Oregon Senate 243C and HB 3076 Commentary

[mithrandir]

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

And I don't think bump stock bans necessarily infringe the right to keep and bear arms because bump stocks aren't arms

 

[Member 45541]

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

It's really not a difficult concept to understand.

Well said brother! It is very sad how simple understanding seems to have left the whole of the people.

 

[CamoDeafie]

And I don't think bump stock bans necessarily infringe the right to keep and bear arms because bump stocks aren't arms

But they facilitate improved performance (as do triggers) , the same way standard(""large"") capacity magazines facilitate performance of firearms in providing sufficient ammunition without the need for frequent reloading.

Much the same way, silencers are "firearms" as defined by the NFA and GCA 1968, ergo they are arms even though they are accessories.

Most noteworthy, SB943 says that the rapid fire trigger activators are allowed only if they're exclusively for "registered machine guns", so yes they are "arms" in the same way.

 

[Camelfilter]

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

Yup.

Pretty darned easy.

 

[mithrandir]

But they facilitate improved performance (as do triggers) , the same way standard(""large"") capacity magazines facilitate performance of firearms in providing sufficient ammunition without the need for frequent reloading.

Much the same way, silencers are "firearms" as defined by the NFA and GCA 1968, ergo they are arms even though they are accessories.

Most noteworthy, SB943 says that the rapid fire trigger activators are allowed only if they're exclusively for "registered machine guns", so yes they are "arms" in the same way.

The difference between bump stocks and mags/triggers/slides/etc. is that one is necessary to operate many firearms as designed and the other is not. Furthermore, standard cap mags are in common use for lawful purposes (Heller), lack history or tradition of being banned (Bruen), and are necessary for maintaining a well-regulated militia (the whacko interpretation of the 2A by anti-2As that was rejected in Heller, but I mention it for good measure).

If the NFA defines suppressors as arms, then suppressors are arms as far as the law is concerned, and should be protected as such under the 2A. If bump stocks are defined as arms in statute, same would apply. Otherwise, the definition of suppressors in the NFA is not transmitted to other items because statutory interpretation is far more strictly and narrowly analytical than constitutional interpretation. So we need some other criteria for what are protected as arms under the 2A.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The difference between bump stocks and mags/triggers/slides/etc. is that one is necessary to operate many firearms as designed and the other is not. Furthermore, standard cap mags are in common use for lawful purposes (Heller), lack history or tradition of being banned (Bruen), and are necessary for maintaining a well-regulated militia (the whacko interpretation of the 2A by anti-2As that was rejected in Heller, but I mention it for good measure).

If the NFA defines suppressors as arms, then suppressors are arms as far as the law is concerned, and should be protected as such under the 2A. If bump stocks are defined as arms in statute, same would apply. Otherwise, the definition of suppressors in the NFA is not transmitted to other items because statutory interpretation is far more strictly and narrowly analytical than constitutional interpretation. So we need some other criteria for what are protected as arms under the 2A.

"26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means:

Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger

The frame or receiver of any such weapon

Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, or

Any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."


Since the Oregon State SB243 defined rapid fire trigger activators as being for "machine guns", it follows that there is a court challenge right there on what makes them "arms" and such. Because the NFA and GCA have defined "parts or combination of parts to convert something to a machine gun" as NFA firearms (see drop in auto sears for example)... And because SB243 included Switches and autosears in their trigger definitions, it follows then that rapid fire trigger activators are also arms.

 

[mithrandir]

"26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means:

Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger

The frame or receiver of any such weapon

Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, or

Any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."


Since the Oregon State SB243 defined rapid fire trigger activators as being for "machine guns", it follows that there is a court challenge right there on what makes them "arms" and such. Because the NFA and GCA have defined "parts or combination of parts to convert something to a machine gun" as NFA firearms (see drop in auto sears for example)... And because SB243 included Switches and autosears in their trigger definitions, it follows then that rapid fire trigger activators are also arms.

SB 243 explicitly states that the statute doesn't apply to machine guns owned in compliance with federal law, so the definition of rapid fire activator applies to all firearms except machine guns.

 

[CamoDeafie]

SB 243 explicitly states that the statute doesn't apply to machine guns owned in compliance with federal law, so the definition of rapid fire activator applies to all firearms except machine guns.

No,.it says that you can only have rapid fire activators if they are exclusively for machine guns possessed in compliance with fed law; which is the part that I am saying makes them "arms" and applicable.

 

[mithrandir]

No,.it says that you can only have rapid fire activators if they are exclusively for machine guns possessed in compliance with fed law; which is the part that I am saying makes them "arms" and applicable.

First part, we're saying the same thing.

