Oregon SB501 permit required to own guns, 20 rounds per month limit, bans mags over 5 rounds

[Core]

Absolutely, and it's unconstitutional which is the elephant in the room. Article VI! It's time for us all to honor our oath!

 

[etrain16]

That's basically what I've been saying in the various threads on this bill. I think this bill serves 2 purposes - 1. to appease some local rich schoolkids (with rich parent donors) from Lake Oswego, and 2. to distract us from what they're really planning to do.

Seriously, folks are putting up page after page of rants about this bill, about only having 5 rounds and only buying 20 rounds a month. I guarantee if something like that passed, it would be tied up in the courts right away.

They want legislation that will pass with less chance of being blocked, that's the danger and that's what we need to be watching for. In the meantime, I think I've now counted 6 threads discussing this one bill that likely, won't go anywhere.

Watch out folks, don't allow them to take your eyes off the mark, or where you out before the real fight even gets started.

I still think this one is DOA, but other proposals, more likely to pass, are coming.

Quoting myself from a few weeks back. As I stated then, I didn't think 501 was the bill to put all our energy into. It was so ridiculously restrictive that it was never going to go anywhere. I restate again, don't get caught up in the most extreme measures - even they don't likely have enough support to go anywhere - as was evidenced by the death of SB501 in committee.

Our challenge are the bills that don't get all this attention. While folks were making YT videos, writing articles and filling pages and pages of threads over the 20 round a month limit, they have been working quietly to get other bills through, bills more likely to get the votes they need to pass. And honestly, I still think this proposed bill was there, at least in part, to distract us from the real legislation. Looks like it worked, from the responses I saw not only here, but in news across the country.

I get that it's easy to get worked up and pizzed off over things like this. But there are limits, even in places like Salem, as to what they can pass at any one time. 20 rounds a month? Seriously? How could that pass without an immediate court challenge that would likely tie it up for ages. They want laws that can actually pass, and can survive a court challenge. And that's why I think we're going to be faced, more likely, with mag capacity limits (already upheld in the courts), age limits, waiting periods, storage requirements and maybe mandatory training requirements. Those are the more deceitful and deceptive things those weasels in Salem are really going to try to pass.

Just don't let yourself be too distracted by ridiculous proposals like 501. If it sounds like it goes way too far, it probably does, and is likely to fail before it gets started. Simply watching the process in Salem will show that that's the case. Kate Brown barely got 50% of the vote. The rest of the voters didn't want her - they couldn't and wouldn't get behind a single candidate to defeat her, but the fact remains, half the state didn't want her. She's not stupid. She knows she needs to pass bills that don't pizz off the people that she still needs to vote for her in the next election. Those middle ground folks that may be okay with some gun control, but not the extremist, fantasy wet-dreams of the ultra-leftist freedom haters. Even in Oregon, there are limits to what the voters will tolerate. Hard to believe, I know, but it's true.

 

[Core]

Quoting myself from a few weeks back. As I stated then, I didn't think 501 was the bill to put all our energy into. It was so ridiculously restrictive that it was never going to go anywhere. I restate again, don't get caught up in the most extreme measures - even they don't likely have enough support to go anywhere - as was evidenced by the death of SB501 in committee.

Our challenge are the bills that don't get all this attention. While folks were making YT videos, writing articles and filling pages and pages of threads over the 20 round a month limit, they have been working quietly to get other bills through, bills more likely to get the votes they need to pass. And honestly, I still think this proposed bill was there, at least in part, to distract us from the real legislation. Looks like it worked, from the responses I saw not only here, but in news across the country.

I get that it's easy to get worked up and pizzed off over things like this. But there are limits, even in places like Salem, as to what they can pass at any one time. 20 rounds a month? Seriously? How could that pass without an immediate court challenge that would likely tie it up for ages. They want laws that can actually pass, and can survive a court challenge. And that's why I think we're going to be faced, more likely, with mag capacity limits (already upheld in the courts), age limits, waiting periods, storage requirements and maybe mandatory training requirements. Those are the more deceitful and deceptive things those weasels in Salem are really going to try to pass.

Just don't let yourself be too distracted by ridiculous proposals like 501. If it sounds like it goes way too far, it probably does, and is likely to fail before it gets started. Simply watching the process in Salem will show that that's the case. Kate Brown barely got 50% of the vote. The rest of the voters didn't want her - they couldn't and wouldn't get behind a single candidate to defeat her, but the fact remains, half the state didn't want her. She's not stupid. She knows she needs to pass bills that don't pizz off the people that she still needs to vote for her in the next election. Those middle ground folks that may be okay with some gun control, but not the extremist, fantasy wet-dreams of the ultra-leftist freedom haters. Even in Oregon, there are limits to what the voters will tolerate. Hard to believe, I know, but it's true.

