Oregon State Senate Bill 346(restricts sale and transfer of large capacity magazines)

[fd15k]

Sent to the members of the Judiciary :

to Sen.FloydProza., Sen.BetsyClose, Sen.JackieDing., Sen.JeffKruse, Sen.ArnieRoblan
Dear Senator:

I urge you to vote NO on bill SB346 that would prohibit transfer of ammunition feeding devices with capacity over 10 rounds.
Such devices are currently in common use by millions of Americans in majority of states for legitimate purposes.

US Supreme Court decisions affirm constitutional protections for the firearms that are in common use. As
an integral part of firearms, such feeding devices are also protected. We do not have an explicit Supreme Court opinion on
validity of restrictions on feeding devices in states like California at this time, but as a member of Judiciary Committee you are
expected to foresee such opinion in the near future.

In addition to the Constitutional concerns, you should also consider the practical implications of such prohibition. There are
hundreds of millions of such devices in possession by our fellow citizens. Assuming a nationwide ban on sale and transfer
of such devices, it would take several hundred if not thousand years to eliminate them from circulation. Yet only a few of such
devices are used for illegal purposes every year.

Furthermore, elimination of such devices would not have any effect on use of firearms for illegal purposes. They would not
minimize the number of victims in random shooting rampages, as the perpetrators can always opt in favour of having multiple
loaded firearms and/or multiple magazines. Despite the popular belief, few people would ever attempt to tackle an active shooter
during a change of a feeding device.

Such unenforceable and pointless bill is a waste of the Legislature's time and taxpayer funds. Vote NO on SB346!

 

[DieselScout]

Updated original post with judiciary committee contact list...

I am happy to have the info, but it seems the committee list is from 2011-2012, the 2013 members are


Floyd Prozanski, Chair -- [email protected]
Betsy Close, Vice Chair -- [email protected]
Jeff Kruse -- [email protected]
Jackie Dingfelder -- [email protected]
Arnie Roblan -- [email protected]

 

[civilian75]

Just emailed Bruce Starr. Short, sweet and to the point:
"I has just come to my attention SB 346, introduced January 13. Your law abiding gun owning constituency believes this bill is nonsensical and infringes into our 2nd amendment rights. Please, do not support it."

How do I"Write to the members of the Judiciary Committee"?

 

[DieselScout]

I just sent a letter to the judiciary committee as well.

Please people write, even if you not the most eloquent writer or your first language is bad English...WRITE! If you're worried about it, write something out and post it up here, I am sure their is more then one person willing to correct it for you. Don't be embarrassed, these people are there to represent us, so make them do their job.

 

[DieselScout]

How do I"Write to the members of the Judiciary Committee"?

I used the email links I provided in the post above yours and just addressed one email to them all. If anyone has the contact for Betsy Close, please post it so I can add it to the list.

 

[pokerace]

BTT

 

[BigDaddyDMD]

[email protected]

email for Betsy Close. I already sent her an email since she represents my area. I haven't received any response yet, but the email did go thru so I am assuming it is a valid email.

 

[Boomerang]

EFF feeble emails, your words have no teeth, they get deleted, your pleas have fallen on deaf ears......put down the key board and get to the capital on the 8th​!

Do all of it. Emails, phone calls, paper letters, and go on the 8th! Emails and phone calls can be repeated at will.

 

[DieselScout]

[email protected]

email for Betsy Close. I already sent her an email since she represents my area. I haven't received any response yet, but the email did go thru so I am assuming it is a valid email.

Thank You!

 

[nwdrifter]

sent the emails.... again

 

[NiceAsh]

Sent to the list.

I am writing to let you know that I am against any form of ban to Magazines. I am a local gun owner, Business Owner, Husband, Father, and Competition Pistol Shooter. This bill would turn me, and thousands like me, into criminals. What is the real purpose to limit the capacity of any Magazine? The rationale for such limits is that mass murderers need "large-capacity" magazines, while law-abiding citizens don't. Both premises are questionable, and so is the notion that politicians should be the arbiters of necessity under the Second Amendment. Measured by what people actually buy and use, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are hardly outliers. In fact, there are tens (if not hundreds) of millions already in circulation, which is one reason new limits cannot reasonably be expected to have much of an impact on people determined to commit mass murder.

