JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
5,098
Reactions
9,058
SB1503 and HB4096 were introduced today.

SB1053 is to fund and take action on yet another well funded "study" of suicide in Oregon. Notice how the emphasis is on firearms. In the house, HB4096 is a repeat of the bill introduced by Brian Boquist last session. I don't know what these people have in mind but neither of these will have anything to do with suicide prevention, and appear to be something to smooth the conscience of congress and show that "they really care about their constituents". Some have gone as far as to suggest that these are another virtue signalling opportunity and resume builder.

Here's the OFF ALERT concerning HB4096.

Be on the lookout for gut and stuff activities with either of these.
 
DftE5ZLWAAAVNgC.jpeg
 
HB4096 actually doesn't sound terrible. With some polishing it could be a perfectly reasonable gun law (and we know how rare those truly are), which provides a resource for gun owners facing suicidal ideations who feel they have no other way to safely re-home their weapons while they seek help. The freak out post from OFF is just Kevin Starrett being hyperbolic as usual.
 
I don't think it is currently illegal to give your prescription opiates, your hank of rope, or your car to a friend if you're thinking of offing yourself....so I can see why the focus is on firearms. I once asked a friend why he got rid of his Beretta 92 to be weaponless, and he chuckled and said, "I kept finding it in my mouth, so I thought I should get rid of it." Edit: It was a wise choice, and he's owned firearms since then.
 
Last Edited:
HB4096 is disingenuous. It essentially allows someone to voluntarily "Red Flag" themselves and enter into a contract with an FFL ("licensee") to hold onto their firearms. The bill states that the FFL will be held harmless for subsequent actions of the owner after the firearms are returned, with the notable exceptions: (A) If the licensee returns the firearm to a person the licensee knows, or reasonably should know, is a danger to self or others. (B) To a civil action based upon the licensee's negligence or unlawful conduct.

Those exceptions pretty much negates any "hold harmless" clauses of the bill, and the FFL will spend untold sums trying to prove that they did not reasonably know that the owner was a danger to themselves or others.




Text of relevant portion of HB4096:

(3)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person may not bring a cause of action against a federal firearms licensee for any act or omission arising from entering into a firearm hold agreement, including taking physical possession of a firearm pursuant to a firearm hold agreement, storing the firearm or returning the firearm to the owner.(b) Paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply A) If the licensee returns the firearm to a person the licensee knows, or reasonably should know, is a danger to self or others. (B) To a civil action based upon the licensee's negligence or unlawful conduct.
 
Boy, if we could get the politicians to work only half as hard on REAL problems as they work trying to remove our rights we'd be set in short order.
 
HB4096 actually doesn't sound terrible. With some polishing it could be a perfectly reasonable gun law (and we know how rare those truly are), which provides a resource for gun owners facing suicidal ideations who feel they have no other way to safely re-home their weapons while they seek help. The freak out post from OFF is just Kevin Starrett being hyperbolic as usual.
"Reasonable gun law" is an oxymoron.
 
HB4096 actually doesn't sound terrible. With some polishing it could be a perfectly reasonable gun law (and we know how rare those truly are), which provides a resource for gun owners facing suicidal ideations who feel they have no other way to safely re-home their weapons while they seek help. The freak out post from OFF is just Kevin Starrett being hyperbolic as usual.
What was not true or hyperbolic in his post?

If its about the immunity part I doubt any FFL would even take in a gun due to the liability of eventually having to give it back. I would not call trying to put mental health decisions onto FFLs to be hyperbolic, anyone following firearm related prosecutions of FFLs it should be obvious any law would be used to charge lawful FFLs as criminals.
 
Last Edited:
I wouldn't expect that there'll only be two Second Amendment infringing bill to be alive in the Oregon Legislature this legislative session, even though this short session is for minor corrections and budget issues. Infringing citizens rights seems to be of the highest priority in a state that's essentially legalized drugs, embraced the homeless and has turned Portland, Salem and Eugene into democrat cesspools…
 
Given what WA folks have been dealing with I would say we are pretty lucky if this is all of the pain we have to fight through.
Well hello mister frog. Since you're already in the pot and you didn't notice that we've passed M114 and HB2005, we'll just turn the heat up a little more. I'm sure you won't notice. After all, the frog next door has it much worse, so you should be able to handle more pain without complaining.
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

Back Top