Oregon Firearms Federation: Massive Gun Ban Introduced in Oregon

[GOG]

These fools wish to enter MY home for "inspection" purposes? Not only no, but hell no!

 

[probasco]

Townhall tomorrow (Saturday) with 2 of the legislators who are sponsoring HB 3200. 10:00 AM, American Legion 1830 SE 122nd Ave, Portland. "Join Senator Monroe and Reps. Vega Pederson and Reardon for this important Town Hall. Come out and ask your questions, voice your concerns, and listen as the legislators talk about priorities for East County and the state."

 

[Scout67]

New member with two posts defending an AWB?

TROLL

Where did I defend this AWB? I merely pointed out that people shouldn't post misinformation and not believe everything you read on the internet, just because it is what you want to believe.
When people post misinformation it affects credibility. If you want to lose credibilty then keep posting things that are not true.

Troll? I just joined the forums while I was looking for a gun and some CHL information. Just because I don't feel the need to post daily doesn't mean I don't have a right to an opinion.

 

[Scout67]

Scout, any such infringement is far to much, whether it's assault weapons, high caps magazines or other and to even consider capitulating is a long step in the wrong direction. I may be reading between the lines regarding your post Scout, but do you believe for one second that it will stop there? World history has taught us otherwise my friend.

I will go out on a limb here and state that I 'personally' believe in background checks for private sells and do use an FFL dealer when transferring a weapon to an unknown individual. Why? to insure that I'm not committing a felony by selling a weapon to someone who is prevented from owning one in the first place. That is the only form of gun control that I will cede, and thats something I choose to do.

In Chicago, 82% of all gun related homicides are committed by gang members in a 7% section of the city, yet ALL denizens of this town are subjected to some of the harshest measures in the USA. They know who's doing it and where their doing it, but rather than enforcing those laws already on the books they enact penalties upon honest citizens as a feel good measure, makes sense doesn't it? Now if you wish to call that spreading rumors or exaggerating than so be it, but that the reality of it. I'm not picking at you in particular, only the idea that a little bit is OK.

I totally agree. Its funny how easily I am labeled. My take on the second ammendment is probably way more extreme than most people. I believe that the second ammendment was designed to allow "the people" to own whatever weapons they want. I believe they did this so the citizens are armed well enough to regain control of the country should our government get out of control. Its difficult to control a population as well armed as their military.
I stand by my original post as far as people posting untruths, but that doesn't mean I agree with the proposed bill.

 

[hermannr]

Sounds like Oregon has been taking some cues from Washington State. Hopefully it doesn't go anywhere. I try to email my reps once every couple of weeks just because of all the action with gun ban bills lately.

I don't think these bills originated in either state. I suspect someone, funded by the Joyce Foundation, wrote these bills and passed them arround for everyone to try pass...wherever they could find sponsor for the bill. The same trash is just showing up in too many states. Sounds like we managed to kill our attempt, at least for this year.

 

[hermannr]

There are no warrantless searches of your home, if you choose to keep the large cap mags or assault rifle then you must meet certain guidlines including an inspection of your secure storage.

And just what to you think this "inspection" is if it is not a coersed warrentless search. You would be "voluntarily" giving up you rights under the 2A and Oregon state Constitution Article 1 section 9.

Sorry, your thought process is flawed.

 

[jrgrace]

I totally agree. Its funny how easily I am labeled. My take on the second ammendment is probably way more extreme than most people. I believe that the second ammendment was designed to allow "the people" to own whatever weapons they want. I believe they did this so the citizens are armed well enough to regain control of the country should our government get out of control. Its difficult to control a population as well armed as their military.
I stand by my original post as far as people posting untruths, but that doesn't mean I agree with the proposed bill.

"(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol
grip;"


Scout67 the part in the bill above is so generic that any well-meaning (take that lightly, there is no such thing just politicians that want to push an agenda) politician from Portland would say that any handgun that can accept a magazine that extends outside of the pistol grip is an assault weapon and you can only own one assault weapon. Since it extends outside of the pistol grip that is a location outside of the pistol grip isn't it. That means any semiautomatic pistol is an assault weapon because most have had an aftermarket company make extended mags for them one time or another.
And on another note: you are being inspected to make sure you aren’t committing a crime by not following their storage requirements. I’m sorry but coming into any house under guise of criminal negligence without evidence of a crime taking place WITHOUT needing a warrant is in every term a warrantless search. What part of that don’t you understand? It is ignorant people like you that are very much part of the problem and not part of the solution. Ohhh and another thing. I have already had a background check on ALL of my assault weapons that I own, why should I have to pay for it yet AGAIN.

