Oregon SB 348 gutted and stuffed to rewrite Measure 114 3/34/23

[peteNW503]

An Oregon republican about the equivalent of a Florida democrat, they both seem to have the same spine. We seem to have very little representation here and I'm growing tired of living in this state.

No kidding just sad that so many long time Oregonians are being driven out due to the poor management of Oregon. Use to be a somewhat beautiful state but the liberal views completely destroyed this state. Doesn't help being sandwiched between Cali and Washington. I just can't but I can believe that they would back door this bill. The fact that anybody can be jailed for 1 year per mag or whatever is absurd. The state of Oregon has failed us. There are no checks and balances anymore.

 

[PiratePast40]

@PiratePast40 I will second @kmk1012 and say I appreciate everything your doing and working a couple of the shows with you were both fun and informative.

Thanks

 

[AshWilliams]

If this BS passes I'll be rounding up the family and leaving Oregon. The bridges I burn behind me will illuminate the path before me to a free state.

 

[kopcicle]

They might need that military soon. Best not overly piss them off any more than they already have.

Well, in Washington ...

RCW 9.41.220 Unlawful firearms and parts contraband. All machine guns, bump-fire stocks, undetectable firearms, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles, or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, illegally held or illegally possessed are hereby declared to be contraband, and it shall be the duty of all peace officers, and/or any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington, to seize said machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or parts thereof, wherever and whenever found. [2019 c 243 § 4; 2018 c 7 § 4; 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 421; 1933 c 64 § 4; RRS § 2518-4.] Effective dates—2018 c 7: See note following RCW 9.41.010. Finding—Intent—Severability—1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540. Effective date—1994 sp.s. c 7 §§ 401-410, 413-416, 418-437, and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010.

Now check Oregon for the same presumptive BS

 

[Local Loader]

Well, in Washington ...

RCW 9.41.220 Unlawful firearms and parts contraband. All machine guns, bump-fire stocks, undetectable firearms, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles, or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, illegally held or illegally possessed are hereby declared to be contraband, and it shall be the duty of all peace officers, and/or any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington, to seize said machine gun, bump-fire stock, undetectable firearm, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or parts thereof, wherever and whenever found. [2019 c 243 § 4; 2018 c 7 § 4; 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 421; 1933 c 64 § 4; RRS § 2518-4.] Effective dates—2018 c 7: See note following RCW 9.41.010. Finding—Intent—Severability—1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540. Effective date—1994 sp.s. c 7 §§ 401-410, 413-416, 418-437, and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010.

Now check Oregon for the same presumptive BS

Since when can the state tell the US military what to do?
I can't see any intelligent cop trying to enforce that as it runs a high risk of them getting shot.

 

[Nutty4Guns]

Since when can the state tell the US military what to do?
I can't see any intelligent cop trying to enforce that as it runs a high risk of them getting shot.

Excuse me sir, my name is private Gomer Pyle. You need to hand over that machine gun to me right now. You aren't to have that on your person. Golly!

 

[Local Loader]

So I'm still trying to figure this out, so someone help me out here.
We have laws in place that say you're innocent until proven guilty. So the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff or the accuser i.e. the state.
So how is it that when it comes to the mags YOU ARE GUILTY until YOU prove your innocent, there by placing the burden of proof on you, the defendant?
Would it not be the responsibility of the state to prove you got them after the supposed date?

 

[Nutty4Guns]

Would it not be the responsibility of the state to prove you got them after the supposed date?

Yes, but they don't care and dare you to spend money to fight them.

 

[Local Loader]

Yes, but they don't care and dare you to spend money to fight them.

See that's where they have to care, I can already see what will happen and that's likely what they want.
The moment a cop trys to arrest someone for refusing to prove they already had the mag and ends up getting killed over it or the other person gets killed.
I don't see this ending pretty for any law enforcement.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

So I'm still trying to figure this out, so someone help me out here.
We have laws in place that say you're innocent until proven guilty. So the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff or the accuser i.e. the state.
So how is it that when it comes to the mags you are guilt until YOU prove your innocent, there by placing the burden of proof on you, the defendant?
Would it not be the responsibility of the state to prove you got them after the supposed date?

It's bizzarro world where the criminals are found guilty and then let free over and over to commit more violent crimes.

Meanwhile law abiding citizens with no criminal behavior are considered criminals simply by owning constitutionally guaranteed guns or standard capacity magazines.

 

[The Heretic]

Since when can the state tell the US military what to do?
I can't see any intelligent cop trying to enforce that as it runs a high risk of them getting shot.

I am thinking this clause is in there to give the governor/SoS cover for ordering the NG/et. al. to confiscate firearms. Not sure if that would pass muster, but maybe the authors think it would.

 

[Local Loader]

I am thinking this clause is in there to give the governor/SoS cover for ordering the NG/et. al. to confiscate firearms. Not sure if that would pass muster, but maybe the authors think it would.

I'm thinking you're right or they added it knowing it wouldn't work or be enforced. Just to distract us from the more critical parts they are trying to hide that are going to do more damage but their plans would fail if there discovered.