Your perspective/approach is somewhat counter productive. We really can't cherry-pick what the Left submits for legislation, we can only react to it. We just had a bunch of unconstitutional laws voted in in Washington, and have had a bunch implemented on the West Coast. The Left in NY just passed a infanticide bill, Gov. Andrew Cuomo was way too happy when he signed that into law. Jeezus this guy is a evil prick. If we don't get organized and get off the couch we are going to lose: laziness is not working for us, nor is trying to compromise with the Left. A pig is a pig. The days of the Democrats getting some PhD puppet to tell us how the 2A does not apply to magazines and other features, are friggin over! Article VI clearly establishes the US Constitution as Supreme Law, and having some dweeb with a PhD claim he knows better than the founders is absurd. We all have the right to get worked up and pissed off, and we should! I agree 501 may be ridiculous but look at the other ridiculous legislation submitted and even passed. Not attacking your perspective but emphasizing it's flaws. We really need to oust these Leftist leaders who support unconstitutional laws: it's well within our rights within Article VI.

 

[etrain16]

Your perspective/approach is somewhat counter productive. We really can't cherry-pick what the Left submits for legislation, we can only react to it. We just had a bunch of unconstitutional laws voted in in Washington, and have had a bunch implemented on the West Coast. The Left in NY just passed a infanticide bill, Gov. Andrew Cuomo was way too happy when he signed that into law. Jeezus this guy is a evil prick. If we don't get organized and get off the couch we are going to lose: laziness is not working for us, nor is trying to compromise with the Left. A pig is a pig. The days of the Democrats getting some PhD puppet to tell us how the 2A does not apply to magazines and other features, are friggin over! Article VI clearly establishes the US Constitution as Supreme Law, and having some dweeb with a PhD claim he knows better than the founders is absurd. We all have the right to get worked up and pissed off, and we should! I agree 501 may be ridiculous but look at the other ridiculous legislation submitted and even passed. Not attacking your perspective but emphasizing it's flaws. We really need to oust these Leftist leaders who support unconstitutional laws: it's well within our rights within Article VI.

I know Oregon and how the legislature works here. I'm not going to make comparisons to other parts of the country or other states. There are limits to what they can get through, with the current makeup of the state and the legislature. So I do stand by what I said, and I do think it's an accurate appraisal of the current state of politics in Oregon. I've watched attempts at gun control for plenty of years here, it's clearly obvious that there are some limits on what they can do here, at least for now.

 

[nwslopoke]

Just don't let yourself be too distracted by ridiculous proposals like 501.

If there was recent history of our representatives responding to these ridiculous bills as such I wouldn't be worried. That hasn't happened. I take all threats against my rights seriously. From the east to the west coast republicans and democrats are submitting anti rights bills.

Its not even just about gun rights anymore. Gun rights are the Trojan Horse many other civil liberties can be abolished under. When we are at a point in my life time when America has a real argument of the baby issue proposed in NYC no proposal is too ridiculous to be taken seriously.

 

[etrain16]

If there was recent history of our representatives responding to these ridiculous bills as such I wouldn't be worried. That hasn't happened. I take all threats against my rights seriously. From the east to the west coast republicans and democrats are submitting anti rights bills.

Its not even just about gun rights anymore. Gun rights are the Trojan Horse many other civil liberties can be abolished under. When we are at a point in my life time when America has a real argument of the baby issue proposed in NYC no proposal is too ridiculous to be taken seriously.

I didn't suggest ignoring them in any way, but we need to be cautious - while everyone was flipping out over SB501, they were crafting other legislation that is much more likely to gain support, and become law. My point was on sites like this one, everyone was screaming about SB501, and no one was talking about the other bills. Of course they are now, that SB501 is dead. That was my point - they effectively turned everyone's heads away from their real actions. I'm simply saying, we shouldn't be that easily turned away from their true intentions.

Of course no one should ignore any proposed anti-gun legislation. But everyone was laser-focused on SB501 because of how over the top it was. My assessment, based on the history of past gun bills, was that it wasn't the real threat. In this case, at least, that proved out to be true.