 

[hermannr]

I totally agree. Its funny how easily I am labeled. My take on the second ammendment is probably way more extreme than most people. I believe that the second ammendment was designed to allow "the people" to own whatever weapons they want. I believe they did this so the citizens are armed well enough to regain control of the country should our government get out of control. Its difficult to control a population as well armed as their military.
I stand by my original post as far as people posting untruths, but that doesn't mean I agree with the proposed bill.

Scout. I have been in this game for over 43 years,,,you need to read some history, and look at what has happened. I got my first gun in the 50's, I pruchased my first hunting rifle with my own money, and on my own in 1964, and go my first pistol then too. I have carried regularly since 1970.

Don't say someone is making up something...read what is said, then try to see why they said what they did. The warrentless search statement in the OFF alert is not a misstatement, it is the truth, if you look at what it DOES and not what it says.

With these bill you must realize you are dealing with lawyers and politicians...both trained liers. Traind to use words that will intimidate, or misdirect. The person the brought out the "warrentless search" provision here in WA was actually a Lawyer, and a democrap, and actually for a AWB ban...but he was smart enough to see through the wording, and visualize the POTENTIAL for abuse...and raised the warning flags...that killed that bill here in WA.

Believe me, these bills all saying the same stuff in many states at the same time??? None of these states wrote this law, it came from someone, most likely funded by the Joyce foundation. Maybe that anti gun group of lawyers in SF.

 

[Working 4 U]

Right out of the bill

" 5.(b) Allow an inspector from the department to inspect the storage of assault weapons
and large capacity magazines to ensure compliance with this subsection;"


(4) A person may not register more than one assault weapon and three large capacity
magazines under this section. Additional assault weapons and large capacity magazines must
be disposed of in the manner specified in section 3 of this 2013 Act.

So you go and try and register your assult weapon and magazine what prevents them from saying no and taking it from you on the spot.

 

[jrgrace]

I totally agree. Its funny how easily I am labeled. My take on the second ammendment is probably way more extreme than most people. I believe that the second ammendment was designed to allow "the people" to own whatever weapons they want. I believe they did this so the citizens are armed well enough to regain control of the country should our government get out of control. Its difficult to control a population as well armed as their military.
I stand by my original post as far as people posting untruths, but that doesn't mean I agree with the proposed bill.

"(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol
grip;"


Scout67 the part in the bill above is so generic that any well-meaning (take that lightly, there is no such thing just politicians that want to push an agenda) politician from Portland would say that any handgun that can accept a magazine that extends outside of the pistol grip is an assault weapon and you can only own one assault weapon. Since it extends outside of the pistol grip that is a location outside of the pistol grip isn't it. That means any semiautomatic pistol is an assault weapon because most have had an aftermarket company make extended mags for them one time or another.
And on another note: you are being inspected to make sure you aren’t committing a crime by not following their storage requirements. I’m sorry but coming into any house under guise of criminal negligence without evidence of a crime taking place WITHOUT needing a warrant is in every term a warrantless search. What part of that don’t you understand? It is ignorant people like you that are very much part of the problem and not part of the solution. Ohhh and another thing. I have already had a background check on ALL of my assault weapons that I own, why should I have to pay for it yet AGAIN.

 

[bikejunkie]

I don't remember the Bill of Rights containing any language about quantities of firearms that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. These prices of garbage in Salem are acting like the Bill of Rights is some antiquated document from a bygone era. Read further in this draconian detritus and you see that even if you play by their unconstitutional rules, the only places you are allowed to have your unsafe to the public evil high capacity magazines are at home, a range, or at the gunsmiths. You are not allowed to have one in your carry gun basically ever. That sounds an awful lot like infringement to me, but Im no attorney. The thing that terrifies me is that the idiots in Salem might actually pass this garbage. I mean do you trust them to be remotely reasonable? By the letter of this law probably 70-80% of the guns currently in production would be illegal in this state and you would have to pick your favorite one and turn in the rest for no cash value. Seeing proposed legislation like this makes me wonder if another civil war really is right around the corner. I mean I know I won't be registering my small firearms collection and in so doing voluntarily adding my name to the list of people to be executed as "enemys of the state" Im not a black helicopters kinda guy but this has me reaching for the tinfoil...Guess the preppers really were right all along

 

[BroncoFan]

Just donated to OFF and completed the automailer.

