Oregon SB 978 Place Holder Anti-Gun Bill

[Ammunation]

So based on this are we to understand that SB 501 is like some kind of decoy to take our attention off the real threatening bill SB 978? You all do realize that if either of these become law we will have tougher gun laws than California, or any state in the union for that matter! I don't know about you all but I'm seriously thinking of moving to Texas, I think it's going to be the last stand against these gun grabbing leftists and their sick agenda to do away with the 2A.

 

[Knebel]

I would assume an 80% receiver is fine unserialized since it is not a firearm, federally. I thiiiiiiink, they want you to serialize it once it becomes a firearm. I mean... you gotta do that anyway since oregon law states that an unserialized firearm is assumed to be having the serial removed, altered, or otherwise obstructed. You'd be booked for that already anyway!?

 

[G0nefishin]

I would assume an 80% receiver is fine unserialized since it is not a firearm, federally. I thiiiiiiink, they want you to serialize it once it becomes a firearm. I mean... you gotta do that anyway since oregon law states that an unserialized firearm is assumed to be having the serial removed, altered, or otherwise obstructed. You'd be booked for that already anyway!?

Then what about my old 22 rifle that doesn't have a serial number, or a large portion of older firearms that were built before it was mandatory for the manufacturer to I think it was the gun control act of 1968
Not trying to sound rude.

 

[Knebel]

hm you are right. Then i don't know. I, personally, would generally go off of what federal law is. And an 80% receiver is not a firearm. Like we already said, any piece of metal, plastic,even wood...could be a receiver.

 

[N Monty]

hm you are right. Then i don't know. I, personally, would generally go off of what federal law is. And an 80% receiver is not a firearm. Like we already said, any piece of metal, plastic,even wood...could be a receiver.

And that's the idiocy of the thing.
If you don't define it, you have things like this "zero percent receiver" suddenly illegal.
If you do define it, as, say, an 80% receiver, suddenly sales of 79% receivers are going to drastically increase.

 

[Massolo]

No assault weapon ban or magazine capacity limit.

This bill is comprehensive and pretty bad in general though. I really hope this gets killed before reaching the governor or watered down at the very least.

I doubt that it will, as the Democrats hold a super majority, and have been enacting whatever they please. Personal and business tax increases have been pushed through. I'm surprised I have not been ordered to house an illegal immigrant in my spare bedroom yet.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

OK, I'm going to just say it. Kevin Starrett [OFF] did not help us today. He played well to his own audience, but his combative testimony was blown off by those in charge. Please also note that Keely Hopkins [NRA-ILA] did her best for us. Nobody has addressed the real problems with this bill.

 

[N Monty]

but his combative testimony was blown off by those in charge.

I guess my question is, do they really care what we think anyway? I'm sure Kate Brown and our AG already have a strong opinion on this, and they couldn't care less what we think. It's a legally required dog-and-pony show they put on before they force the legislation through anyway.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I guess my question is, do they really care what we think anyway? I'm sure Kate Brown and our AG already have a strong opinion on this, and they couldn't care less what we think. It's a legally required dog-and-pony show they put on before they force the legislation through anyway.

So there's no use doing anything. I get it.

No, really I don't. They are selling this measure on the merits of safe storage and NO ONE is pointing out the other egregious problems in this bill. They can rewrite this bill if they are pressured enough about pieces of it. The CHL portion of it is not only patently unconstitutional in a very real, practical sense, it is unworkable and totally unnecessary but they will pass it based on the safe storage testimony.

From my testimony:

"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?"

 

[BSG 75]

you gotta do that anyway since oregon law states that an unserialized firearm is assumed to be having the serial removed, altered, or otherwise obstructed.

Really? Where does it state that? Link to the chapter of the Oregon Revised Statutes that states that please.

 

[JadeFox]

I doubt that it will, as the Democrats hold a super majority, and have been enacting whatever they please. Personal and business tax increases have been pushed through. I'm surprised I have not been ordered to house an illegal immigrant in my spare bedroom yet.

Not to worry....that's coming.

 

[JadeFox]

OK, I'm going to just say it. Kevin Starrett [OFF] did not help us today. He played well to his own audience, but his combative testimony was blown off by those in charge. Please also note that Keely Hopkins [NRA-ILA] did her best for us. Nobody has addressed the real problems with this bill.

Thank you for your work on this.

 

[Knebel]

Really? Where does it state that? Link to the chapter of the Oregon Revised Statutes that states that please.

ORS 166.450 - Obliteration or change of identification number on firearms - 2017 Oregon Revised Statutes

Now you can say that a serial that has never been there cant be interntionally removed of course. But according to this a "no serial" is presumed that it was removed. I read someplace else that it is even considered like this by law enforcement. Let me see if I can find that too. I mean... engraving a random number and you are fine...I wouldn't want to have to explain myself because when in doubt you will be booked.