 

[raftman]

So I'm still trying to figure this out, so someone help me out here.
We have laws in place that say you're innocent until proven guilty. So the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff or the accuser i.e. the state.
So how is it that when it comes to the mags YOU ARE GUILTY until YOU prove your innocent, there by placing the burden of proof on you, the defendant?
Would it not be the responsibility of the state to prove you got them after the supposed date?

Just to get the obligatory qualifier out of the way first, I'm not defending the way the bill is written and think the proposed law in question is moronic and evil in its entirety, just trying to explain how they can attempt legally justify arguing one can be guilty until proven innocent. They think of it as analogous to how a self-defense shooting is approached: If you shoot and kill someone, that is a homicide, which is not a crime in a legitimate self-defense situation but is a crime in most other cases. If there's no reasonable doubt you shot/killed someone, it's on you to prove it was self-defense or else you're guilty of a crime. It's not whether you shot someone that's in question, but whether the circumstances are such that the shooting was legally permissible. They propose approaching magazine possession the same way. If there's no reasonable doubt you possessed the 10+ mag, it's on you to prove that it's under the legally-allowed circumstances.

As I indicated in the beginning, I don't buy into this logic and don't find these things to actually be analogous, but that is how they are trying to frame it.

 

[Local Loader]

Just to get the obligatory qualifier out of the way first, I'm not defending the way the bill is written and think the proposed law in question is moronic and evil in its entirety, just trying to explain how they can attempt legally justify arguing one can be guilty until proven innocent. They think of it as analogous to how a self-defense shooting is approached: If you shoot and kill someone, that is a homicide, which is not a crime in a legitimate self-defense situation but is a crime in most other cases. If there's no reasonable doubt you shot/killed someone, it's on you to prove it was self-defense or else you're guilty of a crime. It's not whether you shot someone that's in question, but whether the circumstances are such that the shooting was legally permissible. They propose approaching magazine possession the same way. If there's no reasonable doubt you possessed the 10+ mag, it's on you to prove that it's under the legally-allowed circumstances.

As I indicated in the beginning, I don't buy into this logic and don't find these things to actually be analogous, but that is how they are trying to frame it.

I understand what you're saying, but it seems like they would still need to prove that I got them after said date. Otherwise, it likely leads to a mistrial due to lack of evidence. The only way I can see that they try an charge you it to charge you with possession, but even that would be a hard sell as possession of them wouldn't be illegal, only the date in which you got them.
Likely the reason why no one that I'm aware of in Washington has been arrested for having them. Speculation of course, based on the limited info I have available as I don't live there.
This all seems like it would be violation of the 4th Admendment if they tried. Not that that's stopped them before.

 

[arakboss]

Here's the OFF alert: https://www.oregonfirearms.org/gun-bills-pass-out-of-committee
04.04.2023

Hydrogen and Stupidity Are The Most Common Things In The Universe. But Not In That Order.

Today anti-gun bills moved in both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Joint Subcommittee on Ways and Means.

In Senate Judiciary SB 348, as amended, passed on party lines. However, Prozanski also pulled another switcheroo and added another gut and stuff to another "placeholder" bill, SB 393.

It is unknown what the purpose of SB393 is. While it has a different implementation date than SB348, it does not appear to include any new provisions.

One thing that was clear at the hearing was that none of the members of the committee had any idea what this added bill does.

Prozanski's attempts to explain it demonstrated he had no idea what his own amended bill does or why.

In his garbled explanation he could not even keep the different bills straight.

In defending it, Prozanski took the bizarre position that it would save lives by adding a 72 hour waiting period before a person could take possession of a gun they bought. He appeared to be completely unaware that this language was already in his other anti-gun bill, SB 348.

But the truly inexplicable part, and something no one questioned, was why having to wait 72 hours would reduce dangerous impulses any more than the 8 to 12 months a person already had to wait under SB 348. That's if they are lucky and the Oregon State Police ever start doing their job.

What is clear, is that along with all the other elements of these bills, anyone with any firearm's magazine will be subject to arrest after it becomes law. And despite the incorrect information given today by the committee counsel, under SB 348, if you are charged with possession of a magazine, you have no right to the presumption of innocence. The "affirmative defense" mentioned in the bill means it will be up to you to prove you're not guilty. And by the way, that's impossible. No photograph or receipt means a damn thing for devices that all look alike and have no serial numbers.

In the Joint Subcommittee on Ways and Means. HB 2005 A moved forward with new amendments .

This bill strips young adults of their right to own modern firearms, bans personally manufactured firearms, and places vast and unspecified areas of Oregon off limits to CHL holders. The discussion around banned places also demonstrated the terrifying ignorance legislators have about the bills they pass. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, one of the most extreme opponents of constitutional rights, intentionally mischaracterized the bill to suggest the firearm's prohibitions only included "buildings" when in fact they include undefined "grounds adjacent to". Something Rep. Rick Lewis had to correct. In a moment of obvious deceit, Steiner Hayward insisted that she would find it very "problematic" if localities actually enforced the law and charged people for being close to a public building. But she did agree it could happen.

