The Official Oregon HB 3200 Bill Thread

[Guilty]

Besides the automailer on oregonfirearms.org, I sent personal e-mail's to every member in the Oregon House and Senate. The only replies that I have received back are pro-Second Amendment, the gun grabbers have remained absolutely silent...I am not surprised.

 

[xacex]

Besides the automailer on oregonfirearms.org, I sent personal e-mail's to every member in the Oregon House and Senate. The only replies that I have received back are pro-Second Amendment, the gun grabbers have remained absolutely silent...I am not surprised.

I wrote every single one, and received replied from less than 15. It is time for a change in 2014 folks!

 

[iGun]

I've written multiple times using automailer and personal email. No response from any of the anti gun legislators. I can't wait to vote against these bozos. We HAVE to keep the inertia going until the next election.

 

[Guilty]

I wrote every single one, and received replied from less than 15. It is time for a change in 2014 folks!

Less than 15 is an accurate statement and a low number considering that there are 30 State Senators and 60 State Representatives in the House, so far I have received 6 replies from my personal e-mail's. Here are the basic messages that I received:
(R) Rep Whitsett - strongly in favor the Second Amendment and opposes any legislation restricting these rights, encourages me to share my views with the sponsors of this bill.
(R) Rep Huffman - Additional gun control would largely hurt law abiding citizens. Our focus needs to be on issues like mental health, illegal access to guns, strengthening our families, and eliminating excessively violent material from kids and youth. I have not and will not support legislation that further erodes our God given, and our Constitutionally given and guaranteed rights and freedoms.
(D) Rep Komp - With the recent tragedies at Sandy Hook I am aware of the heightened concern over gun laws. With regards to HB 3200, this particular bill is in very early stages of the legislative process. It has not been referred to a committee yet, and there have been no hearings set on the matter. it is important for us to let the legislative process play out before coming to a conclusion on the matter. It is too early to make a decision on such an impactful piece of legislation. (Typical non-specific, not taking sides political talk)
(D) Rep Barker - I am opposed to any new restrictions on law abiding gun owners, including HB 3200. I have opposed, and will continue to oppose, efforts to ban CHL holders from K-12 schools and higher educational campus, so called "assault weapon" bans, and any other unecessary restrictions on Oregonians' 2nd Amendment rights.
(R) Sen Winters - Senator Winters appreciates hearing from all Oregonians regarding issues of such importance. She has been a defender of the 2nd Amendment for a very long time. The Senator will continue to monitor HB 3200 which has currently not been assigned to a committee and other related bills.
(R) Sen George - strong supporter of the Second Amendment and is not supporting any of the efforts to infringe upon gun rights. He believes it is important to focus efforts on supporting mental health programs in order to help curb violence rather than attempting to treat the symptoms that reflect our lack of commitment to this important area.

And 4 from the automailers:
(R) Sen Whitsett - opposes any further restrictions on possession of firearms
(R) Rep Esquivel - no wavering on the Second Amendment, encouraged me to contact "The Fifteen" who sponsered the legislation
(D) Rep Witt - considers this bill one of the most radical anti-gun proposals before the Oregon Legislature, also encouraged me to contact "The Fifteen" who sponsered the legislation
(R) Sen Kruse - HB 3200 may be the worst gun bill I have ever seen. It should be pointed out, however, there are other bad gun bills filed this session as well. We will do what we can to stop them all.

 

[bolus]

anyone have the re-election schedule for these guys?

 

[jimmer5]

So I have a question - Those of you that are calling, are you attempting to engage in a conversation, or are you just sating that you oppose any anti-gun legislation and leaving it at that.

I just made some calls, and since I was speaking to staffers, I kept my response short and to the point. I'm curious what your opinions are on the matter.

 

[Modeler]

anyone have the re-election schedule for these guys?

House Representatives are elected every 2 years.

Senators are elected every 4 years, with the elections being broken up into two-year blocks (14 in 2014, 16 in 2016, etc...)

 

[Modeler]

Specific to this bill, the Senators sponsoring it will next face re-election as follows:

BURDICK - 2016

DINGFELDER - 2016

HASS - 2016

MONNES-ANDERSON - 2016

MONRO- 2014

SHIELDS - 2016

STEINER-HAYWARD - 2016

See a pattern here? Maybe a bit more bold when you have recently won and don't have to stand for your decisions in the next election?

