Oregon SB 978 Place Holder Anti-Gun Bill

[NW Backpacker]

There are no serial numbers on AR type upper receivers, which are what is defined as a receiver in Section 18 (5). They would all be illegal. The serial number on an AR type rifle is on the lower receiver, from which the upper can be detached in seconds and replaced with a different upper. Gawd, how stupid are these people?

Don't ask how stupid they can get. They seem to be taking it as a challenge.

 

[NW Backpacker]

I called every D senator and left a message to vote no - phone was answered by a person in most cases - left message for the others. Everyone was polite and said they'd pass the message.

I also left a voice mail for the Governor. Her phone number is 503-378-4582. Call her.

I urged a NO vote on SB 978, with my main objection being Amendment 5, section 25 which allows public buildings and grounds to be made off-limits to carrying concealed, and the resulting legal hazard it would create for CHL permit holders - probably the most law-abiding group in the country.

 

[arakboss]

Confirmation has been achieved! Sen Roblan's office responded to my letter complaining about Section 17 (1) (b) and Section 17 (2). They took my concerns to the Legislative Council and received this reply back from the Council:

"As it is right now – if the bill wouldn't qualify as an antique firearm then there is no grand fathering process for otherwise non-conforming firearms. I will bring this up to the Chair and see if its something he thinks there needs to be an amendment for and what that would look like. The difficulty, as I'm sure you can imagine, is figuring out what the "cut off" is for having these firearms – but the simple answer for your constituent is that there is not currently a provision that would allow him to continue to possess that firearm lawfully."

Note, I typed the message as it was sent to me, I believe the word "bill" is a typo in the first sentence. His assistant said that Sen. Roblan is a no on this bill for now. Let's keep the pressure on Sen. Roblan and on Sen. Beyer as well.

 

[HDR]

For anyone interested in the Minority Report issued by Sen Thatcher last week.. I sent her a letter of thanks and asked if it would in fact be able to stop this bill. Below is the response I received this morning.
————————————————

"Unfortunately, OFF is correct. What typically happens is there is a 3rd reading of the bill on the Senate Floor (or House Floor-depending on where the bill is). Then the minority (Republicans) introduce a Minority Report. There is some debate and then the vote to adopt the Minority Reportis taken. It only takes a simple majority to kill vote it down. I have never seen a Minority Report adopted. It just ends up being a procedure to delay vote on the actual bill. It never does any good in this legislature.


Thank you for your support of Senator Thatcher.


Linda Heimdahl
Chief of Staff
State Senator Kim Thatcher"

————————————————
Although Linda didn't seem to think it will be the end-all, I do see a glimmer of hope in the fact that a simple majority vote could adopt the Minority Report. I wonder if the Dems supposedly against the -5 amendment would vote to adopt the Minority Report rather than vote no on the -5 amendment?? Possibly saving face with their base? Me: picturing Jim Carey saying "so you're saying there's a chance".

 

[arakboss]

I sent another letter to Sen. Beyer:

Sen. Beyer,

I sent my concerns regarding Section 17 (1) (b) and Section 17 (2) of SB 978-5 banning older firearms to Sen. Roblan's office. His assistant Taylor, confirmed with the Legislative Office that my concerns with this bill are legitimate. This was the Legislative Office's reply:

As it is right now – if the bill[sic] wouldn't qualify as an antique firearm then there is no grand fathering process for otherwise non-conforming firearms. I will bring this up to the Chair and see if its something he thinks there needs to be an amendment for and what that would look like. The difficulty, as I'm sure you can imagine, is figuring out what the "cut off" is for having these firearms – but the simple answer for your constituent is that there is not currently a provision that would allow him to continue to possess that firearm lawfully.

This is a huge problem that I don't believe can be fixed with an amendment especially in light of all the other awful issues with the bill. I am asking for you to reject this bill and join Sen. Roblan, Sen. Johnson and the Republican Senators to vote no on this bill if it comes to the floor for a vote. There will be better bills ahead that will address firearm storage and access to firearms by felons.

Thank you.


P.S. Below is a lengthy description of the reasons why SB 978-5 will criminalize hundreds of thousands of currently lawfully owned firearms in Oregon:

In case this aspect of SB 978-5 has not been brought to your attention yet, please be advised of the following. Section 17 (1) (b) & Section 17 (2) will criminalize possession of nearly all pre-1968 firearms manufactured in US, nearly all firearms imported in to US prior to 1968 and nearly all home built firearms made with unserialized receivers or frames regardless of date. SB 978-5 does not offer any grandfathering clause for these groups of firearms. That will result in hundreds of thousands of currently owned firearms becoming illegal with passage of the bill as currently written. Washington State has a similar law in the works (SHB1739) but it grandfathers in all untraceable firearms manufactured before July 1, 2019.

