Oregon Oregon HB4145 - M114 Implementation bill for 2026 Session

[CamoDeafie]

Something that confuses me however is this part out of an OPB article yesterday:

The Oregon Supreme Court is currently weighing whether Measure 114 is constitutional after hearing oral arguments in November. If the high court rules that Measure 114 is constitutional, the measure is set to take effect in March. Should the high court rule in proponents' favor, the bill would make a number of changes to the original law.

Among other things, it would push back the law's magazine ban to 2027 and the permit requirement to January 2028. It would raise fees for applying for a gun permit from $65 to $150, and increase permit renewal fees from $50 to $110. And it would extend the amount of time an agent has to issue or deny a permit from 30 days to 60 days.

SO - even IF 114 is ruled 'unconstitutional' it's only temporary and gets pushed off until 2028?

I'll admit I am a little 'behind the times' with this and the House Bill 4145.

Here's the thing, they're using the term "proponents", meaning those in favor of M114, as opposed to literally any other term referring to the plaintiffs who brought the suit against Oregon State. They're not even saying anything about what if Oregon Supreme Court rules M114 unconstitutional....

 

[PiratePast40]

I clicked on link you provided in first post of this thread. Is that an outdated version of bill?

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2026R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB4145/Introduced

There have been multiple revisions. This OLIS link takes you to the current home page for the bill. In the upper left hand corner, you will see HB 4145A in blue. That takes you to the current amendment of the bill. Here's the direct link. It gets confusing because there may be several revisions active at the same time. Some get dumped, and some of the amendments get incorporated into the bill. In this case, only the current one, which is the one being considered, is shown on the home page. When bills are passed, the final form is called the "Enrolled" version.

 

[Mono1]

Not sure I'm posting links correctly or even if it matters at this point…as the public's opinion doesn't seem to matter. However, the NRA did send an email out with a link that makes it extremely easy to share your thoughts on HB4145 with our state senators.

Oregon: Ballot Measure 114 Override Bill Passes House

speak4.io

Yes! Good Point!

 

[dancinghippos]

Here is the latest link to the testimony submission:

Oregon Legislative Information System

olis.oregonlegislature.gov

Please, please follow the link and write anything that contains I OPPOSE HB4145 and add a reason. Right now we are around 450 support and 1500 oppose. Politicians won't read every letter, but they will count them to know how much voters care. We need bigger numbers. Click, enter your testimony and then get your friends to do the same.

 

[dancinghippos]

If you have some experience dealing with people, getting things done, please consider running for one of the Oregon House of Representatives or Oregon State Senate seat. And please speak to others you know about running for office. It isn't that hard, and you will certainly have support from most of our members here. Use your search engine and search for the county political party that most represents your views and they will help you.

Note that I am not saying which party, so don't jump me for partisan politics. IF YOU ARE HERE, you probably care about the 2A like we do.

 

[Nutty4Guns]

Testimony submitted!

 

[Midnite]

Submitted testimony. Has anyone shared this on Reddit yet?

 

[Midnite]

If you have some experience dealing with people, getting things done, please consider running for one of the Oregon House of Representatives or Oregon State Senate seat. And please speak to others you know about running for office. It isn't that hard, and you will certainly have support from most of our members here. Use your search engine and search for the county political party that most represents your views and they will help you.

Note that I am not saying which party, so don't jump me for partisan politics. IF YOU ARE HERE, you probably care about the 2A like we do.

I would love to do this as I get more established and lay roots in Oregon. Been here 18 months. Starting to feel like home now.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

What does this bill actually do? Does it start m114 despite future OR Supreme Court ruling? Does it change m114 if OR supreme court rule against us? I don't understand how things overlap.

 

[CamoDeafie]

What does this bill actually do? Does it start m114 despite future OR Supreme Court ruling? Does it change m114 if OR supreme court rule against us? I don't understand how things overlap.

I have not seen anything discussing what happens to M114 or this bill, if the Oregon Supremes rules against the bill. Everything I can find seem to agree that barring Duncan V Bonta case, Oregon and 9th District will say M114 is "constitutional" for both State Constitution and Fed Constitution; based on the fact that there are no precedent from Feds on the subject of permit to purchase laws.


Edit. So, if OSC rules that M114 can proceed, with only the mag ban being on hold due to Duncan V Bonta; then it would shift implementation of M114 to whenever they're saying they want to implement. If OSC says both mag bans and permits can proceed, despite what happens with Duncan V Bonta, then we're well and truly screwed in our collective butts. But I can find nothing from Immergut saying that M114 has to be on hold until permit to purchase system is in place?

 

[Midnite]

I have posted the link to several subreddits on Reddit. Hope to get 500 oppose testimonials.

 

[308Palma]

The following opposition may have been submitted. If anyone agrees and would like to oppose via the link posted above, this can be added to opposing text submissions.

I must speak out against this bill for several important reasons. Like many Americans, I am deeply concerned about the direction of various political actions being taken today. Gun violence is a real and tragic problem that deserves serious and effective solutions. However, this proposal takes an approach that primarily impacts responsible, law-abiding citizens who value personal freedom, respect the law, and care deeply about this country.

I recognize that this issue is complex and emotionally charged. Still, provisions such as limiting capacity - especially with language that could effectively render many commonly owned firearms unlawful - along with increasing fees and extending wait times, raise significant concerns. These measures risk placing additional burdens on responsible individuals rather than addressing the root causes of violence. It is also troubling that two of these provisions were recently added without clear public input or approval.

