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

[dancinghippos]

SOMETHING TO USE IN YOUR LETTERS AND CALLS TO LEGISLATORS.

You believe the police on matters of crime, right? They are the experts. Have you asked what they think? Not chiefs appointed by mayors, street cops who routinely enforce laws and catch criminals.

The National Association of Chiefs of Police polled 20,000 sheriffs and police officers. 76% say that armed citizens help law enforcement reduce violent crime. They are more pro-gun than the general public. This links to their survey results:

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NACOP-surveyresults-2016.pdf

PoliceOne, an organization of about 380,000 active and 70,000 retired officers, surveyed 16,000 members on the gun control in 2013.
71% say a ban on so-called "assault weapons" would have no effect on violent crime.
20% say it would make crime worse. This is a link to their results
http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

These are the experts. These are the guys I believe. And when companies like Gallup survey Americans, they poll 1000-2000 people and extrapolate. These two polls were 20,000 and 16,000 cops respectively. So the confidence level is huge

 

[arakboss]

Wheres the parents with pro gun kids pushing back? only way it'll counter their BS effectively.

Exactly my thought. The pro2a kids parents may have wanted to keep them isolated from this mess but it would be helpful if they would step up. Attend the rally with them, take them down to visit the Legislators, write letters, etc. While I completely disagree with their solutions, I have to give credit to these anti kids for becoming engaged (even if they were put up to it). This BS creates emotions in others that won't benefit our liberties.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Bring them to the rally at the Capitol steps in Salem on Saturday March 23 at Noon.

 

[nammac]

Bring them to the rally at the Capitol steps in Salem on Saturday March 23 at Noon.

This is what needs to happen, we need a turnout of children and spouses!

 

[jayR]

Seems like the girl in the interview is suffering from ignorance = fear -> limbic system entrainment. It's a form of brainwashing.

 

[arakboss]

This is what needs to happen, we need a turnout of children and spouses!

And minorities. I have a hard time believing we don't have a significant number of minority 2A supporters in this State but they don't seem to be represented well at rallys from what I have seen.

 

[jayR]

Rally ?

 

[DB is Here]

Rally ?

Oregon - Defend the 2nd Rally 3/23/19

 

[E4mafia]

Exactly my thought. The pro2a kids parents may have wanted to keep them isolated from this mess but it would be helpful if they would step up. Attend the rally with them, take them down to visit the Legislators, write letters, etc. While I completely disagree with their solutions, I have to give credit to these anti kids for becoming engaged (even if they were put up to it). This BS creates emotions in others that won't benefit our liberties.

Bring them to the rally at the Capitol steps in Salem on Saturday March 23 at Noon.

It really needs to happen if we want to stand against this attack on our rights and the rights of our kids growing up who may want the same values we have. If you don't you are allowing your next generation to be robbed of any hope, once its gone its impossible to get back.

If you aren't comfortable with the idea of having your kids voice heard to counter this then you are contributing to our loss. opening wallets and filing court challenges only gets so far, use washington as an example if they feel like going balls to the wall especially telling their sheriffs its their liability if they don't enforce.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

Background checks aren't a bad thing in and of themselves.

whoever said this has no clue! Shall not be infringed is and was the key element of the second amendment, and background checks are an infringement; so they are a bad thing in of themselves.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

Votility
I get OFF alerts and anyone who cares should reply to this. if the link doesn't work I'm sure at OFF you can find it. I already sent me a letter to the link may show that but try it anyhow.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

This is very good too:
Read more: Weapons in Texas School Shooting Present Quandary for Gun-Grabbers
Under Creative Commons License:Attribution
Follow us:@Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

A little thing I wrote for FB.
Common sense gun laws.
1. Common Sense- is sound practical judgment concerning everyday matters, or a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge that is shared by ("common to") nearly all people.
a. Perceive- become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand.
b. Understand- To know thoroughly by close contact or long experience with.
2. Gun Laws- The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. It reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The US Constitution is the highest level of law in the United States. Article VI of the Constitution states the document and the laws of the United States which "shall be made in pursuance thereof…" are the "Supreme Law of the Land." The phrase, "shall be made in pursuance thereof" indicates the Constitution is the ultimate authority to which all other laws and treaties must conform.
a. Lawyers and Politicains like to use the term "interperate" the law. Ok, so who would have the best interpertation of the law? Those that wrote the law or someone else years later after the popular meanings have changed?
1. Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Jefferson`s "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
2. George Mason, of Virginia: "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.". . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." — Within Mason`s declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People," — later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788
3. Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts:
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." — Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
4. Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia:
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." — Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
5. James Madison, of Virginia:
The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." — The Federalist, No. 46
6. Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
7. Alexander Hamilton, of New York:
"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." — The Federalist, No. 29
8. Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:
"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." — Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789
9. Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." — An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
So it is very clear that all other laws on guns are unconstitutional if your being honest with youself.
c. In the years that the Constitution was writen the following words meant-
1. Well Regulated- The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
In summory, unless you have knowledge of these weapons, meaning know them inside and out, have fired them, and understand the ballistics that come from them you cn not have common sence to make laws on them. All laws that congress or the states make are unconstitutional. Lastly, not having a sporting use is not even an arguement. The reason behind the 2nd was not to hunt with but to wage war from invaders and to keep government in check as well as take the country back from an overbearing government that wishes to control everything. Just like the Democrats are trying to do.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Not dead, but apparently not expected to pass.