SB 978-5 requires that nearly all firearms in Oregon have a serial number that was done by the licensed manufacture of the firearm in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 923(i) & 27 C.F.R regulations. Although many older firearms have serial numbers, many won't be legal under SB 978-5 law. Pre-1968 U.S. made and imported firearms will not have serial numbers done in accordance with the federal regulations.
I want to emphasize that even if a firearm has a serial number, if it was manufactured prior to 1968, that serial number doesn't meet the SB 978-5 requirements. A lot of people are assuming any old serial # from the manufacture will exempt their firearms. Serial numbers prior to 1968 were not done in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 923(i) & 27 C.F.R 478.92 because these regulations did not exist. As the ATF fully admits, pre-1968 firearms are not traceable.

"Can a firearm trace always identify the first retail purchaser?
No. Many factors can make the trace of a firearm impossible. The most
common among these is the incomplete or inaccurate description of the
firearm (see Chapter 3 for more information). Other prohibiting factors
include obliterated markings; damage or loss of firearms transaction
records; a manufacturing date prior to 1968; and, trace requests for
firearms that were not manufactured in, or lawfully imported into, the
United States."

Same goes for imported firearms, which may have a serial number from the foreign factory but that won't exempt them from SB 978-5 prohibition. Firearms imported before 1968 are going to suffer the same fate. If your imported firearm doesn't have a importer issued serial number and importer identification markings engraved on the firearm, it will be prohibited from possession under SB 978-5 law.

There are a few antique exemptions but it will only impact a tiny fraction of the pre-1968 firearms that will be prohibited.

Home built firearms, including those built off 80% receivers/frames, that were not serialized by a licensed manufacture in accordance with the federal regulations will also be prohibited from possession. Engraving your own serial number at home will not exempt your firearm from this law.



One more important point regarding the untraceable firearms law laid out in Section 17 (1) (b) and Section 17 (2), is that there are no exemptions for FFLs. In the Sections related to unfinished receivers/frames, there are some FFL exemptions but not for untraceable firearm possession. If it passes, FFLs will have a lot of inventory purging to do or risk felony charges and losing their FFL.

Here are the two Sections I've discussed here:

"(b) 'Untraceable firearm' means a firearm other than an antique
firearm for which the sale or distribution chain, from a licensed
retailer to the point of first retail sale, cannot be traced by a law
enforcement agency by means of a serial number affixed to the
firearm by a federally licensed manufacturer or importer in accordance
with 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.


"(2) A person who knowingly possesses, manufactures, assembles,
causes to be manufactured or assembled, imports into this state, offers
for sale, sells or transfers an untraceable firearm commits a Class B
felony.
I will leave you with this thought. I have seen estimates that there are 3 million plus firearms owned by Oregonians. Hundreds of thousands of these firearms will be illegal to possess if SB 978-5 passes. Owners will in many cases unknowingly be committing a Class B Felony simply for continuing to possess a family firearm they have owned for decades and possibly passed down through generations.

 

[arakboss]

Sen. Roblan was sponsoring a bill for the museum ffl firearm transfer exemption. They folded that in to SB 978-5. Maybe we should contact the museum in his district and ask them to ask Sen. Roblan to vote no on SB 978-5 even though that will scuttle their museum firearm transfer exemption law

 

[arakboss]

Oregon Hunters Association appears that it will not be actively engaged in this fight. If you are a member of this organization please contact them and see if you can change their mind. The latest information I can find on their website regarding SB 978-5 is this:
SB 978 Gun Bill Hearing
A hearing room and five or six overflow areas were needed to accommodate all those that came to listen and testify on the SB 978. OHA submitted testimony in opposition to the bill. The bill will likely be up for a work session soon.

I understand they are more interested in hunting related legislation but I think their members would be as mad as we are when they find out about SB 978-5 making nearly all pre-1968 firearms illegal.

Edit: it's a shame if they don't get engaged on this bill as they have a substantial size membership, in the thousands. I sent them this letter but I am not a member so it may not carry much weight:
I understand your group is more interested in legislative efforts surrounding hunting issues but I am asking OHA to step up their effort to fight SB 978-5 as it will have a serious impact on your members. Section 17 (1) (b) Section 17 (2) will prohibit untraceable firearms, which will include nearly all pre-1968 firearms (with very few exceptions for antiques). This is not hyperbole. Sen. Thatcher has filed a Minority Report Amendment that we hope will delay passage of this bill but the legislators need to hear from more of us including your members. Please help! Thank you!

It appears Oregon Hunters Assc. has joined the party. I received this email from them stating:
Hi, OHA is all over it. Thanks! -DD

 

[arakboss]

How's about we hit up some older veteran's groups. They might be more likely to have sentimental firearms they wouldn't want to lose under Section 17 of SB 978-5.

I think Section 17 opposition is close to taking off on it's own. In an effort to prevent legislators from simply amending section 17 to quiet the opposition, I am going to redirect more focus to the next most impactful aspect of this bill. What Section of the bill do you think that is?
Concealed carry restrictions?
Age discrimination?
Firearm storage?

 

[bunnybunny]

Definitely conceal carry restrictions

 

[arakboss]

Definitely conceal carry restrictions

Consider it done! Please send ideas on the least partisan sounding ways to attack this section of the bill.

