to confirm this and they did confirm it. In order to use Form 4473 to transfer an unfinished receiver/frame they would have to falsify information on a Federal Form, which they will not do.

The serial number and manufacture identification requirements in Section 17 (3) would also be nearly impossible to implement as can be seen from the attached photos of unfinished receivers and frames. The serial number is the last step of the process when manufacturing a receiver or frame otherwise it would be milled off in the machining process.

Firearms built from unfinished frames and receivers are very rarely used in crimes and don't present a significant danger to the public. Despite what the April 2nd hearing testimony indicated, building a firearm from an unfinished receiver is a lot of work and I learned this from experience. It would be much easier and cheaper for a criminal to buy a complete black market firearm or steal one and scrub the serial number off. Removing a serial number could be done in seconds with a dremel tool or bench grinder.

There are many problems with this bill as have been illustrated in other testimony and no benefits to be gained. I request that the Committee abandoned SB 978. It would only serve to make honest Oregonians felons for no beneficial reason.

Please vote no or pull SB 978.

Thank you for your time.



View attachment 565825

View attachment 565824

View attachment 565826

I may just plagiarize this as I build additional written testimony this evening...

We need to make sure there's more opposition to SB 978, cause there's no doubt in my mind the reason for the extended deadline is to muster more support for their ill conceived legislation.

 

[Oohrah]

It is being checked into, but it seems a little known statue was pasted in Oregon that funds that are greater than10% contributed to there campaign from out of state is illegal, and they can't hold that office. Kind of keep an ear open, because I think more than Governor Kate falls into this little stumble. It would certainly take the wind out of their sails.

 

[arakboss]

I may just plagiarize this as I build additional written testimony this evening...

We need to make sure there's more opposition to SB 978, cause there's no doubt in my mind the reason for the extended deadline is to muster more support for their ill conceived legislation.

Go for it. And I believe you may be right about reason for extending deadline. There is no limit to testimony submissions that I am aware of, so send them a bunch. Good luck!

 

[tiggers97]

Just breezed thru some more testimonies, clicking at random. There are more "for" testimonials that I first saw. But we still far far outweigh them. I've been pretty busy on line encouraging people to step up and submit something.

 

[arakboss]

Just breezed thru some more testimonies, clicking at random. There are more "for" testimonials that I first saw. But we still far far outweigh them. I've been pretty busy on line encouraging people to step up and submit something.

Good work, thanks. I am going to try and get two more out tomorrow. That will make 5 total for this bill alone.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

I got an OFF alert on this bill earlier it said there were more pro second amendment supporters in Eugene? Today or yesterday? is this true? Good stuff if so. it said there was such overflow that 2-3 rooms had to be opened up or something.?
Anyhow's read some of this bill and there's more in it than what even OFF said to reply to my Rep/Senator for. There is also language that makes it either a felony or Gross Misdemeanor to have a 3D printed gun or 3D printed gun part and more!
link to said, Bill. and page 17 has some of what I said. Scary sh*t. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/ProposedAmendment/14732

 

[Sisu]

Just wait for it....the "emergency session" behind closed doors with zero vote for the public. Limber up to grab your ankles time!

 

[arakboss]

I got an OFF alert on this bill earlier it said there were more pro second amendment supporters in Eugene? Today or yesterday? is this true? Good stuff if so. it said there was such overflow that 2-3 rooms had to be opened up or something.?
Anyhow's read some of this bill and there's more in it than what even OFF said to reply to my Rep/Senator for. There is also language that makes it either a felony or Gross Misdemeanor to have a 3D printed gun or 3D printed gun part and more!
link to said, Bill. and page 17 has some of what I said. Scary sh*t. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/ProposedAmendment/14732

It's a very bad bill. If you can pick some of what you feel are the worst aspects of the bill and write testimony before deadline tomorrow, it will help.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

didn't write a testimony but did email them with OFF's take action email.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

Actually using another one of my action alerts form another Senator, Thatcher I believe I did send off my testimony.

 

[tiggers97]

Actually using another one of my action alerts form another Senator, Thatcher I believe I did send off my testimony.

you can search for your name here. (over 800 and counting now!)
SB978 2019 Regular Session - Oregon Legislative Information System

Just to be sure, email it to the following address.
Make the email subject line (SB978 Senate Judiciary committee
[email protected]

make sure it has your name and city or county on it, and make it clear if you are for or against (some of the testimony I read was actually kinda difficult to ferret out what side they were on until deep into the writing).

