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

[Kota]

Response to email from my State Senator, Senator Olson. If we only elected some more good leaders with common sense like him!

Thank you for your e-mail. Senator Olsen does not support any new bans or restrictions on firearms, ammunition, or magazines. He hopes that the legislature has the courage to address the real issue of mental health.

Dylan Gray
Chief of Staff

 

[deshoots]

1st post...sharing my reply. It would be really great if we had a sticky with all the pro and anti/ legislators listed out.

Thank you for your email about gun rights.

I believe that individuals should have the right to purchase certain types of firearms for self-defense. I also believe that concealed carry permits should be an option for some people. I also believe, however, that some common sense gun violence prevention measures are compatible with our 2nd Amendment guarantees.

This legislative session I will be supporting two proposals regarding guns. The first is a ban high capacity ammunition magazines. The second is a proposal to ban certain semi-automatic weapons. I believe neither high capacity magazines nor certain semi-automatic weapons are necessary for self-defense or hunting purposes.

However, as a family physician I do agree that these incidents should inspire us to look more closely at our mental health care system and begin discussing ways to improve it.

Once again, thank you for your email. Though we may disagree on this issue, please do not hesitate to contact me again with your ideas or concerns.

My best,

Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward MD
Salem Phone: 503-986-1717
District Phone: 503-277-2467

 

[BillB1960]

My missive:

I, _____________________________, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oregon, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of​

OREGON STATE REPRESENTATIVE​

according to the best of my ability.


Dear Senators,

The reason I opened with a copy of the Oregon State Oath of Office is because that is the oath you all swore when you took office and fulfill the promises you made during your campaigns. You were mandated to do the "people's business" as our duly elected representatives and specifically to support the Constitution of the United States of America. You are already facing your first test of that oath. One of your colleagues, Senator Burdick is asking you to violate that oath by passing a ban on high capacity magazines for semi automatic rifles. She is using hyperbole, disinformation and flat out lies to try to force you to pass that ban. (It's become very clear by now that there were nowhere near 60 shots fired in the Clackamas Town Center incident, in fact although the CCSO hasn't released the final report it appears that there might not have even been 10 shots fired yet Senator Burdick sent out an email with this "60 shots" falsehood in it the day after the shooting.) I urge you not to violate your oath by passing a useless, unconstitutional law like SB346

The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is once again under fire from people who realize that the first step to removing all guns from the citizens is to get one type of gun banned. Fortunately that looks unlikely at the federal level but evidently it doesn't look so unlikely here. The Second Amendment is not about hunting, it's not about self defense, it's not about recreational shooting, it's not even about protection from invasion. The Second Amendment is about citizens being able to protect ourselves from the tyranny imposed if/when our government becomes so enamored with it's own power that it decides that it no longer "derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed". You may scoff at this notion and call it paranoid but when the Congress of the United States is less popular than head lice and cockroaches there is obviously a serious lack of trust in the people at the top of the legislative food chain.

Now let's move on to the practical side of the issue. Banning high capacity magazines will do absolutely nothing to lower the crime rate or protect lives. First of all banning them isn't going to make all of the millions of magazines already out there instantly go away. Second, the reason that criminals are called "criminals" is because they break the law. Assuming you're a little more on the ball than the New York crowd I'm going to go ahead and take it on faith that you have exempted law officers from your ridiculous ban. Why is that? If the magazines are banned then why should the police need large capacity magazines? Doesn't the ban mean that criminals will no longer use high cap mags for fear of breaking the law? Of course it doesn't mean that, criminals will still continue to break the law so then why are you restricting all of the law abiding citizens from effectively defending themselves against criminals? Why are you punishing the good guys for the actions of the bad guys? It makes no sense! If a child acts up and does something that makes you mad do you punish his brother or sister?

In closing let me reiterate that this ban is unconstitutional, impractical, ineffective and frankly downright stupid. I strongly urge you to vote NO on it. Uphold your oath to support the Constitution. Stop playing politics and stand up for the rights of your constituents instead of the party mandates. Do the right thing, do what you were elected to do, do what you took an oath to do.


Sincerely,​

 

[beavertonbuck]

So I've read the actual bill that is going to be introduced and note that it makes it a crime to sell a high capacity magazine but does nothing to ban the ownership of the magazines. If this abomination of law goes into effect I'll be driving over to Vancouver to purchase my magazines.