Anti-gun zealot Paul Evans made the preposterous claim that this bill "protected" localities that did NOT want to institute gun bans and this somehow prevented the state from coming back and changing the rules. Given that changing the agreed upon rules is all the Democrats have been doing for years, this comment was beyond ludicrous.

These bills combined will essentially end Second Amendment rights in Oregon.

At this time there has been no indication that the Republicans plan to do anything to stop them. In fact, they often help the Democrats pass bills.

They are content to sit back and be crushed by the Democrats and leave it to the taxpayers to fund an endless stream of lawsuits. So far none of them have offered to bankroll any of those lawsuits.

If the Republicans are on the floor for votes on any of these bills, their votes are "yes" votes no matter which button they press.

Your rights will evaporate and they will ask you for money to keep them in office.

These are the Republican "leaders."

Senator Tim Knopp

503-986-1727

Representative Vikki Breese Iverson

503-986-1459

One more bit of info regarding affirmative defense language in SB 348. It allows for the accused to surrender offending magazines to police as an affirmative defense. If the law passes (it will) and you are caught with prohibited mags, you could immediately surrender them over to police and avoid charges. Surrendering of prohibited mags would need to occur before formal charges, citation or arrest occurred. In the case of previous transfers that they retroactively charge people and FFLs with, the affirmative defense probably won't be much help.

6) It is an affirmative defense, as provided in ORS 161.055, to
the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine
in this state by any person that the person has permanently and volun-
tarily relinquished the large-capacity magazine to law enforcement, or to a
buyback or turn-in program approved by law enforcement, prior to the com-
mencement of prosecution for the possession, use or transfer by arrest,
citation or a formal charge.

 

[winners58]

The SB348 -3 amendment passed out of committee,
doesn't seem to change the magazine part,
I think only parts of the bill have to be challenged in Marion county
so might not affect the Harney county case involving magazines

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/ProposedAmendment/24398

 

[Yarome]

Just to get the obligatory qualifier out of the way first, I'm not defending the way the bill is written and think the proposed law in question is moronic and evil in its entirety, just trying to explain how they can attempt legally justify arguing one can be guilty until proven innocent. They think of it as analogous to how a self-defense shooting is approached: If you shoot and kill someone, that is a homicide, which is not a crime in a legitimate self-defense situation but is a crime in most other cases. If there's no reasonable doubt you shot/killed someone, it's on you to prove it was self-defense or else you're guilty of a crime. It's not whether you shot someone that's in question, but whether the circumstances are such that the shooting was legally permissible. They propose approaching magazine possession the same way. If there's no reasonable doubt you possessed the 10+ mag, it's on you to prove that it's under the legally-allowed circumstances.

As I indicated in the beginning, I don't buy into this logic and don't find these things to actually be analogous, but that is how they are trying to frame it.

I understand what you are saying and that they are ignoring critical elements in their "reasoning" on purpose. Such as... reasonable knowledge, willful action and intent must exist in violation of a standing law.

In a defensive shooting a person knows that his/her firearm is capable of inflicting bodily injury, willfully decides to act by pulling the trigger and they have demonstratable intent of inflicting bodily injury on another. Therefore... in voiation of several laws currently in affect (brandishing, discharge of a firearm, assault, attempted murder, etc.)... which then requires demonstrating justifiable cause.

In the case of a mag purchase, there was no active law... obviating any knowledge, action or intent... so there can be no punishable crime to have to defend against. In the "real world" that is.

They have to know it won't stand, but it doesn't have to. The threat of it will have a chilling affect and defending any charge (bogus as it is) will be costly. Prompting some to act to avoid any risk. Not to mention, discourage some from even opting to purchase their first firearm simply due to the complexity of laws and potential associated risks of owning one.

IMHO, as I mentioned before, it really seems more like simply a vindictive punitive action against those that opposed their will with 114. That's how the woke mind works. "Destroy any that oppose us" is their mantra.

 

[The Heretic]

They have to know it won't stand, but it doesn't have to. The threat of it will have a chilling affect and defending any charge (bogus as it is) will be costly. Prompting some to act to avoid any risk. Not to mention, discourage some from even opting to purchase their first firearm simply due to the complexity of laws and potential associated risks of owning one.

This.

Maybe they know, maybe they are just hoping, maybe they actually believe. I am sure some know.

But as you said, the first poor souls who have to test it in court will suffer in a number of ways - unless there is a proactive lawsuit on these specific issues (possession/proof & ex post facto), which I hope there will be.

 

[solv3nt]

This.

Maybe they know, maybe they are just hoping, maybe they actually believe. I am sure some know.

But as you said, the first poor souls who have to test it in court will suffer in a number of ways - unless there is a proactive lawsuit on these specific issues (possession/proof & ex post facto), which I hope there will be.

True, but how many people have they charged with sb941?

 

[Yarome]

True, but how many people have they charged with sb941?

Anyone willing to talk about that... be sure the 2yr statute of limitations on your most recent buy/sell has expired.

Just sayin......





[No comment....]