We are going to need help from others to target this area of concealed carry restrictions, like:
Local concealed carry instructors.
Retired LEOs who are in favor of public concealed carrying.
Maybe even holster makers and ffls who make a substantial part of their living off of concealed carry firearms and related products.
Written testimony letters from those concealed carrying who saved themselves or others from being victimized.
Women's firearm groups.
Mayor's, commisioners and other local authorities who could explain how problematic it would be to implement this and deal with minority anti-carry groups in their jurisdictions if preemption law is weakened.
Etc?

 

[OldTengu]

Consider it done! Please send ideas on the least partisan sounding ways to attack this section of the bill.

Maybe make the point that there is no other license process that requires a clean criminal background (violent felons can still get driver's licenses), and that we as a group have proven that we are safe to carry in that regard, not to mention having paid for the license itself.

 

[arakboss]

I emailed this museum and asked them to send Sen. Roblan and Rep. McKeown letters requesting that they vote no on SB 978-5.
https://www.oregoncoastmilitarymuseum.com

 

[nammac]

We're coming into the Legislative home stretch, only about 8 weeks of so left in this session, let's continue to apply pressure as much as possible.

My focus has been Peter Courtney, he has the ability to keel this legislation off the senate floor, that's exactly what I've been asking him to do. There's simply too many flaws in this bill that came out of committee along party lines and is opposed 5 to 1 by the people. We must adhere to what the People Want!!!!

 

[arakboss]

We're coming into the Legislative home stretch, only about 8 weeks of so left in this session, let's continue to apply pressure as much as possible.

My focus has been Peter Courtney, he has the ability to keel this legislation off the senate floor, that's exactly what I've been asking him to do. There's simply too many flaws in this bill that came out of committee along party lines and is opposed 5 to 1 by the people. We must adhere to what the People Want!!!!

I have sent him numerous letters but no response yet, have you heard back from him?

 

[nammac]

I have sent him numerous letters but no response yet, have you heard back from him?

Nothing, but that's been my experience right along. Whether the email
Or call is in support of opposition to a particular piece of legislation. He's not the greatest communicator.

But if we can provide enough arguments against SB 978, perhaps he'll be pursuaded to keep it from the floor.

Honestly, they way Floyd handled this bill, it should be shelved, without question. Otherwise the people have no voice....

 

[Dozer99]

So my VFW post has 8 fully functional 1903's. We have 6 M1's with Barrel plugs so those should be ok.

If this bill passes we (the VFW) will be in possession of Illegal firearms that were issued (temp Loan) to us by the U.S Army ie. the U.S. Government. Many VFW and American Legion units around the state also have honor guard units that have pre-1968 rifles. So the next time we have a parade (Independence Day) and our Vets are marching down the middle of the street with pre-1968 rifles in full view of the public, committing a felony, what is the state going to do then? Will the local police try to confiscate U.S. Army property?

I'm sure that some old Combat Vets might have something to say about that!

 

[arakboss]

Here is the latest info:
The next step for SB 978-5 will be a floor vote to remove Sen. Thatcher's minority report amendment. It will most likely be removed.

If they believe they have the votes they can vote for the bill in the same session. If they don't think they have the votes then they can vote to move it back to committee which would likely be Rules Committee.

In Rules Committee they will make whatever amendments are necessary to get enough votes on the floor. Then they vote it out of committee and it will head back to the floor.

With amendments it will likely pass and we can begin our suffering.

Since it is not passing as an emergency bill there is evidently some way we can put it to the voters but I am not clear on how that process works.

Edit: Regarding the situation I described below, Kevin over at OFF told me he doesn't think the Chair could remove Sen. Roblan from committee only Sen. Courtney could remove him and Kevin doesn't think Sen. Courtney would do that in this situation.

A little birdie told me that even if Sen. Roblan votes no on the bill in the Rules Committee that the Chair can remove him and replace him with somebody who will vote yes. So you would need two democrats voting no in committee along with two Republicans. That would seem to be an impossible feat as the other vote that would need to be swayed is Sen. Dembrow. Who is up for designing a strategy to sway Sen. Dembrow

 

[bunnybunny]

I highly doubt roblan would lose his chair position for voting no on this bill. He had an insanely close race and we are talking gun control. This is meant to pander to liberals and kill gun culture. If he was voting no on a bill that was needed to keeping funding Oregon orphanages then I could see him being replaced, but on SB-978-5? I doubt it.

 

[arakboss]

I highly doubt roblan would lose his chair position for voting no on this bill. He had an insanely close race and we are talking gun control. This is meant to pander to liberals and kill gun culture. If he was voting no on a bill that was needed to keeping funding Oregon orphanages then I could see him being replaced, but on SB-978-5? I doubt it.

Kevin at OFF agrees with you. I edited the comment. So if we keep the pressure on Sen. Roblan maybe we can be done with this bill if it goes back to committee. Problem is if they know he would kill it in committee then they might take their chances on a floor vote. We really need to find another Democrat in the Senate to vote no on this bill in a floor vote.

 

[G0nefishin]

Rep jeff Baker D emailed me back & he's a no, supposedly. I haven't seen any mention of him but then again I've not been looking.