 

[bolus]

So Im going to do $100 to the campaign of the opponent of my rep in the next election for every anti-gun bill they support. Hopefully they slow down or Im going to be broke.

 

[GOG]

Response from Rep Freeman, one of the good guys:

Greetings,

I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this very important issue. Currently none of the legislation regarding gun control appears to be helpful; because of this, I have proposed my own bill: HB3006 (some of you may recognize that as .30-06). This bill would protect our state from infringement on our Second Amendment rights by the Federal Government. Quite a few of my colleagues in both the House and Senate have signed on to the bill already. While some are angered by this bill, both the US and Oregon Constitutions are clear:

"US Constitution, Amendment II
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."

"Oregon Constitution Section 27:
Right to Bear Arms; Military Subordinate to Civil Power
The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]"

If you wish to view the bill online, please follow this link: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Overview/HB3006

As always, thank you for taking the time to stay involved in your state government. Remember, this is your State Legislature and I'm here to serve you. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact my office at 503.986.1402 or drop by for a visit.

Tim Freeman
State Representative, House District 2

 

[beavertonbuck]

Here is a reply from my Senator. I'm going to have to write her back to explain what the 2nd Amendment is about.

Thank you for your email about House Bill 3200, the bill to ban assault weapons. Bills, and especially controversial bills, are almost always changed and amended as they make their way through the legislative process. Bills are usually introduced in "rough draft" form because there is an expectation that they will be subjected to many changes as different lawmakers subject them to scrutiny.

This is exactly where House Bill 3200 is at this point. Even the measure's chief sponsor has said that, in its current form, the bill is flawed. What is more, there appears to be very little political appetite to pass an assault weapons ban this year. The chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee has said that this is an issue that is best dealt with on the federal level.

When House Bill 3200 was introduced, my hope was that it would allow us to start having a conversation about how to combat gun violence. I would never want to ban types of firearms are legitimately necessary for hunting and self-defense. However, I also believe that certain reasonable restrictions are compatible with our Second Amendment guarantees.

As I am sure you know, assault weapon bans vary drastically from state to state. Most state assault weapon bans prohibit specific weapons by listing them by name. Others bans list specific features associated with military style weapons. These are known as generic feature tests. Some generic feature tests outlaw weapons that have only one listed of features while others outlaw weapons that have two or more of those features. Frankly, I do not know how best to design an assault weapon ban that would work for Oregon. My hope is that we can arrive at a solution after input from many different parties, including gun owners.

Even though House Bill 3200 is probably not going anywhere this year, I appreciate hearing from you. I have no desire to force an assault weapon ban on responsible gun owners before they have had a chance to submit ideas for changing the bill. Rather, I hope that we can have a respectful long-term conversation about how to address the problem of gun violence and mass-shootings. I also hope that part of that conversation can be about identifying certain weapons that are not necessary for legitimate hunting or self-defense purposes.

Once again, thank you for your email. Please do not hesitate to contact me again with your ideas or concerns.


My best,
Elizabeth

Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward MD

 

[Ralgha]

She's completely missing the point. She somehow thinks we would be ok with an AWB as long as it is well written.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus that ate your iPhone.

 

[trainsktg]

Copied from the letter above with my comments added:

"I have no desire to force an assault weapon ban on responsible gun owners before they have had a chance to submit ideas for changing the bill." (Impliing, of course, that she will try to will force one after. Besides, I'm sure most of us don't want to change the bill, but to eliminate it. "

"I also hope that part of that conversation can be about identifying certain weapons that are not necessary for legitimate hunting or self-defense purposes " (As if she cares one iota about huntng or self defense...she probably abhors hunting and her idea of self defense is to either run away or give the criminal what he or she wants.)

Keith

 

[GuyBMeredith]

I sent a message via OFF to the Judicial Committee and sponsors of the bill. I received a "failure to deliver" for Read, Reardon, Krieger and Buckley.

