Oregon Omnibus Gun Bill SB 243

[arakboss]

I wonder how many users will bail out of their trigger facilitators?

 

[Koda]

I wonder how many users will bail out of their trigger facilitators?

For the price they paid for them, not many.

 

[Koda]

I wonder how many users will bail out of their trigger facilitators?

That said, this is the second one Ive seen in the classifieds. The timing is too perfect...

 

[Seared Saba]

Sigh... too late to notice this. otherwise, I would have submitted my opposition as well.

 

[Will_White]

Sigh... too late to notice this. otherwise, I would have submitted my opposition as well.

You still can, just yell it at a wall. It's the same experience.

 

[1911Fanatic]

This isnt just a mental health thing. We have very violent criminals that keep getting let out of jail, most of the violent criminals who use guns have very long records of violence. That's not a mental health issue thats a govt political issue.
"gun fatality rate 74%..." is a very overly broad general statistic. Originally you mentioned Democrats wanted to feel safe. We need to get violent offenders off the street. And it really is that simple.

Perhaps the Oregon "shooters" had better shot placemenT?

 

[Koda]

Sigh... too late to notice this. otherwise, I would have submitted my opposition as well.

Sign up for notifications from Oregon Firearms Federation...

Join our alert list – Oregon Firearms Federation

 

[nwslopoke]

You still can, just yell it at a wall. It's the same experience.

Walls actually do their jobs.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Walls actually do their jobs.

Unless you're a Kool aid person or the wall is glass

 

[saxon]

(b) Unlawful possession of a rapid fire activator is a Class A misdemeanor.(4) This section does not apply toa) A peace officer, or other person employed by a law enforcement agency, who possesses a rapid fire activator in accordance with authorization given to the peace officer orother person by the law enforcement agency.(b) A person who has registered a machine gun in accordance with federal law and therapid fire activator is possessed for use only in, and is necessary for the proper function of,the lawfully registered machine gun.


oregon just opened a loop hole if anyone is interested.

reminds me of the stewart case way back when

 

[Koda]

(b) A person who has registered a machine gun in accordance with federal law and therapid fire activator is possessed for use only in, and is necessary for the proper function of,the lawfully registered machine gun.


oregon just opened a loop hole if anyone is interested.

Why would someone who has a real machine gun care about using a rapid fire actuator?

An average person cant get a machine gun anyways. Im not seeing a FRT/actuator loophole here...

 

[CamoDeafie]

(b) A person who has registered a machine gun in accordance with federal law and therapid fire activator is possessed for use only in, and is necessary for the proper function of,the lawfully registered machine gun.

Why would someone who has a real machine gun care about using a rapid fire actuator?

An average person cant get a machine gun anyways. Im not seeing a FRT/actuator loophole here...

^ this.

A machine gun has no need for a FRT/Bump stock/binary trigger/trigger crank.

Also, I do not believe that there are Federally legal, transferable full auto Glocks (pre 1986) out there, so a Switch is still going to be illegal anyhow.

 

[saxon]

you missed the point, if an FRT is needed to properly function an MG they are in part saying an FRT is an MG,
ATF was slapped with "it's Not an MG" but oregon is implying it makes a gun an MG with this wording,
ergo the stewart case, if oregon says they are an MG and you need to have a registered MG and the FRT makes the MG an MG,
#1 stewart case post 86 MG allowed later overturned,
#2 atf knows they are not MG's
#3 oregon says FRT is allowed for the proper function of an MG
some one should file a form 1 citing oreogns new law as the loop hole
and see where it goes.

 

[TTSX]

you missed the point, if an FRT is needed to properly function an MG they are in part saying an FRT is an MG,
ATF was slapped with "it's Not an MG" but oregon is implying it makes a gun an MG with this wording,
ergo the stewart case, if oregon says they are an MG and you need to have a registered MG and the FRT makes the MG an MG,
#1 stewart case post 86 MG allowed later overturned,
#2 atf knows they are not MG's
#3 oregon says FRT is allowed for the proper function of an MG
some one should file a form 1 citing oreogns new law as the loop hole
and see where it goes.

I don't buy this but I'm interested to see court case if one ever happens

 

[Will_White]

ATF was slapped with "it's Not an MG"

ATF agreed to a non binding settlement saying that they weren't going to prosecute for a specific Rare Breed FRT and that Rare Breed had to sue other FRT makers out of existence for them. That's only a slap if you call them daddy after.

 

[Vinnie]

A strict reading of the definitions includes standard short reset triggers in the "combination of parts" that enables a gun to fire faster. Faster follow up shots is the point of them. As might the combinations of parts that convert a standard DA/SA pistol to SA only, DA only, or LEM, depending on the shooter, and lighter triggers and custom triggers in striker, and SA pistols and rifles. These parts are in thousands of used pistols and rifles in Oregon, many unbeknownst to the owners, who merely bought a gun and know nothing more about it.

Oh, Vinnie...NOBODY would try to enforce THAT kind of a CS violation !!. Sure, says Vinnie, just ask any J6er.

The whole section is unreasonably broad. It seems like the legislature hired half-expert technical advisors, or read a few gun magazine articles to get the lingo and threw this together. Further, in all the hearings, not one legislator pointed out the problems and got this rapid fire section into sensible shape. They do not care.
I wrote to my Rep... and the party answered. They said, "write it to the democrats". The democrats are not my reps.

Read it carefully:

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB243

 

[Jcon268]

you missed the point, if an FRT is needed to properly function an MG they are in part saying an FRT is an MG,
ATF was slapped with "it's Not an MG" but oregon is implying it makes a gun an MG with this wording,
ergo the stewart case, if oregon says they are an MG and you need to have a registered MG and the FRT makes the MG an MG,
#1 stewart case post 86 MG allowed later overturned,
#2 atf knows they are not MG's
#3 oregon says FRT is allowed for the proper function of an MG
some one should file a form 1 citing oreogns new law as the loop hole
and see where it goes.

I thought about this as well. The only thing that stops most people from owning an actual machine gun is the price which is due to a finite supply. I wonder if you had a form 1 for a rifle that had a FRT, if this would satisfy Oregons requirements...

 

[PiratePast40]

A strict reading of the definitions includes standard short reset triggers in the "combination of parts" that enables a gun to fire faster. Faster follow up shots is the point of them. As might the combinations of parts that convert a standard DA/SA pistol to SA only, DA only, or LEM, depending on the shooter, and lighter triggers and custom triggers in striker, and SA pistols and rifles. These parts are in thousands of used pistols and rifles in Oregon, many unbeknownst to the owners, who merely bought a gun and know nothing more about it.

Oh, Vinnie...NOBODY would try to enforce THAT kind of a CS violation !!. Sure, says Vinnie, just ask any J6er.

The whole section is unreasonably broad. It seems like the legislature hired half-expert technical advisors, or read a few gun magazine articles to get the lingo and threw this together. Further, in all the hearings, not one legislator pointed out the problems and got this rapid fire section into sensible shape. They do not care.
I wrote to my Rep... and the party answered. They said, "write it to the democrats". The democrats are not my reps.

Read it carefully:

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB243

Wasn't for this bill, but in another anti-gun bill, I heard a legislator comment that it wasn't up to us to correct their mistakes. Let them own it. This was in regard to a bill that was sure to pass.

The theory was that it makes it easier to fight it in court if it's full of errors and contradictions.