 

[tkdguy]

you can search for your name here. (over 800 and counting now!)
SB978 2019 Regular Session - Oregon Legislative Information System

Just to be sure, email it to the following address.
Make the email subject line (SB978 Senate Judiciary committee
[email protected]

make sure it has your name and city or county on it, and make it clear if you are for or against (some of the testimony I read was actually kinda difficult to ferret out what side they were on until deep into the writing).

Done, again.

 

[arakboss]

here is my testimony opposing the walmart/dicks/bimart act of 2019

Chair Prozanski, Vice-Chair Thatcher and Committee Members,



I am delivering this testimony today requesting that you do not allow corporations or any size FFL dealer to discriminate against our fellow Oregonians.

A small minority in this State seems to think that being one, two or three years younger than 21 years of age is reason to deny a person's civil and constitutional rights. Fortunately a vast majority about 70% based on a currently running poll being conducted by the Oregonian support my belief that we should not discriminate against these folks: What do you think about age limits for buying guns in Oregon?

Oregon has been a leader in preventing discrimination and we need to protect that tradition. It's abhorrent to think that in 2019 we are actually on the precipice of creating a law allowing discrimination to occur. What is even more despicable is that we are also discussing letting the perpetrators of recent violations of our strong anti-discrimination laws off the hook. The corporations should not be dictating to us, that we weaken our anti-discrimination laws so they can pander to a small minority. If they don't want to sell to all legal aged residents 18 and older, then they know where the door is. There are plenty of corporations to fill their shoes, who will respect our laws and all Oregonians.

As an Oregon elector, a father of a 19 year old and a 15 year old, I am ashamed. I am ashamed that I have participated in electing the very body that has even considered putting this language in a bill to begin with and then advanced it to point it may come out of Committee. I implore you to vote no on this highly discriminatory bill SB 978 and restore dignity to the legislative body and the electorate.


Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

 

[tkdguy]

does not seem to make sense that 18 year olds go off to way and can not buy a firearms in Oregon?


But, the bill reads that retailers, etc. "may" choose not to sell to 18-20 year olds.



As an aside there is a big protest over the Cali unconstitutional ban on high capacity magazines in some of the local Cali newspapers unless I read an old reference. The protesters are not rational people nor consumers of research. Boneheads.

 

[arakboss]

does not seem to make sense that 18 year olds go off to way and can not buy a firearms in Oregon?


But, the bill reads that retailers, etc. "may" choose not to sell to 18-20 year olds.

I could have went at it from all kinds of angles but since they are supposedly in to inclusion I thought it best to use the discrimination angle. I wanted to point out that almost all mass murders in the last two or three years were committed by murderers well over 21 but I decided to try and not mention massacres in the testimony.

 

[tkdguy]

Massacres are committed by persons that are not human anymore and they are present with some form of firearm.

 

[Schultzey]

Here's my testimony:

Dear Chair Prozanski, Vice Chair Thatcher, and Senate Judiciary Committee Members:

As I listened to the testimony from all Oregonians on Tuesday, April 2nd, there were several recurring ideas in support of Oregon Senate Bill 978. These ideas were based on emotions and false claims that Oregonians, mainly children, will be safer with the passage of this bill.

The sections of safe storage, regulation of firearms in public places, or undetectable/untraceable firearms will not make Oregonians safer or deter crime. To prosecute someone for these laws it will be due to a person breaking other existing laws. This bill also violates the second amendment of the US Constitution. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

I understand the intent of safe storage in the bill is to prevent unlawful transfer of firearms. Gun safes and simple trigger locks are only time deterrents to criminals. Existing laws are being broken for the unlawful transfer to take place. Another law will not help here.

The safe storage law cannot be applied to all Oregonians as there are many variables to consider. Oregonians deserve the right to self defense and should be free to store a firearm according to their choosing.

Gun owners with children in the home do need to have their firearms safely stored. This is common sense. If a firearm is not safely stored the gun owner is already committing a crime of child endangerment. We don't need another law as existing laws are in place.

