Oregon SB 978 Place Holder Anti-Gun Bill

[Nick Burkhardt]

Also Scheduled for Tuesday 04/02/2019:

The following bills are heard for the sole purpose of referral to the House Committee on Rules without recommendation:

Work Session

HB 2505
Requires owner or possessor of firearm to secure firearm with trigger or cable lock or in locked container except in specified circumstances.

HB 3299
Directs Department of State Police to conduct study on reporting of attempted unlawful firearm transfers and present report on findings to interim committees of Legislative Assembly related to judiciary on or before September 15, 2020.

HB 3329
Allows gun dealer or person transferring firearms, firearm accessories, firearm components, ammunition or ammunition components for purchase at gun show, or business engaged in repairing or servicing firearms to establish minimum age of 21 years for such purchases, repairs or services.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I sent in the following testimony this morning:

"The last minute gut and stuff of SB978 with 44 pages of very complicated and far reaching legislation pertaining to guns is very disappointing. Until today, SB978 was a few paragraphs dealing with a single minor issue. Opponents now will have only two business days to analyze, develop arguments, and respond to these major changes. It is obvious that the lengthy, numerous, and far reaching new contents of this bill have been planned and ready to insert for a long time, and that the proponents have been waiting to spring this new language on their opponents for quite a while. The ethics displayed by the proponents of this bill are sadly lacking.

There are several problems with the various areas this bill attempts to address in its present form:

1) Transfers involving a temporary loan between friends or family members on a hunting trip require that the transferor apply a cable lock, trigger lock, or place the firearm in a locked box before handing it to the transferee? How would that work and what possible benefit would accrue? I can see it now, a friend hands his unloaded shotgun (safe firearm practices already require that it be unloaded in such a situation) to me so he can cross a barbed wire fence, and he has to apply a trigger lock first, where it resides for 30 seconds before I hand it back to him? Then I do likewise with mine?

2) We make instant criminals out of people who previously owned 80% AR-15 lower receivers which remain unmodified, because they have never applied a serial number to them? The ATF has drawn a line at 80% finished, at or below which the lower receiver is not considered to be a firearm, but Oregon knows better than the federal agency tasked with regulating firearms nationwide, putting Oregon out of step with the federal government and every other state in the nation? At what point is a simple block of aluminum a firearm and when is it not? Is a piece of pipe a shotgun? This provision is so vague that it is probably unconstitutional on its face.

3) I actually do, by choice and out of prudence, adhere to most of the safe storage provisions in this bill. I have small children in my house and if a firearm is not on my physical person it is locked in a safe. My home defense handguns are in pistol safes that can be opened by touch, only by me, in the dark, in a matter of a couple of seconds. I have no quarrel with promoting that idea. However, I have a huge issue with laying strict liability and criminal penalties on firearms owners due to the illegal actions of others. When I was in law school I learned that for hundreds of years, in both American law and British common law, a basic premise of justice was that citizens could not be held responsible for foreseeing the illegal acts of others, and that no liability could be assigned in such a case. This bill proposes to change that ages-old basic premise of Anglo-Saxon law. It is unjust, and unfair. It unduly burdens a firearm owner with a liability due to circumstances over which he has no control. It chills the exercise of a constitutional right. I believe that this too would be unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny.

How much better and more palatable to those who love the law would it be if we used a carrot instead of a stick? Why not grant firearm owners who satisfy reasonable storage requirements strict immunity from any liability if their guns are stolen or misused by unauthorized persons? Anyone who does not adhere to those standards would be vulnerable to being liable in a lawsuit or, in cases of gross negligence, criminal prosecution.

And why is the definition of "safe storage" left up to the discretion of the Oregon Health Authority, which would presumably have the power to change that definition at any time, even after gun owners have spent thousands of dollars complying with a previous ruling? And why is such a responsibility assigned to an organization that on its face has no expertise or experience in regulating firearms?

4) And finally, where is the rash of unlawful or accidental shootings on college campuses and in other public government buildings by CHL holders that requires that we create a hopelessly complicated maze through which CHL holders must navigate when they try to legally carry a concealed firearm? Any trip or errand that merely passes through any of these buildings or their grounds would require that no firearm be carried throughout the totality of the trip in order not to run afoul of this statute. Must a CHL holder consult a lawyer, a title company, and a surveyor when planning any such trip? I can say from experience that it is not obvious to the average person exactly when one is on PSU or U of O property. And how does one ascertain what policy an institution has in place when driving down the street at the posted speed limit?