Another reason is that changing magazines takes one to three seconds, which will rarely make a difference in assaults on unarmed people, and none of the bills I have read discuss the Quantity of Magazines any one person can own. So can people own five 10-round magazines?

A Gun is an Inanimate Object. It has no will of its own. It cannot decide all by itself who, or what, to shoot. Focusing any amount of attention on the Object, completely misses the point, and is an insult to the victims. Focus the energy towards solving the real issues, and stop trying to turn law abiding citizens into criminals. If we really want to see a change, than Parents, Educators, and other Persons of Authority need to do a better job at recognizing the signs of unstable individuals. Taking guns away will not prevent them from acting on their misguided attempts to strike back at society.

Feel free to plagiarize anything I said.

 

[explorerimports]

I don't Live in Oregon But I Will be at Your Capital on the 8th. Along With As many Family and friends I can Bring.

 

[John Gault]

EFF feeble emails, your words have no teeth, they get deleted, your pleas have fallen on deaf ears......put down the key board and get to the capital on the 8th​!

What He said: Here's the response I got from one our finest.

January 16, 2013





Dear John Gault (Changed Name and deleted address for repost)

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on gun ownership and gun safety legislation.

Like all Americans, I was deeply saddened by the horrific shootings in Connecticut and at the Clackamas Shopping Center. I was also reminded that such events are unfortunately all too common in our country.

I support the right of sportsmen to purchase guns to hunt and target shoot. I also support the right of law-abiding citizens to own certain firearms in accordance with the Second Amendment. However, I believe that current gun laws in the United States are contributing to a problem of gun violence that is out of control. In many states, it's impossible to even close the gun show loophole where individuals can purchase unlimited amount of guns without a reasonable background check.

Hundreds of people die from gun accidents and thousands of people are killed by gun violence every year. Assault weapons are available over the counter and can come with enormous magazines that serve no purpose in sports or target shooting. Too often our system of providing care to those with mental health disorders, who may become violent, often falls short.

In the aftermath of recent shootings, it has been encouraging to learn that many people actually do think that reasonable common-sense steps can be taken to reduce gun violence. Indeed, surveys show that the majority of NRA members disagree with many of the policies that the NRA itself is promoting. It is time to have a thoughtful and rational conversation about gun safety. This is why I support assault weapons legislation in the 113th Congress, along with a number of other pieces of legislation that will increase background checks and improve research so that we can better understand gun violence.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with me. I hope you will continue to be a part of this important discussion. Please continue to be in touch.

Sincerely,

Earl Blumenauer

Earl Blumenauer
Member of Congress

For more information about Congressman Blumenauer, please sign up for Earl-news at, The Online Office of Congressman Earl Blumenauer.

 

[M67]

I have again, as well.

 

[Squidly]

Sent

 

[NiceAsh]

Another good read;

The Threat Posed by Gun Magazine Limits

 

[fd15k]

If people have trouble articulating to your elected officials why standard capacity magazines should not be banned, there is good stuff here:

<broken link removed>

I think the argument about multiple attackers is fairly weak. Not only it is supported by some anecdotal evidence of needing that in self-defense, but also the example of Colt 1911 comes to mind. I think it is way better to argue "common use" and "mass shooter can and will reload" points.

 

[andreys21]

So, is finding mags still legal? I mean if someone misplaced it or lost it and someone happens to find it. Finders Keepers, right?

I have received a letter from Earl as well along the same lines. Assault weapons ban is not common-sense. I also wanna see hard data on this claim of NRA members not agreeing with NRA.

 

[fd15k]

So, is finding mags still legal? I mean if someone misplaced it or lost it and someone happens to find it. Finders Keepers, right?

Likely yes. It is actually the same in Cali... unfortunately few people lose their mags

I have received a letter from Earl as well along the same lines. Assault weapons ban is not common-sense. I also wanna see hard data on this claim of NRA members not agreeing with NRA.

Count me towards the disagreeing ones.

 

[fd15k]

In other words, you like two of the three arguments Gene Hoffman raised. That's fine, use whatever you like.

Basically if you argue that one needs more rounds in the mag to deal with more attackers, it backfires as "active shooter needs more rounds in the mags to deal with more victims". And I doubt the stats will help us to refute that...

And one more thing. It's not about me "liking it". It's about using the strategy that will give us a win. Do lawyers grab onto a bunch of mismatching straws when they argue a case ? Gene Hoffman himself often brings up Alan Gura as an example of how it should be argued.