Another common reason for support of SB 978 is to prevent suicides. Many testified that firearms should not be sold to those under age 21 due to impulsive choices by adolescents and the safe storage of the firearms will prevent youth suicides. The Firearm Fatalities in Oregon study performed by the Oregon Health Authority (Updated July 13, 2016:https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DISEASESCONDITIONS/INJURYFATALITYDATA/Documents/Fact Sheets/firearms_2016v07132016.pdf) does show the majority of firearm deaths, 83%, are by suicide. The study also showed those aged 65 or older were most at risk of death by firearm suicide. Firearm storage has no impact on this age group. The real issue here is suicide. Note the weapons used in firearm fatalities were handguns (74%), rifles (15%), and shotguns (11%). Federal law bans persons under age 21 from purchasing a handgun. This bill must not approve of discrimination and focus on the real issue of preventing suicide.


The more laws created will result in more people becoming criminals. Allowing a local authority to regulate firearms in public buildings creates an extra burden to CHL holders to plan their routes and limits their right to self protection. If the firearm is concealed, there is no way to identify someone that is carrying. There is no reason for this to be included in the bill. Stripping a group of their rights is not the right approach.


The section of the bill related to "Undetectable and Untraceable Firearms" is overly broad. At what point do raw materials start becoming "unfinished frames or receivers"? Finishing of receivers is a hobby for some people. There are tools and equipment that must be acquired to finish out a receiver or create a firearm. This also applies to 3D printing of firearms. There are far easier methods for criminals to obtain firearms than creating their own.

Since this is a hobby, there are many receivers finished without serial numbers. There are also many firearms manufactured before 1968 without serial numbers. Federal law already states that a serial number must be applied to a firearm prior to transfer to another individual. This bill continues to turn negatively impact law abiding Oregonians without solving any issues.


In consideration of the testimony above, I strongly urge you to vote NO on SB 978.

 

[tkdguy]

Here's my testimony:

Dear Chair Prozanski, Vice Chair Thatcher, and Senate Judiciary Committee Members:

As I listened to the testimony from all Oregonians on Tuesday, April 2nd, there were several recurring ideas in support of Oregon Senate Bill 978. These ideas were based on emotions and false claims that Oregonians, mainly children, will be safer with the passage of this bill.

The sections of safe storage, regulation of firearms in public places, or undetectable/untraceable firearms will not make Oregonians safer or deter crime. To prosecute someone for these laws it will be due to a person breaking other existing laws. This bill also violates the second amendment of the US Constitution. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

I understand the intent of safe storage in the bill is to prevent unlawful transfer of firearms. Gun safes and simple trigger locks are only time deterrents to criminals. Existing laws are being broken for the unlawful transfer to take place. Another law will not help here.

The safe storage law cannot be applied to all Oregonians as there are many variables to consider. Oregonians deserve the right to self defense and should be free to store a firearm according to their choosing.

Gun owners with children in the home do need to have their firearms safely stored. This is common sense. If a firearm is not safely stored the gun owner is already committing a crime of child endangerment. We don't need another law as existing laws are in place.

Another common reason for support of SB 978 is to prevent suicides. Many testified that firearms should not be sold to those under age 21 due to impulsive choices by adolescents and the safe storage of the firearms will prevent youth suicides. The Firearm Fatalities in Oregon study performed by the Oregon Health Authority (Updated July 13, 2016:https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DISEASESCONDITIONS/INJURYFATALITYDATA/Documents/Fact Sheets/firearms_2016v07132016.pdf) does show the majority of firearm deaths, 83%, are by suicide. The study also showed those aged 65 or older were most at risk of death by firearm suicide. Firearm storage has no impact on this age group. The real issue here is suicide. Note the weapons used in firearm fatalities were handguns (74%), rifles (15%), and shotguns (11%). Federal law bans persons under age 21 from purchasing a handgun. This bill must not approve of discrimination and focus on the real issue of preventing suicide.


The more laws created will result in more people becoming criminals. Allowing a local authority to regulate firearms in public buildings creates an extra burden to CHL holders to plan their routes and limits their right to self protection. If the firearm is concealed, there is no way to identify someone that is carrying. There is no reason for this to be included in the bill. Stripping a group of their rights is not the right approach.


The section of the bill related to "Undetectable and Untraceable Firearms" is overly broad. At what point do raw materials start becoming "unfinished frames or receivers"? Finishing of receivers is a hobby for some people. There are tools and equipment that must be acquired to finish out a receiver or create a firearm. This also applies to 3D printing of firearms. There are far easier methods for criminals to obtain firearms than creating their own.