We can and should pursue policies without compromising constitutional freedoms or penalizing responsible citizens.

Thank you,

A concerned citizen

 

[jcg5352]

Potentially dumb question, does the testimony submitted from the House hearing carry forward to the Senate hearing?

 

[Midnite]

Potentially dumb question, does the testimony submitted from the House hearing carry forward to the Senate hearing?

I wondered that myself. Instead of guessing, I submitted again anyway. hit em 2X

 

[PiratePast40]

I have not seen anything discussing what happens to M114 or this bill, if the Oregon Supremes rules against the bill. Everything I can find seem to agree that barring Duncan V Bonta case, Oregon and 9th District will say M114 is "constitutional" for both State Constitution and Fed Constitution; based on the fact that there are no precedent from Feds on the subject of permit to purchase laws.


Edit. So, if OSC rules that M114 can proceed, with only the mag ban being on hold due to Duncan V Bonta; then it would shift implementation of M114 to whenever they're saying they want to implement. If OSC says both mag bans and permits can proceed, despite what happens with Duncan V Bonta, then we're well and truly screwed in our collective butts. But I can find nothing from Immergut saying that M114 has to be on hold until permit to purchase system is in place?

HB 4145 replaces M114 but cannot proceed until after the Oregon supremes make a decision. If they rule against us, the requirements of HB 4145 become law. If they rule with the constitution, then all of it gets dropped.

Think of it this way: There is a law that allows slavery but it's been appealed so can't go into effect. If the supreme law of the land decides that slavery is unconstitutional, they can't just make a new law since the concept of slavery is illegal, no matter how many laws they make saying that it's legal.

 

[CamoDeafie]

HB 4145 replaces M114 but cannot proceed until after the Oregon supremes make a decision. If they rule against us, the requirements of HB 4145 become law. If they rule with the constitution, then all of it gets dropped.

Think of it this way: There is a law that allows slavery but it's been appealed so can't go into effect. If the supreme law of the land decides that slavery is unconstitutional, they can't just make a new law since the concept of slavery is illegal, no matter how many laws they make saying that it's legal.

Look at what's going on particularly in New York and Hawaii post-Bruen

There's also the fact that there is this legal opinion that says even with Federal Supremacy Clause, States can and should defy the Federal Supreme Court gun decisions (to say nothing of State level Supreme Court decisions)

The Right of State Governments to Defy the Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol bubblegum’n v. Bruen interferes with the states’ right to create new constitutional limits to enforce sensible gun control regulations.

www.scu.edu

 

[AshWilliams]

Look at what's going on particularly in New York and Hawaii post-Bruen

There's also the fact that there is this legal opinion that says even with Federal Supremacy Clause, States can and should defy the Federal Supreme Court gun decisions (to say nothing of State level Supreme Court decisions)

The Right of State Governments to Defy the Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol bubblegum’n v. Bruen interferes with the states’ right to create new constitutional limits to enforce sensible gun control regulations.

www.scu.edu

Simple: cut off federal funding to states who defy SCOTUS decisions. Shiz will change real freakin' quick.

 

[PiratePast40]

Look at what's going on particularly in New York and Hawaii post-Bruen

There's also the fact that there is this legal opinion that says even with Federal Supremacy Clause, States can and should defy the Federal Supreme Court gun decisions (to say nothing of State level Supreme Court decisions)

The Right of State Governments to Defy the Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol bubblegum’n v. Bruen interferes with the states’ right to create new constitutional limits to enforce sensible gun control regulations.

www.scu.edu

My explanation was considering the Oregon supremes as arbiters of the law of the land since this case is in the Oregon supreme court.

Do states over step their bounds? Of course they do. Sanctuary states are giving the federal government the middle finger when it comes to cheap and illegal labor. They are trying to make the case that they can't be successful without, essentially, slave labor.

 

[CamoDeafie]

My explanation was considering the Oregon supremes as arbiters of the law of the land since this case is in the Oregon supreme court.

Do states over step their bounds? Of course they do. Sanctuary states are giving the federal government the middle finger when it comes to cheap and illegal labor. They are trying to make the case that they can't be successful without, essentially, slave labor.

I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised if the Oregon Legislature defies OSC if OSC rules in our favor

As for the slave labor thing, they could always pivot back to being "law and order" and bring back prison labor

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I have not seen anything discussing what happens to M114 or this bill, if the Oregon Supremes rules against the bill. Everything I can find seem to agree that barring Duncan V Bonta case, Oregon and 9th District will say M114 is "constitutional" for both State Constitution and Fed Constitution; based on the fact that there are no precedent from Feds on the subject of permit to purchase laws.


Edit. So, if OSC rules that M114 can proceed, with only the mag ban being on hold due to Duncan V Bonta; then it would shift implementation of M114 to whenever they're saying they want to implement. If OSC says both mag bans and permits can proceed, despite what happens with Duncan V Bonta, then we're well and truly screwed in our collective butts. But I can find nothing from Immergut saying that M114 has to be on hold until permit to purchase system is in place?

I don't think mag ban in Duncan v bonta would affect m114. OR Supreme Court rules on OR constitution not federal. But maybe they would say "on hold until bonta is figured out". I really doubt that though. But it's possible. Who knows.

If immerguts hold is still in effect then she can wipe it out with a stroke if a pen I would think. And she wants to wipe it out imo.

I'm trying to figure out on the state constitution track only. How does the new bill and m114 overlap, what overrides what, etc.