Dear Rep ,

Gun control laws have a long history of racism and bigotry, meant to disarm black people and Indians. HB 3200 is in the same mold, aimed at people not for what they have done, but for who they are. This is an extremely offensive piece of prejudice and bigotry that citizens interested in firearms are inherently evil. It fails to target violent people while punishing decent people for being responsible. Over 100 million people who have access to firearms of all types have very thoroughly proven that they are responsible people. It's time to give recognition.

 

[cowboygraphics]

Specific to this bill, the Senators sponsoring it will next face re-election as follows:

BURDICK - 2016

DINGFELDER - 2016

HASS - 2016

MONNES-ANDERSON - 2016

MONRO- 2014

SHIELDS - 2016

STEINER-HAYWARD - 2016

See a pattern here? Maybe a bit more bold when you have recently won and don't have to stand for your decisions in the next election?

Yep, see a pattern. To build off one of the catch phrases from the movie Galaxy Quest: "Never give up... Never Surrender!" we should add "never forget"

"We will never give up...never Surrender and never forget, especially when you are up for re-election"

 

[BroncoFan]

Where, Where, Where are all the mocking naysaying liberal apologists?!??!? I hope you all wake the bubblegum up in the next election cycle.

 

[Dave Workman]

I think a law needs to be made that puts any law makers in prison who knowingly put forward a law that violates constitutional rights.

How do you propose getting such a measure passed by both houses of the Legislature and then signed by the governor?

 

[chariot13]

How do you propose getting such a measure passed by both houses of the Legislature and then signed by the governor?

The correct answer to enforcing the constitution against a government that knowingly puts foward a law that violates the constitution, is to NOT play by the government's made up 'rules', such as trying to have them pass a law against themselves in their own house & senate & then having them sign it by their own governor. How fricking stupid do people have to continue to be, to not realise they will never gain the freedom they have lost through out the ages at the hands of their own government, if they continue to play by the rules their government has set up 'for their subjects'. Rome all over again, only we're dumber.

Your natural rights were known well before what later became known as the constitution. Reason all the rest came later was because they (the government) knew they needed to have a way to do away with your 'natural rights' & to have control over these 'natural rights'. Its not rocket science to know the declaration of independence is even more important to freedom than the constitution. Its the father of the constitution, it gave the possibility of life to the constitution. It's what set 'the people' apart from its own government (king) at the time, only these people became corrupted with this power & soon wanted to become the government that 'the people' could not part from.

 

[Dave Workman]

<broken link removed>
Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division

Yes, we have the initiative process in Washington, too.
Which brings me to this next question: How do you propose getting enough signatures on an initiative petition, financing a campaign, and winning the election? Let's be brutally honest here...a lot of people are going to vote against any such measure.

 

[Dave Workman]

The correct answer to enforcing the constitution against a government that knowingly puts foward a law that violates the constitution, is to NOT play by the government's made up 'rules', such as trying to have them pass a law against themselves in their own house & senate & then having them sign it by their own governor. How fricking stupid do people have to continue to be, to not realise they will never gain the freedom they have lost through out the ages at the hands of their own government, if they continue to play by the rules their government has set up 'for their subjects'. Rome all over, only we're dumber.

Your natural rights were known well before what later became known as the constitution. Reason all the rest came later was because they (the government) knew they needed to have a way to do away with your 'natural rights' & to have control over these 'natural rights'. Its not rocket science to know the declaration of independence is even more important to freedom than the constitution. Its the father of the constitution, it gave the possibility of life to the constitution. It's what set 'the people' apart from its own government (king) at the time, only these people became corrupted with this power & soon wanted to become the government that 'the people' could not part from.

Well, thanks for the lecture in civics and government, but I got that in high school.
It does not answer the question.

We can argue principles all day long, but that will not take you one step closer to getting a law on the books, either through the legislative or initiative process (see above) and actually getting it enforced.

You guys are talking pie-in-the-sky idealism and I'm talking basic Pacific Northwest political reality, so we're not even having the same conversation.


But at least this morning I spread the word about the plight gun people are having on both sides of the Columbia River...

Oregon gun owners under same attacks as Washingtonians

Not only are Washington gun owners under attack from gun prohibitionists this winter, it appears the entire Pacific Northwest has become a hotbed of anti-gun activity as far-left Democrats in the upper Willamette Valley are pushing restrictions in Oregon.

<broken link removed>