(4) This section does not apply to:
(b) A person who has registered a machine gun in accordance with federal law and the rapid fire activator is possessed for use only in, and is necessary for the proper function of, the lawfully registered machine gun.

Second part, I don't think it follows because the rapid fire activator clause is inoperative in the case of a federally compliant machine gun. By exempting them from the section of the statute, the definition of rapid fire activator does not apply in the excepted circumstances.

Regardless, I do think SB 243 is unconstitutional, just for other reasons.

 

[CamoDeafie]

First part, we're saying the same thing.

Second part, I don't think it follows because the rapid fire activator clause is inoperative in the case of a federally compliant machine gun. By exempting them from the section of the statute, the definition of rapid fire activator does not apply in the excepted circumstances.

Regardless, I do think SB 243 is unconstitutional, just for other reasons.

Are you a lawyer? I am not, and if you are not, then well. Hm. We do both agree that SB243 is unconstitutional here. A skilled lawyer could argue that by saying only registered machine guns can have these, they became "parts" exclusively for machine guns, and bam, they're arms.

A lawyer could also argue that these parts do not constitute machine guns, just like having complete M16 trigger groups do not turn your AR-15 into a machine gun if the lower is not drilled, and not machined for a M16 fire control group.

 

[mithrandir]

Are you a lawyer? I am not, and if you are not, then well. Hm. We do both agree that SB243 is unconstitutional here. A skilled lawyer could argue that by saying only registered machine guns can have these, they became "parts" exclusively for machine guns, and bam, they're arms.

A lawyer could also argue that these parts do not constitute machine guns, just like having complete M16 trigger groups do not turn your AR-15 into a machine gun if the lower is not drilled, and not machined for a M16 fire control group.

I am not a lawyer, but you could say I am lawyer adjacent and law tickles my 'tism if you will. Sadly, the problem in Oregon is that the state supreme court doesn't actually care what laws say and will make crap up to protect as much violation of our rights as they can.

 

[nwslopoke]

And I don't think bump stock bans necessarily infringe the right to keep and bear arms because bump stocks aren't arms

How would you view scopes or other sighting devices? "Well, we'll ALLOW you up to 3x, but no one needs magnification above that unless they have a nefarious use". Once you give antis more power to run a narrative, low hanging fruit like bump stocks are just the entry.

 

[CamoDeafie]

How would you view scopes or other sighting devices? "Well, we'll ALLOW you up to 3x, but no one needs magnification above that unless they have a nefarious use". Once you give antis more power to run a narrative, low hanging fruit like bump stocks are just the entry.

There is in fact a hunting regulation that bans the use of laser rangefinders, laser beam sights and night vision for hunting

 

[mithrandir]

How would you view scopes or other sighting devices? "Well, we'll ALLOW you up to 3x, but no one needs magnification above that unless they have a nefarious use". Once you give antis more power to run a narrative, low hanging fruit like bump stocks are just the entry.

Probably constitutional, I think. I'd vote against sighting device restrictions though. Not everything that's constitutional is good, and not everything that's unconstitutional is evil.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Probably constitutional, I think. I'd vote against sighting device restrictions though. Not everything that's constitutional is good, and not everything that's unconstitutional is evil.

There's no "exceptions" written into the 2A like "the right of the people to keep and bear only safe, good, hunting arms, not evil weapons of war"

Arms are neither good nor evil. Only the people who use them can be either good or evil

 

[nwslopoke]

There is in fact a hunting regulation that bans the use of laser rangefinders, laser beam sights and night vision for hunting

That's a different argument but it does show what releasing power can bring. Hunting is always used as the bar.

 

[mithrandir]

There's no "exceptions" written into the 2A like "the right of the people to keep and bear only safe, good, hunting arms, not evil weapons of war"

Arms are neither good nor evil. Only the people who use them can be either good or evil

I think the original intent and public understanding of the 2A was precisely to protect private ownership of the arms soldiers use in war so that the militia (all able-bodied men) would be able to furnish and use them proficiently.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I think the original intent and public understanding of the 2A was precisely to protect private ownership of the arms soldiers use in war so that the militia (all able-bodied men) would be able to furnish and use them proficiently.

Yes, it was written to ensure that the people would be as well armed as any standing army in the world. Ergo the vast majority of gun control laws from State level to Fed level are on their face, unconstitutional. But we the people have allowed the governments (State and Federal both) to whittle 2A to a mere shadow of its intent.

 

[arakboss]

She has not yet signed it.

She signed it on July 24th.

 

[Will_White]

I think the original intent and public understanding of the 2A was precisely to protect private ownership of the arms soldiers use in war so that the militia (all able-bodied men) would be able to furnish and use them proficiently.

So short barrel machine guns with optical sights, Armour plates, grenades, and manPADs