There is a good reason that previous legislatures thought the firearms pre-emption law was a good idea. It made for uniform, understandable, consistently applied laws throughout the state, laws that the average person could understand and follow. Indeed, the USSC has from time to time reiterated that in order to be constitutional, laws must be fair, easily understandable, and consistently applied.

This part of the proposed statute is a solution in search of a problem. Again I ask, where is the rash of unlawful or accidental shootings on college campuses and in other public government buildings by CHL holders? Far from being trigger happy vigilantes or criminals, as a class CHL holders are 6 times less likely to break the law than are police officers. I can only conclude that this part of the bill is intended as punishment for being willing to be responsible for one's own protection and that of others from violent crime. It is a fact that a licensed CHL holder stopped the mass shooting at Clackamas Town Mall. It is a fact that several mass shootings have been ended or prevented by CHL holders. Is that the behavior we wish to discourage?

This bill is a bad bill that does nothing to increase the safety of our citizens from criminals and insane people with guns, while putting new burdens on people who obey the law. I urge you to vote NO on SB978."

 

[N Monty]

What I want to know is...

If we have a finished 80% receiver, can we just stamp it with a serial number and be in compliance with the law? What does it mean for very old guns without a serial number?

 

[bunnybunny]

What I want to know is...

If we have a finished 80% receiver, can we just stamp it with a serial number and be in compliance with the law? What does it mean for very old guns without a serial number?

The way I am reading the law as written is that current home manufacutered must be serialized per batfe specs. There is nothing about registering with the state. Transfers of a serialized 80% would require a background check and Oregon keeps those records.

 

[N Monty]

Transfers of a serialized 80% would require a background check and Oregon keeps those records.

But that has been true all along. In theory Oregon only keeps those records for 7 years or something, it's not creation of a de-facto registry, is it?

I don't know BATFE serialization specs, but I have no problem chonking a number into the lower with some punches if that's all I need to do to stay legal... but I'm not going to drive down to an OSP office and bend over for inspection if that's what they expect.

Edit: So I'm very open to further thoughts or advice on the matter if there are any subject matter experts. Also happy to help NWFA members mill 80% lowers before this goes effective.

 

[tiggers97]

But that has been true all along. In theory Oregon only keeps those records for 7 years or something, it's not creation of a de-facto registry, is it?

5 years. It used to be 30 days as claimed by Oregon State Police (OSP) when Prozanski called them in to quell concerns it was a registry. Then 6 months later Brown directed the OSP to keep them for the full 5 years, as outlined in Oregon Law. But that's just for the background check.

I have no doubt they have "sales records", which with universal background checks is nearly almost as good as a registry.

 

[N Monty]

I have no doubt they have "sales records", which with universal background checks is nearly almost as good as a registry.

I remember when Oregon was a Free State. Little by little, that's slipping from us as we descend into big-government nanny-statism. It breaks my heart.

 

[tiggers97]

For those of you with facebook, and looking to send photo's of the rally turn out:
Defend the 2nd Rally

 

[ZigZagZeke]

What I want to know is...

If we have a finished 80% receiver, can we just stamp it with a serial number and be in compliance with the law? What does it mean for very old guns without a serial number?

The way I read it, you'd be an instant criminal if you already owned an unfinished 80% receiver when this bill went into effect.

 

[N Monty]

The way I read it, you'd be an instant criminal if you already owned an unfinished 80% receiver when this bill went into effect.

But a finished 80% receiver?
Spin up those bits and let's get milling, squad!

Still trying to decipher if stamping a SN on a finished 80% would bring it into compliance.
This badly written bill is quite a load of dogscat.

 

[tiggers97]

But a finished 80% receiver?
Spin up those bits and let's get milling, squad!

Still trying to decipher if stamping a SN on a finished 80% would bring it into compliance.
This badly written bill is quite a load of dogscat.

I found that confusing as well. My first/second read thru it sounds like just possessing an 80% receiver would be a felony.

A good law is transparent to a law abiding citizen, while only being onerous to a criminal (a bad law is the other way around). So, if they really are scared of "downloadable guns" and 80% receivers, why not make it a felony for a prohibited person to have one, or if someone is convicted of a felony first? (i.e. a drug dealer who might have some on hand with the intent of using them in a crime or guard their illegal drugs later on).