 

[amyglyn]

So I've read the actual bill that is going to be introduced and note that it makes it a crime to sell a high capacity magazine but does nothing to ban the ownership of the magazines. If this abomination of law goes into effect I'll be driving over to Vancouver to purchase my magazines.

If this passes it may be one more reason to move over to the Camas area for me. Been thinkin' bout it anyway. What I don't get is how people can be so devoid of common sense (and this doesn't just apply to one party, mind you). Anyway, mailed the bill details and senator contact info to my friends and coworkers that care about 2nd amendment issues. If I receive a reply from my senator (Laurie Monnes Anderson, who is probably on the wrong side of this issue) I'll post it. Cross your fingers.

 

[bolus]

So I've read the actual bill that is going to be introduced and note that it makes it a crime to sell a high capacity magazine but does nothing to ban the ownership of the magazines. If this abomination of law goes into effect I'll be driving over to Vancouver to purchase my magazines.

I assume you could not buy a firearm that included a magazine with higher then 10 rounds either. So if you bought a new handgun from a private sale, you are not getting the magazine with it. Everything in the stores will have to be sold "California compliant"

 

[T28turbos]

Holy bubblegum! took me a hour and 15 to write all 30 Sen. but at least I voiced my .02 on the matter at hand!

God I hope this goes good........

 

[beavertonbuck]

I assume you could not buy a firearm that included a magazine with higher then 10 rounds either. So if you bought a new handgun from a private sale, you are not getting the magazine with it. Everything in the stores will have to be sold "California compliant"

Right but it doesn't say anything about restricting ownership. So if it were to pass and I decide to buy that Walther I was looking at I would assume the magazine would be limited. However nothing in the bill would prevent me from jumping over to WA and buying a standard magazine. So basically this will just stimulate WA and ID's economy unless manufacturers just decide to stop selling models that can hold more than 10 rounds.

 

[Ironbar]

My senator is Ginny Burdick. That stupid whorse would vote for it no matter if every single one of her constituents told her no way.

 

[ocarolan]

My missive:

Great job. That's a good letter and shows your passion, but I would suggest making it much shorter. If the letter is too long, it impugns your value and makes you look abnormal. The reader thinks "Why did he spend so much time writing this." Also they'll feel guilty for not reading the whole thing.

Better to write a short letter, but include something unusual. For example, a polaroid photo of your kids holding a gun, a newspaper clipping exemplifying gun defense.

Keep it up.

 

[fd15k]

...

You need to stick to reality, otherwise they won't take you seriously. Supreme Court has done its analysis, and concluded that as it stands today, 2A is about individual self-defense. Where were you that day ?

 

[Kevatc]

My senator is Ginny Burdick. That stupid whorse would vote for it no matter if every single one of her constituents told her no way.

Not one to wish ill will on anyone but if Burdick, Feinstein, Pelosi, and McCarthy all got hit by a train I'd feel bad for the train.

 

[BillB1960]

You need to stick to reality, otherwise they won't take you seriously. Supreme Court has done its analysis, and concluded that as it stands today, 2A is about individual self-defense. Where were you that day ?

Because the reality is that a semi automatic military style rifle is a pretty poor self defense weapon and if a ban is actually signed into law then trying to argue that point before SCOTUS is a loser in my opinion.

 

[Kevinkris]

defending the people is the same as self defense. i see no difference between killing a guy who broke in your home and a guy who stormed your town. the reality is if the people cant stand an fight, we will all fall. the reason Lincoln said we will only fail from within is because the people would never give up. if we cant even fight we have no chance to stand.

 

[BillB1960]

defending the people is the same as self defense. i see no difference between killing a guy who broke in your home and a guy who stormed your town. the reality is if the people cant stand an fight, we will all fall. the reason Lincoln said we will only fail from within is because the people would never give up. if we cant even fight we have no chance to stand.

if someone breaks into my house I'm going to reach for a shotgun or a handgun. My EDC weapon is certainly not a semi auto rifle, it's a pistol. Fact of the matter is I haven't owned a semi auto rifle bigger than a .22 in several years and I'm certainly not planning on buying one anytime soon. Nevertheless I vehemently disagree with any proposed ban on any semi auto rifles or limitations on mag capacity because they are IMO in direct violation of both the spirit and the letter of the 2nd Amendment.