 

[Paravani]

I held down the CTRL key to select all of the democratic senators and representatives for the following <broken link removed> message:

I have always voted a straight Democratic ticket because I believe in civil rights and the rights enumerated in the US Constitution, and I thought that the Democratic party did, too. The Democratic party has always upheld the rights of women, gays, and people of color, and has fought for the rights of everyone to be free from intrusion in their private lives.

Now, however, the Democratic party is leading the push for gun control legislation that clearly violates our state and federal Constitutional rights to keep and bear military firearms. We do not keep and bear arms for "sport" -- we keep and bear them to protect our lives, our property, and most importantly, our freedom.

So, if Democrats succeed in passing this legislation, I will never vote Democratic again. I will vote a straight Republican party ticket from now until the day I die, because it is the right to keep and bear arms that protects all of our other rights.

I know that gun owners aren't the majority in the Democratic party. However, if all gun-owning Democrats like me join the Republican party, the next set of elected representatives will most certainly all be Republican.

Do you really want that to happen?

Sincerely,

(my name), Democrat and gun owner

If you'd like to see your elected officials by party, or by committee, here is Oregon's Legislative Website.

-- Paravani

 

[pokerace]

Did Feinstein move to Oregon ?

She doesn't have to we have Ginny Burdick

 

[Paravani]

The scariest part of this bill is the last line:

SECTION 6. This 2013 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2013 Act takes effect on its passage.

A state "Declaration of Emergency" is much like the federal "War Powers Act" -- it allows the state to do pretty much any damned thing it wants in order to accomplish its goals. It suspends all citizens' Constitutional rights until the end of the emergency. Since this bill doesn't specify any end-date at which the so-called "emergency" will expire, we may assume that its drafters do not intend for our inalienable rights EVER to be restored.

-- Paravani

 

[Modeler]

The scariest part of this bill is the last line:

A state "Declaration of Emergency" is much like the federal "War Powers Act" -- it allows the state to do pretty much any damned thing it wants in order to accomplish its goals. It suspends all citizens' Constitutional rights until the end of the emergency. Since this bill doesn't specify any end-date at which the so-called "emergency" will expire, we may assume that its drafters do not intend for our inalienable rights EVER to be restored.

-- Paravani

I'm sorry, but that's false. Here's the definition of an "Emergency Clause" as it applies to bills in the Oregon Legislature:

"Emergency Clause: A statement added to the end of a measure that causes the Act to become effective before the accustomed date (on January 1 of the year after passage of the Act). An emergency clause either sets a specific date or is effective immediately, which means that the measure will take effect on the date it is signed into law."

In this case, it's a way to make a bill effective upon passage rather than on January 1st of the following year. A great many of the bills introduced every Legislative Session contain an Emergency Clause.

<broken link removed>

This whole proposed law is still BS though.

 

[Paravani]

Thanks for clearing that up. I think I'm going to become a Washington resident -- but maybe I'll wait until after the next election, so I can help vote the bstids out of office, first.

(I helped vote them in, after all. Sorry about that. It's only right that I should help get them out.)

-- Paravani

 

[CascadeSam]

I stand by my original post as far as people posting untruths, but that doesn't mean I agree with the proposed bill.

How did I post untruths? You made assumptions in your original reply to me. Above, you made a sarcastic comment how quick people were to label you. Yet, that is what you did to me.

 

[Modeler]

How did I post untruths? You made assumptions in your original reply to me. Above, you made a sarcastic comment how quick people were to label you. Yet, that is what you did to me.

Scout just has a different set of reading comprehension skills than everyone else on this forum. I'm sure he's reading it correctly though.

Nothing to worry about, this bill doesn't include a provision requiring you to destroy all but one of your semi-automatic rifles and allow OSP into your home once a year to inspect your firearms storage facilities. Nothing to see here. Don't worry about it.

(Honestly, I think that Scout doesn't own any firearms that would be covered by this bill, so he assumes that no one else does, hence making the "bill bans most modern firearms and magazines" portion of the OP's post incorrect in his view. Scout still comes off as an apologist for this bill though, IMHO)

 

[1stIDFMP]

Can the sponsor and backers of this Bill be tried for Treason?........................ :winkkiss: