Oregon Senate 243C and HB 3076 Commentary

[WillametteWill]

But I have spoken with Dem law makers
and they are honest in saying there would be no issues if gun owners didn't create them.

What exactly were the issues stemming from lawful, law-abiding gun owners causing them (the lawmakers you mention) to:

• Ban standard capacity magazines, of which there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of them, being lawfully used in Oregon alone?
• Attempt to create a licensing system for firearm purchases when there is no evidence that it would reduce crime?
• Create laws that intentionally do not grandfather items for lawful ownership, instead making them an unprovable 'affirmative defense' for the now suspect, but actual victim?
• Attempt to ban guns from specific areas when there is no evidence that lawful gun owners create any crime in these areas?
• Attempt to ban guns with scary features they do not like?
• Raise the price on CHLs in the state?
• Slow the processing of background checks to a crawl for years during the WhooWhoFlu, causing weeks of delays to purchase a gun, whereas BGC in Idaho were still instant?
• Create laws criminalizing lawful gun owners if they don't store their guns by a specific standard, and a criminal breaks into our homes and steals our guns?
• Attempt to abolish the law that prohibits cities and other entities from restricting CHL holders, a group found to have a lower crime rate than even police officers?

I could go on...for pages, but you get the idea. My last breath did more to cause global warming than lawful gun owners do to CAUSE anti-2A politicians to enact 'common sense' gun laws.

Do I think open carry in most places helps our cause? No. It's also tactically bad. But we should remember that we live in America, where dangerous freedom should be favored over peaceful slavery. This has become an unacceptable concept to these folks who think they need to legislate 'safety' because they are so much smarter than the great unwashed masses of us deplorables.

Honest? (from your quote) No, not they are not.

 

[PiratePast40]

So the legislative session has now closed.

What is the current status of 243?

It passed.

 

[mikec1703]

Signed by Governor? Law effective when?

And what's with 3076, it didn't pass, except for 114 mag provision to be moved to next spring, that was supposed to be reconciliated. Did the reconciliation happen?

 

[Local Loader]

HB3076 never made it to a vote so it's dead for now. Someone please correct if wrong.

 

[fmvolume86]

I won't say that's incorrect, but as always, there wasn't a better alternative to counter whatever evil was presented. Drugs, feminism, welfare, etc.

The pro 2A (especially the manufacturers) need to do better. Create better platforms and better messaging. I believe the big gun corporations rely on government contracts so how worried are they? But companies focused on the civilian market are clearly absent. I just don't know why.

They continue to comply, and they should be the front lines of not complying with all those lawyers asking me for money backing them up. That's the only way, ZERO COMPLY and FPC/GOA, Etc back them up

 

[Librarian]

Note on X from Tony Aiello,

https://twitter.com/x/status/1939688008435032270

View: https://x.com/TonyAielloJr/status/1939688008435032270

FAQs about SB 243:

1. Does SB 243 put Measure 114 in place? NO. It changes the effective date only, but cannot and does not change the permanent injunction we have against Measure 114 unless or until Oregon's Supreme Court upholds it. This will most likely be post-March 15, 2026!

2. Does SB 243 ban so-defined "rapid fire activators" that are detached from the firearm. YES. Section 2(3)(b) says "Unlawful possession of a rapid fire activator is a Class A misdemeanor." It does not distinguish based on whether it's attached to the firearm.

3. Is it a felony? NO. It's a Class A Misdemeanor.

4. Does SB 243 ban CHLs in government buildings? Kind of. Most likely yes on state property. Not yet for county and city property. We have a chance to fight it politically and in court at the city and county level.

5. Does SB 243 ban CHLs on "grounds adjacent to" government property? NO. That language was removed. However, pay attention to signs.

 

[ND55]

I am an absolutist on 2A and quite frankly I don't see gun owners being a problem. I see gang bangers creating 99% of the gun violence (and it is not an epidemic by any stretch of the word) and a very lenient legal system. Law abiding gun owners in Oregon pay the price for their irresponsibility. What is needed here in Oregon is for the voters to remove this communist/nazi hold on our law making body. Only we can prevent that and if that doesn't happen take a close look at eastern Europe 1939.

Well said. Oregon gun owners need to get educated about politics and be more involved with the elections.

 

[Tony617]

View: https://youtu.be/E2qOf-_j2v4?si=Tcy-p4PAjksWinVh

 

[mithrandir]

Well said. Oregon gun owners need to get educated about politics and be more involved with the elections.

And politicians and campaigners need to get educated about guns and effective 2A advocacy

We gotta make pro-2A arguments in ways that are actually persuasive to the moveable voters in deep-blue Oregon, *and* be ok with merely moving the needle. We're not going to get all our hopes and dreams at once unless something crazy happens.

 

[CamoDeafie]

And politicians and campaigners need to get educated about guns and effective 2A advocacy

We gotta make pro-2A arguments in ways that are actually persuasive to the moveable voters in deep-blue Oregon, *and* be ok with merely moving the needle. We're not going to get all our hopes and dreams at once unless something crazy happens.

Biggest problem. Most voters will just vote for the letter by the name, regardless of messages, platform, or promises not kept. 2A isn't the only issue they're voting on. If the D Party's platform promises more than the R Party's platform to these voters, then the D candidates will get the votes from those who tend to vote D. Nothing we can do about those who have always voted D, ignoring everything wrong with the D Party, and votes D out of Party loyalty.

 

[mithrandir]

Biggest problem. Most voters will just vote for the letter by the name, regardless of messages, platform, or promises not kept. 2A isn't the only issue they're voting on. If the D Party's platform promises more than the R Party's platform to these voters, then the D candidates will get the votes from those who tend to vote D. Nothing we can do about those who have always voted D, ignoring everything wrong with the D Party, and votes D out of Party loyalty.

For sure. So maybe we can get some Ds who are at least sorta libertarian to run. Maybe I'm just young and naive, but in this state getting more gun friendly Ds is our best option. I think we can at least get better results when more ballot initiatives inevitably come down the pike.

 

[arakboss]

Signed by Governor? Law effective when?

And what's with 3076, it didn't pass, except for 114 mag provision to be moved to next spring, that was supposed to be reconciliated. Did the reconciliation happen?

I have yet to find any information confirming the the Governor has signed SB243. There is no doubt she will, if she hasn't already.

 

[mithrandir]

I have yet to find any information confirming the the Governor has signed SB243. There is no doubt she will, if she hasn't already.

She has not yet signed it.

 

[peteNW503]

I'm not asking you guys to put yourselves out there but I'm genuinely curious how many of us have these kinds of triggers. Will people actually comply or do you think it will be treated similar to the brace ban? To completely different things but same same. I was going to get a double tap trigger for my Vector SDP Gen2 but there would be no point. I am more so speaking to the crowd that have thousands invested into these platforms. Cut your losses and sell out of state or business as usual?

 

[GrayGoose]

Will people actually comply...?

Why would anyone comply with an unconstitutional law created by miserable idiots who have no respect for the people's Constitutional rights?

 

[mithrandir]

I'm not asking you guys to put yourselves out there but I'm genuinely curious how many of us have these kinds of triggers. Will people actually comply or do you think it will be treated similar to the brace ban? To completely different things but same same. I was going to get a double tap trigger for my Vector SDP Gen2 but there would be no point. I am more so speaking to the crowd that have thousands invested into these platforms. Cut your losses and sell out of state or business as usual?

The problem with laws like this is that there's no real way to enforce them unless someone is caught committing some other crime. I personally don't think that laws like this are inherently unconstitutional, but I do think they're pointless and serve primarily to penalize otherwise law-abiding people. The people out there already breaking other laws don't care if they are breaking this one. Furthermore, they can't accomplish the apparent goal of preventing mass violence, which causes me to question the sincerity of that motivation.

All to say, I'll comply with the law, but I hope LE around the state doesn't enforce it. And I don't think gun owners are actually doing anything immoral if they choose to retain their "rapid fire activators."

 

[Stomper]

I will continue to do what I've always done. Live my life as a free and peaceful CITIZEN.

 

[Camelfilter]

These laws (all Anti-2A laws) are unconstitutional.

It's really not a difficult concept to understand.

 

[mithrandir]

These laws (all Anti-2A laws) are unconstitutional.

It's really not a difficult concept to understand.

Well of course all anti-2A laws are unconstitutional—they are anti-2A! The question is: What makes a law anti-2A? I don't think there's an easy answer.

Fwiw, SB 243 is unconstitutional on my reading because, as a matter of textual interpretation, it bans all semi-automatic firearms. If it's challenged in court, SCOTOR will conjure a rabbit from a hat to save the law from itself.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Well of course all anti-2A laws are unconstitutional—they are anti-2A! The question is: What makes a law anti-2A? I don't think there's an easy answer.

Easy.
Does it infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?

Yes or no.

"To INFRI'NGE. v.a. [infringo, Latin.]

1. To violate; to break laws or contracts.
Those many had not dar'd to do that evil,
If the first man that did th' edict infringe,
Had answer'd for his deed.
Shakesp. Meas. for Meas.
Having infring'd the law, I wave my right
As king, and thus submit myself to fight.
Waller.

2. To destroy; to hinder.
Homilies, being plain and popular instructions, do not infringe the efficacy, although but read.
Hooker.
Bright as the deathless gods and happy, she
From all that may infringe delight is free.
Waller. "

Emphasis added by me

Source;

https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=infringe#:~:text=infringe%2C%20v.a.%20(1773),to%20break%20laws%20or%20contracts.

Edit, I know the Fed Courts refuse to apply the whole of the 2A as written against every gun control law