Oregon HB 978 Anti-Second A bill

[arakboss]

Does anybody know if SB 978 gun free zone options for public buildings and grounds apply to parks, State and county forest, campgrounds, etc if they so choose to prohibit firearms there?

 

[nammac]

Does anybody know if SB 978 gun free zone options for public buildings and grounds apply to parks, State and county forest, campgrounds, etc if they so choose to prohibit firearms there?

There doesn't appear to be any exclusion...

Be prepared folks, looks like this SB978 is up for a committee vote on Monday, April 8...

 

[arakboss]

There doesn't appear to be any exclusion...

Be prepared folks, looks like this SB978 is up for a committee vote on Monday, April 8...

here is what I cam up with, I am tired and fading and have to get some shut eye before my shift so I am going to send it as is.

Chair Prozanski, Vice-Chair Thatcher and Senate Judiciary Committee Members,

This testimony is in regards to the Sections of SB 978 that are listed under the title LOCAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS

These regulations allowing local authorities to decide where we can or can't defend ourselves is absurd. We have preemption law in this State for a reason. Persons carrying with a concealed carry license are not a problem in need of a solution. These regulations will not prevent any crimes but will certainly increase crime by leaving formerly protected Oregonians unprotected and creating opportunities for criminals.

It will be nearly impossible to keep track of where we can or can't legally protect ourselves. Trying to comply with this patchwork of places where we can and can't carry will lead to more theft of stowed firearms, false alarm calls to police when bystanders see people stowing or unstowing their firearms. It could lead to more accidental discharges as people will be removing and re-holstering their firearm numerous times a day.

Worst of all it will lead to more soft targets and victims of crime especially women and elderly who may be more dependent on concealed carry to defend themselves. People who work in public buildings and grounds at night will be very vulnerable. The criminals will find that these new gun free public spaces are a variable buffet of victims.

I saw nothing that would prevent these regulations from applying to parks, campgrounds and State and County forest areas if buildings are on these grounds, publicly owned stadiums, public owned parking lots, private buildings that house public agencies, etc. The list could go on and on.

It will be a nightmare for those who choose to conceal carry if this bill passes as written.

With the exception of Section 30 this entire bill is an awful mess of restrictions that will only target those who are not committing crimes now. These regulations allowing local authorities to prohibit concealed carry are the absolute worst in the entire bill. Only somebody with extreme contempt for the electorate of this State could let a bill like this become law.


I urge you to not let SB 978 out of Committee

Thank you for the opportunity to share my testimony.

 

[arakboss]

Oh, look! A poll on if restricting rifles to 21 is discrimination or no!

What do you think about age limits for buying guns in Oregon?

75% say don't discriminate

 

[nammac]

75% say don't discriminate

View attachment 566128

You can keep going back and hitting it again and again, to help drive the number up. I did a couple of percentage points last night

 

[MrBill10000]

Heads up SB 979 has been introduced containing the same "regarding" firearms line as did SB 978.
Expect the same "end run" complete replacement amendment. There is a public hearing Monday 4/8.
The Judicial Committee probably learned a lesson giving two business days warning on the amendment to SB 978 so expect the about 16:50 Friday 4/5 to be when the amendment gets posted.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

2A: Shall Not Be Infringed!

 

[nammac]

Let's all try our best to get to the marble nuthouse on Monday, sacrifices must be made, we need to exponentially outnumber those who would see guns banned. Let's show them what happens when you kick the bull!!!!

 

[tkdguy]

Which bills are coming up this Monday? 978? And, then, what is the next bill that is coming up?

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Which bills are coming up this Monday? 978? And, then, what is the next bill that is coming up?

SB 979 was scheduled for Monday 8th hearing - but it's been removed for now.

Stay ALERT.

 

[nammac]

SB 979 was scheduled for Monday 8th hearing - but it's been removed for now.

Stay ALERT.

That'll mysteriously reappear in the overnight hours tomorrow night so we have no opportunity to turn out en masse... Need a spy inside Mom's, I'm sure they've been given the heads up already....

 

[arakboss]

75% say don't discriminate

View attachment 566128

about 77% agree it's discrimination now.

 

[Oohrah]

Just wonder if they care or realize just how close this could come to civil unrest. Just how dangerous it could become should our borders be breached, and self defense only a memory. I understand that California high capacity magazines was declared legal, but now challenged, so will be put back on at 5 PM today. This goes beyond crazy, and what effect will it have on those attempting to enforce a law that is takes a court to decide instead of common sense and what should be written as is, shall not be infringed! Being the only country with a bill of rights and a constitution to live by, will we be able to continue to live that free life, or be governed by those feel they want the power to decide how and what we have to do by their standards? It goes beyond what we were taught 60 years ago in schools.

 

[AverageShooter]

Idaho keeps looking better.