Since this is a hobby, there are many receivers finished without serial numbers. There are also many firearms manufactured before 1968 without serial numbers. Federal law already states that a serial number must be applied to a firearm prior to transfer to another individual. This bill continues to turn negatively impact law abiding Oregonians without solving any issues.


In consideration of the testimony above, I strongly urge you to vote NO on SB 978.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY SUGGESTS 'PRIMARY PREVENTION' TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE; THAT IS THE EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF TROUBLED PERSONS; GUN CONTROL IS NOT 'PRIMARY PREVENTION'. THEIR REFERENCE IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE! PLEASE SEEN YOUR RED LINK AT THE BOTTOM OF HE OHA ANALYSIS

 

[Schultzey]

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY SUGGESTS 'PRIMARY PREVENTION' TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE; THAT IS THE EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF TROUBLED PERSONS; GUN CONTROL IS NOT 'PRIMARY PREVENTION'. THEIR REFERENCE IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE! PLEASE SEEN YOUR RED LINK AT THE BOTTOM OF HE OHA ANALYSIS

Good point that gun control is not primary prevention. It would be great if they wouldn't go against the recommended strategy from OHA.

 

[arakboss]

Here's my testimony:

Dear Chair Prozanski, Vice Chair Thatcher, and Senate Judiciary Committee Members:

As I listened to the testimony from all Oregonians on Tuesday, April 2nd, there were several recurring ideas in support of Oregon Senate Bill 978. These ideas were based on emotions and false claims that Oregonians, mainly children, will be safer with the passage of this bill.

The sections of safe storage, regulation of firearms in public places, or undetectable/untraceable firearms will not make Oregonians safer or deter crime. To prosecute someone for these laws it will be due to a person breaking other existing laws. This bill also violates the second amendment of the US Constitution. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

I understand the intent of safe storage in the bill is to prevent unlawful transfer of firearms. Gun safes and simple trigger locks are only time deterrents to criminals. Existing laws are being broken for the unlawful transfer to take place. Another law will not help here.

The safe storage law cannot be applied to all Oregonians as there are many variables to consider. Oregonians deserve the right to self defense and should be free to store a firearm according to their choosing.

Gun owners with children in the home do need to have their firearms safely stored. This is common sense. If a firearm is not safely stored the gun owner is already committing a crime of child endangerment. We don't need another law as existing laws are in place.

Another common reason for support of SB 978 is to prevent suicides. Many testified that firearms should not be sold to those under age 21 due to impulsive choices by adolescents and the safe storage of the firearms will prevent youth suicides. The Firearm Fatalities in Oregon study performed by the Oregon Health Authority (Updated July 13, 2016:https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DISEASESCONDITIONS/INJURYFATALITYDATA/Documents/Fact Sheets/firearms_2016v07132016.pdf) does show the majority of firearm deaths, 83%, are by suicide. The study also showed those aged 65 or older were most at risk of death by firearm suicide. Firearm storage has no impact on this age group. The real issue here is suicide. Note the weapons used in firearm fatalities were handguns (74%), rifles (15%), and shotguns (11%). Federal law bans persons under age 21 from purchasing a handgun. This bill must not approve of discrimination and focus on the real issue of preventing suicide.


The more laws created will result in more people becoming criminals. Allowing a local authority to regulate firearms in public buildings creates an extra burden to CHL holders to plan their routes and limits their right to self protection. If the firearm is concealed, there is no way to identify someone that is carrying. There is no reason for this to be included in the bill. Stripping a group of their rights is not the right approach.


The section of the bill related to "Undetectable and Untraceable Firearms" is overly broad. At what point do raw materials start becoming "unfinished frames or receivers"? Finishing of receivers is a hobby for some people. There are tools and equipment that must be acquired to finish out a receiver or create a firearm. This also applies to 3D printing of firearms. There are far easier methods for criminals to obtain firearms than creating their own.

Since this is a hobby, there are many receivers finished without serial numbers. There are also many firearms manufactured before 1968 without serial numbers. Federal law already states that a serial number must be applied to a firearm prior to transfer to another individual. This bill continues to turn negatively impact law abiding Oregonians without solving any issues.


In consideration of the testimony above, I strongly urge you to vote NO on SB 978.

Great work on this one.