 

[partsed]

Who slapped the raccoon pelt on top of her head??? Not that I can talk, (I am follicle challenged) but who has a haircut like that??

 

[Stomper]

Who slapped the raccoon pelt on top of her head??? Not that I can talk, (I am follicle challenged) but who has a haircut like that??

Muttonheads, that's who.....

 

[csa_ap_hill]

Who slapped the raccoon pelt on top of her head??? Not that I can talk, (I am follicle challenged) but who has a haircut like that??

Rachel Madcow/ er maddow lol does.

 

[partsed]

You had it right the first time-Madcow

 

[Oohrah]

I'm not certain where it came from, but cruising through emails after a long trip, there was a "common sense" gun bill that was supposed to have been sent to Oregon's Governor to be sent for passage pending her approval. After reading the first two pages, it was devoted to defining the definition of what would single item would make a semi auto an "assault rifle". I stopped reading it, as it covered just about all semi automatic firearms. The plans of the Democratic Party have no plans to improve any safety measures, but a push to eliminate all firearms ownership. I also do not agree that those of the Liberal firearms gun owners stand of considering workable measures should even be considered. The other side is only interested in a single issue, that of total disarming citizenship period, in any manner possible. There is, and is not any plans for any type of compromise. Besides, there shouldn't be any, as "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear to me. I did want to at least attempt to look at it with an open mind, even thought it was most painful. Silly me, a waste of time. The only answer is to fight with all we have. All ready many states are starting to think, and some are rejecting the red tag laws that are placing their lawmen at risk and depleting resources. Even if a similar bill to Oregon's 501 is considered, there are already 23,000 or more that passed, and do nothing to alter crime. There is no need to pass a single law that shall not be infringed or considered.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

Possibly what above was saying but there is a new assault weapon ban or registration bill. HB 3223 read more here.
2019 Firearms Legislation - Oregon Firearms Federation
or this
HB 3223 is essentially a copy of IP 43, the ballot measure we defeated last year. Of course, it has an "emergency clause".
The bills summary says . "Requires person who owns assault weapon on effective date of Act to register assault weapon or take other specified action within one year of effective date of Act. Defines terms. Punishes violation by maximum of $2,000 fine, or by maximum of six months' imprisonment, $2,500 fine, or both, for second and subsequent convictions. Prohibits manufacture, transfer or possession of assault weapon except in specified circumstances. Punishes by maximum of 364 days' imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both. Requires report of loss or theft of assault weapon. Punishes failure to report by maximum of 364 days' imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both. Provides that information in report may not be used in prosecution for possession or transfer of assault weapon. Declares emergency, effective on passage."
The bill would effectively ban virtually all modern firearms unless the owner "registered" them with the police. The owner would have no way to practically transfer the outlawed firearms to another person. The sponsors of the bill would allow you to move the guns out of the state. Or, of course, you could simply move yourself out of the state.
Possessing your dad's M1 Carbine will get you a year in the slammer and a fine of $6250.00
To see more info on this bill and its sponsors click here.
If you want to track this bill you can also use that link to "e subscribe" to that bill and any other bill you want to get alerts about. Just click on "Follow this bill" in the upper right corner of that page.
States that have created gun registries have used them to confiscate firearms and you can rest assured that is the goal here.
Furthermore, an additional "lock up" bill has been introduced. SB 817 "Creates crime of unlawful storage of firearm. Punishes by maximum of 364 days' imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both. Punishes second and subsequent convictions by maximum of five years' imprisonment, $125,000 fine, or both. Requires gun dealers to post notice concerning obligation to store firearms in safe manner."
You get more info on that bill and its sponsors and subscribe for updates on the bill here.
You can still use this link to express your opposition to these attacks on your right and on sanity.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

alerts.
Oregon's Only No Compromise Gun Rights Organization - Oregon Firearms Federation
more alerts from O.F.F. on the right side first link it tells about concealed gun permit holders.