 

[MarkLH]

I didn't suggest ignoring them in any way, but we need to be cautious - while everyone was flipping out over SB501, they were crafting other legislation that is much more likely to gain support, and become law. My point was on sites like this one, everyone was screaming about SB501, and no one was talking about the other bills. Of course they are now, that SB501 is dead. That was my point - they effectively turned everyone's heads away from their real actions. I'm simply saying, we shouldn't be that easily turned away from their true intentions.

Of course no one should ignore any proposed anti-gun legislation. But everyone was laser-focused on SB501 because of how over the top it was. My assessment, based on the history of past gun bills, was that it wasn't the real threat. In this case, at least, that proved out to be true.

My letters to legislators will be generic re: ANY legislation focusing on "gun control " versus concentrating on the human issues ( criminals are predators ONLY taking advantage of opportunity- prey) .. they arent afraid of violating LAWS

 

[Core]

My letters to legislators will be generic re: ANY legislation focusing on "gun control " versus concentrating on the human issues ( criminals are predators ONLY taking advantage of opportunity- prey) .. they arent afraid of violating LAWS

I used to buy into this narrative but the Democrats are not interested in accountability and prevention: they are betting on fostering support and votes for continued slaughter of school children. They support late term abortion, so we see they really don't care about Human life. Additionally this narrative makes a vague argument of opposing perspectives. What we need to do is argue for the enforcement of Article VI. And call for the de-funding, disbarring, and discharge of all sworn officials who support un-constitutional legislation. Article VI is known as the Supremacy Clause. It states the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is Supreme Law of the Land, and those NOT in good standing shall be de-funded and removed from office. (This Supreme Law actually spans from God to POTUS, to ALL Courts, all the way down the Locales). Article VI has been grossly abused for many years. You're best bet is to relay this to your Reps and send an additional letter/email/phone message to your Governor, President Trump, and the Supreme Court Justices.

Also if you use Twitter: Hashtag #ArticleVI When you reply to unconstitutional discussion. I set it up to make it simple for everyone.

"Article VI: Supreme Law

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Quoted from US Constitution

Thanks for standing up for the oath!

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Of course no one should ignore any proposed anti-gun legislation. But everyone was laser-focused on SB501 because of how over the top it was. My assessment, based on the history of past gun bills, was that it wasn't the real threat. In this case, at least, that proved out to be true.

All the press that SB501 is getting has awakened even the most anti-black rifle Fudds with their WWII loadout "Awe heck, Grandpappy's trench shotgun, 1911 and M1 Garand Clips all hold more than five rounds!"

 

[Core]

Background checks aren't a bad thing in and of themselves. IMO, the only reason against them is that the government would keep those records with names and addresses, then use that data to round up weapons after a ban. That is a valid "trust" issue between citizens and politicians who lie about their intentions. They are hard to trust because they claim "reasonable restrictions", then they propose a law written by children they helped to scare.

If there was reason and accountability within the legislature, they would fully affirm the constitutonal guarantees and quote the OR constititution in the law they pass to upgrade the background checks. They would re-affirm "Nothing in this shall be construed to support confiscation from anyone other than persons banned because of criminal convictions".

Yeah unfortunately as we have seen in California, it's never enough. The problem with the constitutional issues with background checks is that it's a form of a registry and a barrier to the right to bear arms. If a criminal was incarcerated doing time, he would not be able to purchase a firearm. If he was on parole, he should not purchase a firearm per his agreement on early release. The felon bit is an area I'm not entirely sure is constitutional, but there are many violent felons that should not have guns. Taxes, and regulations that are targeted specifically for arms are unconstitutional. So a mandatory background check, obviously costs tax dollars and processing fees for the transfer. Both unconstitutional because every free citizen has the right to bear arms, and the rights shall not be infringed. I noted before a citizen has the right to require a check for a sale, but it should never be mandatory. Essentially registries have been used to profile, target, and violate gun owners First and Second, and multiple other constitutional rights throughout the US. Magazine bans are unconstitutional because they are part of an arm and limiting mags and capacities is infringing on the right to bear arms. We want common sensical laws but the anti gun folks will not be happy until they abuse the laws to completely eliminate the right. We see this in California, where gun owners are limited to specifics and are subject to search and seizure etc. The nics check is a means to an end to anti gun folks. A registry would be the beginning of the end of the 2A for US citizens. Many states would swoop in and ban, and many organizations like Any Town and Brady will sue the state until they get what they want. The only way to truly protect the 2A is enforce Article VI and allow free people the purchase arms without registry or records of said transfer or purchase. How do we deal with crime? That's for the experts and it's a complicated answer that revolves around regional culture and mental health among other socio cultural phenomenon.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

All the press that SB501 is getting has awakened even the most anti-black rifle Fudds with their WWII loadout "Awe heck, Grandpappy's trench shotgun, 1911 and M1 Garand Clips all hold more than five rounds!"