 

[Oohrah]

It may for now, but it's a matter of time before it will be a national problem. Just maybe if it can be a situation brought to a head here and now, it won't come to individual battles. Not a clue why the left thinks the timing is is good now, but they definitely show intentions and it isn't safety concerns. There doesn't seem to be any choice other than being heard by the Supreme Court. Wish it didn't have to be that way, as that odds are just barely in our favor, but these people will never leave it alone. Allowing the Clergy and 15 year olds to submit make bills like 501 is totally off the wall.

 

[arakboss]

Here is my last ditch effort to influence the Senate Judiciary Committee members prior to their likely vote on SB 978 tomorrow. I will email it today and then print a copy that I will drop off early tomorrow at their offices in Salem. OregonPushBack and OFF are asking for another crowd to show up tomorrow (no more testimony will be heard). I am going to try and get there by 7am tomorrow. If enough people show up to fill the staircase (like the moms demand infringement did on Feb 26th) I would love to get some photos of the group on the staircase.

Senator,

I would like to raise awareness to some important and specific problems with SB 978 that I hope will convince you to vote no on SB 978. As you have already had an opportunity to read the testimony from many hundreds of Oregonian's who wrote testimony in opposition to this bill, I will be brief in my descriptions of SB 978's problems.

Sections 1 through 3 of SB 978 promote and legalize discrimination past and present by corporations. Violating Oregonian's civil rights to pander to corporations is not something your constituents would condone in this State.

Sections 4 through 12 SB 978 places unsafe storage requirements on possessors of firearms. It also transfers liability from criminals to the victims. Let's focus on dealing with those who are victimizing us instead of burdening responsible Oregonian's with storage requirements that will severely and dangerously impede their ability to defend themselves and their families.

Sections 14 through 17 of SB 978 criminalizes ownership of currently possessed unserialized firearms, unfinished receivers/frames and future transfers of such items. There is not a legal and workable pathway provided in SB 978 that would allow the possessor of an unserialized firearm to add a serial number to the firearm. Whether this was the intent or not isn't clear but that will be the result. Many older firearms manufactured before 1968 don't have serial numbers. There are certainly many thousands and possibly tens of thousands of these older firearms possessed by Oregonians. In addition there are many thousands of what are often referred to as 80% receivers/frames that are possessed by Oregonians. All of these these firearms will be made illegal to possess if SB 978 is passed. Passing SB 978 will result in depriving Oregonians of their property and/or cause them to become engaged in a Felony Crime simply by the passage of the bill. Again, there is no grandfather clause in the law and no legal pathway to add a serial number to currently possessed firearms. For this reason alone the bill should not be passed as it is currently written.

Section 24 of SB 978 places regressive financial burdens on the poor and increases what may already be an unconstitutional fee charged for a person to exercise their right to defend themselves and their families. Even if the courts ultimately decide this is legal, it is not reasonable to make it more financially difficult for poor Oregonians to exercise their rights.

Sections 26 through 29 will create a nightmare situation for those who legally conceal carry. There is no requirement in SB 978 for signage that would warn somebody that they are in or on a public building or grounds adjacent to, where firearms are prohibited. This law will severely weaken Oregon's preemption law and will make concealed carry a very risky activity and cause many Oregonians to unknowingly engage in a felony crime. Constant unholstering an reholstering will increase chances of accidental discharges and will expose people to criminals looking for firearms to steal and victims to victimize. It will absolutely lead to more theft of firearms from vehicles, since criminals will learn that vehicles parked in areas surrounding public places are much more likely to have firearms stowed in them. The definitions of what is considered a public building and grounds adjacent to, is so broad and vague that it could result in much of the most populous metro areas being off limits to spaces where Oregonians could legally defend themselves. This is dangerous and unnecessary as those who legally conceal carry are the most responsible and safe firearm possessors in our State.

I strongly urge you to support your constituents rights by voting no on SB 978.


Edit: borrowing any or all parts of my letter to send to SJC is fine with me.

 

[MrBill10000]

It may for now, but it's a matter of time before it will be a national problem. Just maybe if it can be a situation brought to a head here and now, it won't come to individual battles. Not a clue why the left thinks the timing is is good now, but they definitely show intentions and it isn't safety concerns. There doesn't seem to be any choice other than being heard by the Supreme Court. Wish it didn't have to be that way, as that odds are just barely in our favor, but these people will never leave it alone. Allowing the Clergy and 15 year olds to submit make bills like 501 is totally off the wall.

They have to get it to SCOTUS before RBG takes the dirt nap.

 

[alv7722]

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.

Do a search for "Cloward-Piven strategy". It will answer many of your questions, sort of. Much of it appears to be hidden from the internet.

 

[tkdguy]

I will do another mailing very soon.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Why they can't seem to hear us...