Otherwise, once they go to 81%, a criminal/prohibited person is already breaking the law by being in possession of a firearm.

 

[N Monty]

By their own words,

'Unserialized firearm' means a firearm that does not bear a serial number in accordance with the procedures for the serialization of a firearm in 18 U.S.C. 923(i) and all regulations issued under the authority of 18 U.S.C. 923(i), including but not limited to 27 C.F.R. 478.92.​

But those procedures are for manufacturers, not home gunsmiths. Per 18 U.S.C. 923(i):

Licensed importers and licensed manufacturers shall identify by means of a serial number engraved or cast on the receiver or frame of the weapon, in such manner as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, each firearm imported or manufactured by such importer or manufacturer.​

But I'm not a lawyer and I'm surely incorrect. I guess OR wants to ban all home gunsmithing now.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

But a finished 80% receiver?
Spin up those bits and let's get milling, squad!

Still trying to decipher if stamping a SN on a finished 80% would bring it into compliance.
This badly written bill is quite a load of dogscat.

The federal rule pointed out in the statute speaks only about people licensed to manufacture or import firearms applying serial numbers. It sounds to me like you might have to get a manufacturer's license.

 

[N Monty]

Which is ridiculous, because you only need that license if you intend to sell your completed product. Per the ATF:

With certain exceptions, and subject to any state law that might apply, as long as an individual is not prohibited from possessing a firearm, he or she can make a firearm for personal use. If an individual wants to manufacture and sell firearms, he or she is required to obtain a license, and mark each firearm manufactured in accordance with 27 CFR 478.92. [18 U.S.C. 923(i), 26 U.S.C. 5822]
​

I'm just about done with this turd of a state, if something doesn't change soon. The way things are going, they can keep their needle ridden parks and tent-littered highways. Keep the totalitarian legislature. I'll go be free, somewhere else.

 

[Defense Minister]

Here's the email where you can make your voices heard by the legislature. Please reference SB 978

[email protected]

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Here's the email where you can make your voices heard by the legislature. Please reference SB 978

[email protected]

Already sent this to them:

"The last minute gut and stuff of SB978 with 44 pages of very complicated and far reaching legislation pertaining to guns is very disappointing. Until today, SB978 was a few paragraphs dealing with a single minor issue. Opponents now will have only two business days to analyze, develop arguments, and respond to these major changes. It is obvious that the lengthy, numerous, and far reaching new contents of this bill have been planned and ready to insert for a long time, and that the proponents have been waiting to spring this new language on their opponents for quite a while. The ethics displayed by the proponents of this bill are sadly lacking.

There are several problems with the various areas this bill attempts to address in its present form:

1) Transfers involving a temporary loan between friends or family members on a hunting trip require that the transferor apply a cable lock, trigger lock, or place the firearm in a locked box before handing it to the transferee? How would that work and what possible benefit would accrue? I can see it now, a friend hands his unloaded shotgun (safe firearm practices already require that it be unloaded in such a situation) to me so he can cross a barbed wire fence, and he has to apply a trigger lock first, where it resides for 30 seconds before I hand it back to him? Then I do likewise with mine?

2) We make instant criminals out of people who previously owned 80% AR-15 lower receivers which remain unmodified, because they have never applied a serial number to them? The ATF has drawn a line at 80% finished, at or below which the lower receiver is not considered to be a firearm, but Oregon knows better than the federal agency tasked with regulating firearms nationwide, putting Oregon out of step with the federal government and every other state in the nation? At what point is a simple block of aluminum a firearm and when is it not? Is a piece of pipe a shotgun? This provision is so vague that it is probably unconstitutional on its face.

3) I actually do, by choice and out of prudence, adhere to most of the safe storage provisions in this bill. I have small children in my house and if a firearm is not on my physical person it is locked in a safe. My home defense handguns are in pistol safes that can be opened by touch, only by me, in the dark, in a matter of a couple of seconds. I have no quarrel with promoting that idea. However, I have a huge issue with laying strict liability and criminal penalties on firearms owners due to the illegal actions of others. When I was in law school I learned that for hundreds of years, in both American law and British common law, a basic premise of justice was that citizens could not be held responsible for foreseeing the illegal acts of others, and that no liability could be assigned in such a case. This bill proposes to change that ages-old basic premise of Anglo-Saxon law. It is unjust, and unfair. It unduly burdens a firearm owner with a liability due to circumstances over which he has no control. It chills the exercise of a constitutional right. I believe that this too would be unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny.