You mean bad press like this:
Readers respond: A Democrat against SB 501

 

[3MTA3]

Yeah unfortunately as we have seen in California, it's never enough. The problem with the constitutional issues with background checks is that it's a form of a registry and a barrier to the right to bear arms. If a criminal was incarcerated doing time, he would not be able to purchase a firearm. If he was on parole, he should not purchase a firearm per his agreement on early release. The felon bit is an area I'm not entirely sure is constitutional, but there are many violent felons that should not have guns. Taxes, and regulations that are targeted specifically for arms are unconstitutional. So a mandatory background check, obviously costs tax dollars and processing fees for the transfer. Both unconstitutional because every free citizen has the right to bear arms, and the rights shall not be infringed. I noted before a citizen has the right to require a check for a sale, but it should never be mandatory. Essentially registries have been used to profile, target, and violate gun owners First and Second, and multiple other constitutional rights throughout the US. Magazine bans are unconstitutional because they are part of an arm and limiting mags and capacities is infringing on the right to bear arms. We want common sensical laws but the anti gun folks will not be happy until they abuse the laws to completely eliminate the right. We see this in California, where gun owners are limited to specifics and are subject to search and seizure etc. The nics check is a means to an end to anti gun folks. A registry would be the beginning of the end of the 2A for US citizens. Many states would swoop in and ban, and many organizations like Any Town and Brady will sue the state until they get what they want. The only way to truly protect the 2A is enforce Article VI and allow free people the purchase arms without registry or records of said transfer or purchase. How do we deal with crime? That's for the experts and it's a complicated answer that revolves around regional culture and mental health among other socio cultural phenomenon.

If it were just a background check then the make, model, andserial numbers of the firearm wouldn't be necessary. There is already a process to check serial numbers to ensure that they aren't on a list of stolen firearms. That part should be entirely separate from the BGC on the purchaser, and in the case of a new firearm would be entirely necessary.

 

[Oohrah]

After some recent activities that government has actively participated in, I wish that I could be confident that it could be trusted, or that if those records were held illegally after the information is given, how secure are those records? Many records of late have been breached by persons unknown, and even secret personal records are found when claimed they had nothing to hide. No records are secure !!! Yet a background if taken should just be the person. It should not include nor be included with any personal information the name, serial number, caliber, or type identification or association with a firearm. You are either a qualified citizen or not! Period. Actually there are two records kept unless it can be proven other wise. The FFL and the State Police. The FFL keeps it at there place of business, not a clue where it goes with OSP? They have check Federal and state for information who share information with them on each buyer.

 

[Core]

After some recent activities that government has actively participated in, I wish that I could be confident that it could be trusted, or that if those records were held illegally after the information is given, how secure are those records? Many records of late have been breached by persons unknown, and even secret personal records are found when claimed they had nothing to hide. No records are secure !!! Yet a background if taken should just be the person. It should not include nor be included with any personal information the name, serial number, caliber, or type identification or association with a firearm. You are either a qualified citizen or not! Period. Actually there are two records kept unless it can be proven other wise. The FFL and the State Police. The FFL keeps it at there place of business, not a clue where it goes with OSP? They have check Federal and state for information who share information with them on each buyer.

I'm on the same page with you. With all of the data breeches over the past 15 years and foreign intelligence cyber activity on the rise, it would seem to make sense to stop databasing folks personal/confidential information. Our lax data security is a matter of national security as far as I'm concerned. I've been working with ethics in data handling for years as an analyst and now scientist. The libs targeted us in Maine by using the hunting license list (which is public release for whatever reason) few years ago. They demanded the CWP list a few years ago and our governor refused. So they were targeting gun owners. I did some research using the hunting license list, I noticed my name on it. It was academic, and I'm bound to strict ethics in my research but the Left do not abide by these standards. The AGW gloval warming attacks on conservative candidates are unfounded and the claims most scientists support AGW as a theory is false. It's more around 30% claim AGW is quantifiable. That leaves the rest of us who cannot quantify it enough to claim it's a significant issue. We all know AGW is a thing, but how much of an effect versus cyclic climate change is the question? The school shootings are money for the DNC and they do not want to stop them, as they defy any measures to arm professionals in schools and invest on hardening schools themselves. So much deception. Getting back to personal data: we need to ensure that our privacy protected by the Constitution is enforced via Article VI at all levels of government and provate enterprise. Google for example, social media, all of it can be compromised and citizens can be targeted by criminals, and any number of unsavory organizations. They allow the sale of ISP data of customers now, President Trump sogned the bill, I doubt he knows the long term implications but it amazes me how little leadership cares to abide by the US Constitution!

