From the Statesman Journal:
Oregon bill would require permits to buy guns, limit ammunition
A bill set to appear in the Legislature this year would require Oregonians to obtain a permit before buying a gun, limit the amount of ammunition a person could buy, outlaw magazines with a capacity of more than five rounds and create gun locking and storage requirements.
Holy shit.
A five round mag limit is insane. Also, everything else there is terrible too.
The bill came from Students for Change, a group of Lake Oswego teens formed last year after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. They lobbied lawmakers and Gov. Kate Brown last year and pledged to come back this year with a legislative proposal.
Rep. Andrea Salinas, D-Lake Oswego, and Sen. Rob Wagner, D- Tualatin, submitted Senate Bill 501 on their behalf.
So a bunch of ignorant kids, whipped into self righteous frenzy wrote a bill that would kill sport shooting in the state.
Wagner said that it’s “probably a long shot that something like this passes in whole cloth,” but this is the bill the students wanted to put in front of the Legislature.
I would hope so, but I don’t know what the political balance of Oregon is, i.e., what percent of the legislature is of the pro-Antifa Portland ilk.
“What we told them is that this is your movement, and we want to support you as representatives,” Wagner said.
And this is how the people of Oregon get their rights destroyed, because a bunch of adults let emotional kids write the laws and show them unwavering support because they are emotional kids.
Wagner said the students did all the research for the bill and he hasn’t looked much into its constitutionality.
I’m shocked.
The bill would require a person receive a permit from their county sheriff before purchasing a gun.
To qualify for a permit the person would need to: be at least 21 years old; have no criminal convictions; have not violated a restraining or stalking order; not use illegal controlled substances; and provide proof of completing a firearms safety course.
Within a 30-day period, someone could apply for one handgun permit and one rifle or shotgun permit.
If someone meets all of those requirements, a sheriff could still deny a permit if he or she “has reasonable grounds to believe” that they are likely to be a danger to themselves or others.
Copies of each permit approved would be kept by the sheriff for at least one year.
So the local Sheriff has discretion as to the issuance of a gun permit. There is no way that this could become political and some sheriffs just blanket denying gun permits, like CCW in California. Or, this turning into a cornucopia of corruption were getting sheriff approval requires a hefty donation to the sheriff’s reelection campaign, or just out right NYPD style bribery.
If it were to pass in its current form, the bill would also require all “large-capacity” magazines be altered, given to law enforcement or disposed of within 180 days after passage.
With exceptions for tubular feeding devices on lever-action and 0.22 caliber firearms, the bill defines “large-capacity magazine” as: “an ammunition feeding device, whether fixed or detachable, with the capacity to accept more than five rounds of ammunition.”
Five rounds
The ban wouldn’t apply to law enforcement officers or military members who need larger magazines for official duties.
Good thing that the cops are exempted from such idiocy.
Other restrictions in the bill include:
- Capping at 20 the number of rounds of ammunition a person could receive in a 30-day period, exempting shooting ranges.
And… were done here. There is not a shooting sport that would survive this. I’m shooting a USPSA course today that has a minimum 160 round count. A single trap stage is 25 rounds, sporting clays is 100. Twenty rounds is barely enough to adequately sight in a rifle.
Hell, other than premium JHP, I can’t think of a handgun round that is sold in 20 round boxes, the standard is 50.
The bill can say that ranges are exempted, but how many public ranges are available that don’t have stores associated with them. Where I shoot clays and USPSA, there is no store, just a range on private land, out in the woods. I can’t imagine that many of those private ranges would want to deal with the issues of complying with local ordinances and insurance costs in order to sell ammo.
Between the magazine capacity limits and ammo purchase limits, this bill would totally destroy shooting sports in Oregon.
The thing is, if 51% of the Oregon legislator is Portland in its thinking, this could pass.
It could get shot down in the courts, but there is no guarantee there.
Beaver State gun owners have a fight ahead of them.
Yikes! What idiocy from those twerps!
Interesting that they complain that concealed carriers aren’t trained well enough, while also essentially taking away the ability to train.
On the positive side, CHLs are shall-issue, and under this proposal if you meet the requirements to have a gun, you meet most of the requirements to carry it. And the Sheriffs don’t have a choice in whether or not to issue CHLs. If passed, I see CHLs exploding in popularity.
But yes, the 5-round mag limit and the 20-round-per-month limits are non-starters. Unconstitutional for sure. I’m honestly surprised they didn’t make JHP ammunition illegal or mandate so-called “smart guns”.
Now let’s see if the students who “did all the research” were smart enough to include a severability clause.
“So the local Sheriff has digression as to the issuance of a gun permit. ”
DISCRETION
I corrected the autocorrect
I hate the autocorrect
” I can’t imagine that many of those private ranges would want to deal with the issues of obtaining FFLs in order to sell ammo.”
According to federal Law, no FFL is required to sell ammo.
I’ll change that. I had to look it up, you are right, no FFL for ammo, but there are local laws and insurance issues.
At what point does “infringement” kick in?
Some point after “take all the guns and kill all the gun owners” but before “arrest all the instigators against individual rights”.
Do I read this wrong, or is this also potentially banning most revolvers, too?
yes, this new 8-shot—er, i mean 5-shot S&W is legal!
/sarc/
Total Democrat control in the house Senate and the governor. They all are virulently anti-gun to the point where some have openly called for the government rounding up and killing gun owners. I suspect many of them have that same nuclear stuff fantasy Swalwall has.
This is going to pass. The governor will be on board completely, ram it through and will pass on party lines. Oregon and Washington state are basically lost causes now. It’s really sad. Because we all know that the supreme court will not hear it. This what will happen: the judge will think gun owners are the scum of the earth and say that this is constitutional. It will then go to the Supreme Court which does not hear it. Next bill passed requires confiscation of all guns. Gun ownership is completely illegal. Again the courts side with the government.
And the anti-gun Democrats have veto-proof super-majorities in the House AND Senate.
Not that it matters, with an anti-gun Governor, but still….
The Oregon Legislature is actively trying to out-California California, and they have the numbers to do it.
A look into the future under dem control
As my son pointed out, this will make the 1886 Lebel, and the Lee-Enfield illegal. Going to be writing legislators and donating to Oregon Firearms Federation
good idea! lets all pitch in for Oregon!
Sounds like this would outlaw nearly every firearm. Revolvers except for the tiny ones with 5-round cylinders. All semi-auto pistols (unless there are some so small that they have 5 round mags — are there?). Pump-action shotguns with more than 5 round capacity. 22 LR guns, because it says “0.22 caliber” rather than “22 caliber”.
It’s possible all this is based on stupidity, but I very much doubt it. The perpetrators of this bill need to be indicted and convicted for felony perjury.
“Revolvers except for the tiny ones with 5-round cylinders.”
Oh, you mean those scary “Saturday Night Specials”: gangster guns which are too small and concealable for the proles to be allowed to own?
“The perpetrators of this bill need to be indicted and convicted for felony perjury.”
Perjury requires lying under oath as part of a criminal investigation.
Luckily, we have 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242: “Conspiracy against rights” and “Deprivation of rights under color of law”, respectively. 10 years in federal prison and/or $100,000 fine per offense.
Unfortunately, getting the federal prosecutors to go after people for this is another battle entirely.
I understand perjury to be lying under oath, period. So lying about your oath of office (to defend the Constitution) qualifies.
And yes, the problem with 18 USC {241,242} is that it’s just so much waste paper, since no prosecutor will ever go after his friends and co-conspirators.
[…] have discussed Senate Bill 501 before. I have now seen the text of the […]