You can also look here: ORS 166.410 - Manufacture, importation or sale of firearms - 2017 Oregon Revised Statutes

Could interpret that "any person who manufactures a firearm in the state..." and DON'T put on identification marks (as it has to be compliant with previous stated statue).... is a felon because its presumed to have been removed or obliterated.

It just reads like it has to have a serial, in Oregon, to not be presumed to have been obliterated. Also, Antique Firearms are exempt. I guess it really depends on how knowledgeable the LEO is that you encounter with an unserialized firearm.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Thank you for your work on this.

I'm really frustrated with the inadequate representation we had today from the "invited" pro-gun people. My frustration is magnified because I couldn't be there due to recovering from surgery. You have my permission to remind me the next time this happens that I need to be there and speak, or just shut up about it.

 

[BSG 75]

ORS 166.450 - Obliteration or change of identification number on firearms - 2017 Oregon Revised Statutes

Now you can say that a serial that has never been there cant be interntionally removed of course. But according to this a "no serial" is presumed that it was removed.

You are are misreading the statute.

It says that if someone is in possession of a firearm that has a serial number that has altered, removed, or obliterated then it will be presumed that the person in possession of the firearm is the one who did the altering, removing, or obliterating, NOT that a firearm that never had a serial number had one removed.

Any person who intentionally alters, removes or obliterates the identification number of any firearm for an unlawful purpose, shall be punished upon conviction by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for not more than five years. Possession of any such firearm is presumptive evidence that the possessor has altered, removed or obliterated the identification number.

The presumption is regarding WHO removed or altered the serial number, NOT that a firearm that never had a serial number had it altered, removed, or obliterated.

 

[nwslopoke]

These people are confused. They lied and said they only wanted background checks, then the Red Flag laws was all they wanted. Well they got those and certified every gun purchased was legitimate and safe.

I know that wasn't worded well, but which is it? Are we safe by their own definition or were all the previous bills just a waist of time?

It's all mostly just theatre. As much as I like Kevin from OFF, even a lot of that is theatrics. I'm sorry, politics. I'm also of the mind they don't want sweeping changes. Can't take too much meat off the bone at once. Save some for later.

 

[N Monty]

I'm also of the mind they don't want sweeping changes. Can't take too much meat off the bone at once. Save some for later.

That's been the gun control playbook for the last 75 years- death by a thousand cuts. If they grab too much, too quick, people might fight back.
That is their greatest fear, and the reason for all this in the first place.
Toothless citizens are naught but subjects.
An armed populace is much more capable of holding would-be tyrants accountable.

So it's one small cut at a time, until there's nothing left.

Remember, "no one is coming for your guns."
Just the automatic ones.
And the bump stocks.
Then the semi-autos.
Then the ammunition.
Then the deadly, concealable handguns.
Then the military-style "sniper rifles."
Then the .50 cal (!) ones. (Muzzleloaders.)

 

[USMC1911]

I'm really frustrated with the inadequate representation we had today from the "invited" pro-gun people. My frustration is magnified because I couldn't be there due to recovering from surgery. You have my permission to remind me the next time this happens that I need to be there and speak, or just shut up about it.

Could you explain what you were disappointed in more detail please?

 

[Knebel]

You are are misreading the statute.

It says that if someone is in possession of a firearm that has a serial number that has altered, removed, or obliterated then it will be presumed that the person in possession of the firearm is the one who did the altering, removing, or obliterating, NOT that a firearm that never had a serial number had one removed.



The presumption is regarding WHO removed or altered the serial number, NOT that a firearm that never had a serial number had it altered, removed, or obliterated.

I totally get what you are saying, BUT...if you have a homemade firearm with no serial (you posses it) and you get stopped by law enforcement and they inspect the firearm and see it has no serial...what happens next? They don't know you build it, they presume you are in possession of a firearm with a removed or obliterated serial. I understand what the law is related to and why its there, but "off paper", they don't know if it was build without one or if you, the possessor of it, obliterated or removed it!? So how do you prove to LEO on the spot, that you build the gun and the serial wasn't removed if they presume you are in possession of a firearm with a removed serial, as the law states?. wouldn't want to risk going to jail and being charged with something like this.... also it states "for an unlawful purpose"... i think i didn't read that correctly. Won't that then only apply to....if you rob a bank or something and be caught with the unserialized firearm?

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Could you explain what you were disappointed in more detail please?

Hopkins from the NRA-ILA seriously and succinctly addressed real issues with the bill, but she did not go after the really egregious pieces of it and concentrated more on general disapproval.

Starret came off as combative, mentioning the foster child deaths under Brown's watch, which we all abhor, but isn't to the point of this bill. Hurling insults and innuendo may raise funds from members and followers, but it doesn't persuade anybody of anything.

The NSSF rep talked about all the burdens being put on dealers and manufacturers by this bill, but that's peripheral to the main argument. It went pretty much down hill from there except for a few individuals who testified about the difficulties of CHL holders complying while carrying and the difficulties of responding to unfolding crime with guns that are locked up.

I expected better from the "invited" panel in opposition.