 

[Oohrah]

Exactly

 

[INTJ]

All the press that SB501 is getting has awakened even the most anti-black rifle Fudds with their WWII loadout "Awe heck, Grandpappy's trench shotgun, 1911 and M1 Garand Clips all hold more than five rounds!"

I guess I fit the definition of a "Fudd." I think ARs and tactical rifles are lame and I think the guys into that are ridiculous wannabees. I have owned a few ARs and currently have one set up for competition, and
I kicked it to the curb as soon as I found a much better shooting competition that requires single-shot rifles with extreme accuracy and consistency at 1000 yds.

However, even with my disdain for ARs, tactical rifles, and the enthusiasts; I keep that to myself. This post is the only time I have even shared my view on the topic. I fight just as hard on behalf of the idiots with ARs and tactical rifles as I do for any 2A issue.

I also despise canned hunts and road hunting; yet I support the rights of those hunters as strongly as my own.

Until gun owners and hunters can pull their collective heads out of their hind ends, start critically thinking, and unify; we will indeed wind up in an oppressive authoritarian society. Being intolerant and calling someone names just because they like something different than you is NOT a recipe for unity and is a blatant example of NOT critically thinking........

 

[eightyeight mag]

I'm critically thinking about being very critical at the moment.
Nah I'll behave myself

 

[nwslopoke]

The church is full of sinners that will hopefully, one day see the light.

 

[cigars]

I guess I fit the definition of a "Fudd." I think ARs and tactical rifles are lame and I think the guys into that are ridiculous wannabees. I have owned a few ARs and currently have one set up for competition, and
I kicked it to the curb as soon as I found a much better shooting competition that requires single-shot rifles with extreme accuracy and consistency at 1000 yds.

However, even with my disdain for ARs, tactical rifles, and the enthusiasts; I keep that to myself. This post is the only time I have even shared my view on the topic. I fight just as hard on behalf of the idiots with ARs and tactical rifles as I do for any 2A issue.

I also despise canned hunts and road hunting; yet I support the rights of those hunters as strongly as my own.

Until gun owners and hunters can pull their collective heads out of their hind ends, start critically thinking, and unify; we will indeed wind up in an oppressive authoritarian society. Being intolerant and calling someone names just because they like something different than you is NOT a recipe for unity and is a blatant example of NOT critically thinking........

Yes, you do fit the definition of a FUDD, and a troll as well. "Ridiculous wannabees"? Many of us who served in the armed forces like AR's quite a bit because we trained with them, fought with them, slept with them, etc. So why would that make us wannabes for owning something that we are familiar with when we get out? Please, enlighten us with some more of your wisdom.
Troll on.

 

[Flymph]

I guess I fit the definition of a "Fudd." I think ARs and tactical rifles are lame and I think the guys into that are ridiculous wannabees. I have owned a few ARs and currently have one set up for competition, and
I kicked it to the curb as soon as I found a much better shooting competition that requires single-shot rifles with extreme accuracy and consistency at 1000 yds.

However, even with my disdain for ARs, tactical rifles, and the enthusiasts; I keep that to myself. This post is the only time I have even shared my view on the topic. I fight just as hard on behalf of the idiots with ARs and tactical rifles as I do for any 2A issue.

I also despise canned hunts and road hunting; yet I support the rights of those hunters as strongly as my own.

Until gun owners and hunters can pull their collective heads out of their hind ends, start critically thinking, and unify; we will indeed wind up in an oppressive authoritarian society. Being intolerant and calling someone names just because they like something different than you is NOT a recipe for unity and is a blatant example of NOT critically thinking........

If I'm guilty of being any sort of wannabe for owning an AR, it's being a "wannabe able to afford a different rifle"... frankly, the AR is the modern working man's rifle.
Just wanted to defend myself on that one, even tho I have to admit I'm a broke proletariat to do it.

Ain't calling anyone a Fudd or nothing, just don't want to be called a mall ninja for owning the cheapest to run and still reliable semi auto on the market.

Frankly, I can't afford a lot of the C&R stuff I was raised on because of panic buyers. Wish we could all relax and just accept that we all have the right to enjoy the firearms we choose, firearms owner or not.