How much better and more palatable to those who love the law would it be if we used a carrot instead of a stick? Why not grant firearm owners who satisfy reasonable storage requirements strict immunity from any liability if their guns are stolen or misused by unauthorized persons? Anyone who does not adhere to those standards would be vulnerable to being liable in a lawsuit or, in cases of gross negligence, criminal prosecution.

And why is the definition of "safe storage" left up to the discretion of the Oregon Health Authority, which would presumably have the power to change that definition at any time, even after gun owners have spent thousands of dollars complying with a previous ruling? And why is such a responsibility assigned to an organization that on its face has no expertise or experience in regulating firearms?

4) And finally, where is the rash of unlawful or accidental shootings on college campuses and in other public government buildings by CHL holders that requires that we create a hopelessly complicated maze through which CHL holders must navigate when they try to legally carry a concealed firearm? Any trip or errand that merely passes through any of these buildings or their grounds would require that no firearm be carried throughout the totality of the trip in order not to run afoul of this statute. Must a CHL holder consult a lawyer, a title company, and a surveyor when planning any such trip? I can say from experience that it is not obvious to the average person exactly when one is on PSU or U of O property. And how does one ascertain what policy an institution has in place when driving down the street at the posted speed limit? There is a good reason that previous legislatures thought the firearms pre-emption law was a good idea. It made for uniform, understandable, consistently applied laws throughout the state, laws that the average person could understand and follow. Indeed, the USSC has from time to time reiterated that in order to be constitutional, laws must be fair, easily understandable, and consistently applied.

This part of the proposed statute is a solution in search of a problem. Again I ask, where is the rash of unlawful or accidental shootings on college campuses and in other public government buildings by CHL holders? Far from being trigger happy vigilantes or criminals, as a class CHL holders are 6 times less likely to break the law than are police officers. I can only conclude that this part of the bill is intended as punishment for being willing to be responsible for one's own protection and that of others from violent crime. It is a fact that a licensed CHL holder stopped the mass shooting at Clackamas Town Mall. It is a fact that several mass shootings have been ended or prevented by CHL holders. Is that the behavior we wish to discourage?

This bill is a bad bill that does nothing to will increase the safety of our citizens from criminals and insane people with guns, while putting new burdens on people who obey the law. I urge you to vote NO on SB978."

 

[jackrv]

By their own words,

'Unserialized firearm' means a firearm that does not bear a serial number in accordance with the procedures for the serialization of a firearm in 18 U.S.C. 923(i) and all regulations issued under the authority of 18 U.S.C. 923(i), including but not limited to 27 C.F.R. 478.92.​

But those procedures are for manufacturers, not home gunsmiths. Per 18 U.S.C. 923(i):

Licensed importers and licensed manufacturers shall identify by means of a serial number engraved or cast on the receiver or frame of the weapon, in such manner as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, each firearm imported or manufactured by such importer or manufacturer.​

But I'm not a lawyer and I'm surely incorrect. I guess OR wants to ban all home gunsmithing now.

What about those guns that were made before serial numbers? I have a couple from around the turn of the century and they do not have numbers.

 

[N Monty]

What about those guns that were made before serial numbers? I have a couple from around the turn of the century and they do not have numbers.

Your unserialized 1930's Sears & Roebuck 22LR is now a deadly, untraceable, ghost assault gun!

 

[Pete F]

I sent emails to the Republicans on the committee and Prozanski Prior to the amendments to SB978 and another round after the amendments were made and included the Senate President. I wasn't as polite as I could have been, but I am sure that I got my message across - Oregonians deserve better from out legislature.

 

[tkdguy]

Sent the Federal judge's decision against California Prop 63 magazine ban to Sen. Dennis Linthicum who I believe is the chair person of a firearms committee to oversee gun laws.

Still not listing on FB on the above Fed decision despite a few postings. Something is not right. None appeared on Oregon Firearms Advocated. I looked at OFF and this decision was not there. This is a critical decision but looks like some aggressive screening is occurring the the information is not getting out.