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

[Baggerman]

I hope that everyone here that is pissed about this will join me in Salem on the 8th and THANK YOU if you were there with me on the 19th. Let the bastards in Salem know we are not going to take it and if they vote for this we will vote them out!

 

[fd15k]

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.

The reason why magazine limits haven't been challenged yet is because there is a bigger fish to fry. Two major fights are right to carry and.... actually "Assault Weapons". And my bid is actually on SAF, not on NRA. Here is the list of what's happening :

<broken link removed>

 

[BillB1960]

Here in Oregon, .22 center fire is legal for most game other than Elk, Big Horn Sheep, and Rocky mountain goat. My .223 is my preferred deer, bear, and antelope hunting caliber. It does less damage than most other calibers enabling me to save more meat for my table. I do use a standard bolt rifle for wide open hunting, but when hunting in brush i use my AR. Not only does it weigh 10 less pounds than my rifle, but it hangs up on less brush, is easier to maneuver, and is easier to get on a target without a large scope getting in the way thus making it more effective. With my AR i am able acquisition targets faster and able to get off multiple shots if needed making me a more successful hunter when hunting in heavy brush. Also i am able to cover a lot more territory when packing my 6.5 lb AR compared to my 16 lb .223 hunting rifle. I also use my AR for varmint hunting, but its primary use is for putting meat on my table. Just saying not all people buy them for self defense. By the way i do not buy BEEF, the only meat i eat is wild game so depending on what tool i need to get the job done, i am going to use it.

I understand what you're saying. Hunting regulations vary county to county nevermind state to state. There are lots of areas mainly back east that don't allow hunting with rifles at all. The point is that the 2A is still not about hunting or self defense or sport shooting.

 

[df662]

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.

As a former civilian owner of class 3 full auto firearms I can tell you that those items are already heavily regulated and already taxed by the government ($200 tax for each NFA/Class 3 transfer, background checks and average wait times of 4-7 months). Armor piercing ammo is already heavily regulated by the ATF (no sales allowed although you can load your own IF you can find the components).


We do not need more laws on any of these items as there is already plenty of laws on the books....

 

[DieselScout]

Disregard... can't delete post from phone.

 

[ARKLITE881South]

No doubt the Class 3 stuff is heavily regulated, and, they could, and will try maybe a ''compromise'' by trying to levy a tax on all ''assault'' style weapons, like AR's, AK's, and other variants just to see how really bad you want to keep yours. Lets see them start cleaning up the illegal weapons owned by FELONS first. ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS NOW! Screw making up more.

 

[762fullmetaljacket]

As of today, the bill is still with the Judiciary Committee. To keep the pressure on, I just sent the following very short message to each member of the Judiciary Committee:



I respectfully ask you to oppose SB346. *

This bill will do nothing to deter crime. It is only designed to harass law abiding, hard working citizens like myself. The bill sponsor, Ginny Burdick, has been waiting for the opportunity to draw attention to her personal beliefs, and to attempt to push her personal agenda against the people of Oregon.

Thank you for your time.

 

[civilian75]

i have stopped suggesting where they should go start legislating more controls, let it be mental health, Hollywood movies or of games. I see it as finger pointing.

Although I do not disagree each one of them play some sort of role, the bottom line is, every individual is responsible for their acts, and is accountable to family, country and God.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Burdick introduces the same bullbubblegum bills every year, and every year she gets laughed out of the senate. She's a joke. She hopes to cash in on the panic enough to get one of her draconian bills passed. I'm not saying don't write your legislators but this is like having a PETA member proposing a bill on wildlife management.
If this actually passed then Oregon is truly lost and I will leave my home state. But don't sell off your 30 round mags or start "compromising" yet.

 

[skud_dusty]

Here's some email address, formatted for an easy copy/paste, to help make your voice heard


[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

 

[RBid]

Oregon Senate Bill 346 is a proposed ban on sale or transfer of magazines over 10 rounds in Oregon.

Please contact your state legislators. Exercise your voice.

Edited to add:

We have seen large areas implement mag restrictions, for long periods of time. CA, NJ, NY, IL, etc-- with no corresponding positive result. Capacity restrictions have been demonstrated to be ineffective. We do not need one.


<broken link removed>

 

[PiratePast40]

There is another post on this as well as the companion bill - SB347. Are they out of committee?

Edit - as an FYI, here's a link for tracking the status of Oregon bills: http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/


Mods, can we get these threads merged? Here's the original thread: http://www.northwestfirearms.com/legal-political/118344-oregon-state-senate-bill-346-restricts-sale-transfer-large-capacity-magazines.html

 

[skud_dusty]

I respectfully ask you to oppose SB346.

This bill will do nothing to deter crime. It is only designed to harass law abiding, hard working citizens like myself. The bill sponsor, Ginny Burdick, has been waiting for the opportunity to draw attention to her personal beliefs, and to attempt to push her personal agenda against the people of Oregon.

Thank you for your time.

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Copy and paste. Send it 500 times a day.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

I shoot left, and vote right.

 

[NiceAsh]

Here is a response I just received:

Dear Rod:

Thank you for writing regarding SB 346. I will consider it carefully when voting. From the research that I have done, I have found that "stopping power" is very important in an attack with several attackers. I question whether limiting ammunition clips to 10 bullets is wise because a victim would not be able to deliver the firepower needed to save their lives.

Obviously, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution does not specify or mention a limit on number of firearms or ammunition. Instead it speaks of a balance of power in weaponry. I will vote to uphold the Second Amendment.

Sincerely,

Senator Betsy Close
Oregon District 8

 

[DieselScout]

Here is a response I just received:

I got the same thing from Ms. Close today.

 

[Father of four]

" Instead it speaks of a balance of power in weaponry."

Where does it say that?

 

[accessbob]

" Instead it speaks of a balance of power in weaponry."

Where does it say that?

Doesn't really but the writings of the Constitution framers specify that concept.

 

[Father of four]

Balance of power as in governmental power? Balance of power as firearm power?

 

[pokerace]

Reply I received from Senator Close. Sent mail this morning and recevied reply at 11:48 AM this morn.


Thank you for writing regarding SB 346. I will consider it carefully when voting. From the research that I have done, I have found that "stopping power" is very important in an attack with several attackers. I question whether limiting ammunition clips to 10 bullets is wise because a victim would not be able to deliver the firepower needed to save their lives.

Obviously, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution does not specify or mention a limit on number of firearms or ammunition. Instead it speaks of a balance of power in weaponry. I will vote to uphold the Second Amendment.

Sincerely,

Senator Betsy Close
Oregon District 8