We can tiptoe around and pretend that military style semi autos are used for hunting and self defense *wink* *wink* but fact is in most states .223 isn't legal for hunting anything but varmints and using a 5.56 or 7.62 round indoors in a self defense situation is begging for collateral damage particularly in an urban setting. Military style semi autos are designed to put firepower in the hands of civilians which is comparable to what a modern infantry soldier carries and that is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Kevinkris]

using a 5.56 or 7.62 round indoors in a self defense situation is begging for collateral damage particularly in an urban setting.

i want to start by thanking you for seconding what i am saying. on the other hand i would like to point out that a .223/5.56 or 7.62 rifle can be just as effective as any other firearm in a home defense situation. anyone who recommends using anything other than hollow point ammunition for defense situations dont know what they are talking about. this is because hollow point ammunition is designed to spread apart upon contact with any surface reducing its ability to penetrate further than intended thus reducing the likely-hood of hurting anyone past your target and if you miss, past your walls. this rifle caliber is no more likely to cause collateral damage that your 12 gauge shotgun. unless you are using FMJ or a .50 rifle you wont really go through much of a wall and keep enough velocity to do much damage.

based on what you have posted i have no doubt you have a solid grasp on strengths of your weapons but i would recommend doing a bit of research on penetration abilities of different firearms so that we do not spread that untrue myth to people on the fence about firearm control.

and yes, every time i write to a state or federal official about this topic i make sure to voice my views and make it clear that i believe the 2A was meant to give the people the right to bare arms and that it means weapons of war because there was no distinction between hunting weapons and those meant for war (to be clear there were and are no distinctions). firearms were invented as weapons of war and today the only difference in that fact is sportsmen have marketed some of those weapons as tools for sporting.

now i dont say this to them but i do feel that incendiary, armor piercing, tracer rounds and full-auto weapons in the hands of an unskilled person is inviting serious or even tragic accidents (not mass shootings but plain old accidents). that being said i have no problem with having strict restrictions (not bans) on such items and should require checks to make sure these are law abiding, trained individuals before they can own them. it may also be a good way to raise money for the national debt if they consigned a chunk of the old weapons from our military to be sold to the public under guidelines that match the current private sales of the controlled weapons that are already out there. im willing to bet many of the soldiers leaving service would like the keep the rifle that they counted on and may have used to save their lives.

 

[BillB1960]

i want to start by thanking you for seconding what i am saying. on the other hand i would like to point out that a .223/5.56 rifle can be just as effective as any other firearm in a home defense situation. anyone who recommends using anything other than hollow point ammunition for defense situations dont know what they are talking about. this is because hollow point ammunition is designed to spread apart upon contact with any surface reducing its ability to penetrate further than intended thus reducing the likely-hood of hurting anyone past your target and if you miss, past your walls. this rifle caliber is no more likely to cause collateral damage that your 12 gauge shotgun.

based on what you have posted i have no doubt you have a solid grasp on strengths of your weapons but i would recommend doing a bit of research on penetration abilities of different firearms so that we do not spread that untrue myth to people on the fence about firearm control.

and yes, every time i write to a state or federal official about this topic i make sure to voice my views and make it clear that i believe the 2A was meant to give the people the right to bare arms and that it means weapons of war because there was no distinction between hunting weapons and those meant for war, they were and are no distinctions. firearms were invented as weapons of war and today the only difference in the fact that sportsmen have marketed some of those weapons as tools for sporting.

Point taken and the fact is any firearm is better than no firearm in a home defense situation. I'm not sure however that the finer points of balistics would be compelling evidence in challenging a ban in court.

 

[Kevinkris]

well they are using that as an argument all the same and unfortunately it seems Michael Moore-ing(making s**t up) facts has become a useful tactic in politics. your probably right about that.

also i did do some editing before your post cam through so if you or anyone else notices the quote above doesnt match my previous post it was a simple timing issue.

 

[fd15k]

Because the reality is that a semi automatic military style rifle is a pretty poor self defense weapon and if a ban is actually signed into law then trying to argue that point before SCOTUS is a loser in my opinion.

That is true. But don't forget that they also reiterated the "common use" boiler plate.

 

[BillB1960]

That is true. But don't forget that they also reiterated the "common use" boiler plate.

Exactly, and I hope that's the tack they take when they argue it. I certainly hope that the NRA has the guts to take the NY ban to SCOTUS this time. The last federal ban never got challenged and I think that was a mistake although I understand the logic behind it.