Oregon: House Bill 3200

[Charlie MacNeil, SASS #48580]

The following link is to the text of Oregon House Bill 3200, banning so-called "assault weapons" and "high-capacity magazines" in the state of Oregon. It has the whole enchilada: registration, storage, inspection of storage, all the usual garbage we've seen elsewhere. Let's all be writing our Reps to vote NO! on this bill!

 

HB 3200

 

Here's what I wrote to my Representative. Feel free to add, subtract, multiply or divide:

 

 

"Dear Representative Bentz:

It came to my attention today that some of your colleagues have decided to criminalize
law-abiding citizens even though said citizens have done nothing to
deserve such treatment. I am referring to House Bill 3200. This bill,
sponsored and endorsed by the same group of "legislators" who also
sponsored or endorsed Senator Burdick's magazine capacity bill and her
bill to limit concealed carry in the state of Oregon, S.B. 346 and S.B.
347. These bills, and H.B. 3200, are nothing more or less than power
grabs on the part of those who create them and will do next to nothing
to make a difference in crime. These bills will instead, as I stated
earlier in this paragraph, serve merely to make criminals of law-abiding
citizens.

Mister Bentz, I urge you to make your vote on any and all
so-called "common sense" gun laws a resounding "NO!". There is no reason
why the law-abiding public should be penalized for the actions of a few
deranged individuals. I also urge you to encourage your colleagues to
vote "NO!" as well on any and all infringements on my rights under the
Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

Sincerely, "

[Subdeacon Joe]

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2013/02/oregon_gun_control_bill_attrac.html#incart_river

 

A bill promoted by Ceasefire Oregon to ban many semi-automatic firearms
and high-capacity gun magazines generated a national outcry over the
weekend from angry pro-gun activists.

Even Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, the chief sponsor of House Bill 3200,
said the bill as introduced goes too far in not only banning the sale
of these weapons but in limiting each gun owner to continue possessing
just one of these firearms.

Greenlick said he also disagrees with a provision that would allow
the state police to investigate gun owners who possess one of these
weapons to make sure they are safely stored.

"In its current form, it's a pretty flawed bill," said Greenlick, adding that "I don't think [the bill] is in play."

Senate Judiciary Chairman Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, said last week that he didn't intend to proceed with any bills that would ban assault weapons or large-capacity magazines. House Judiciary Chairman Jeff Barker, D-Aloha, also said he opposed bans of this nature.

Penny Okamoto, executive director of Ceasefire Oregon,
said she thought the bill could still gain a favorable hearing at the
Legislature because of public anger with gun violence in the wake of the
shootings at Newtown, Conn. and the Clackamas Mall.

"I think legislators are really going to hear from the majority of Oregonians who want an assault weapons ban," she said.

At this point, legislators are hearing an outpouring of criticism for
HB 3200 from opponents of gun control. Greenlick said he was peppered
with as many as 1,000 emails over the weekend criticizing him and the
bill.

Several conservative web sites from around the country have portrayed
the bill harshly, and some have also left the casual reader with the
impression it is close to becoming law.

"Oregon drafts invasive gun law," was the headline over a story on Breitbart.com,
a popular conservative web site. It went on to describe the bill as
giving the government the power to confiscate guns since no one would
allow to keep more than one of these guns or three magazines containing
more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Federation, helped stoke concern about the bill by sending out an email alert Friday just after it was introduced stating:

HB 3200

not only bans most modern guns and magazines, it allows warrantless

searches of your home, requires background checks and registration for a

firearm you already own and as-of-yet undefined storage requirements.

We say “a firearm” because even if you comply with the restrictions in

this bill you may still only own

one

.

"It's
more extreme than what I expected" when the bill was still in the
concept stage, said Starrett. He argued that most pistols and rifles
sold in the country now are semi-automatics and would fall under the
proposed ban.

Okamoto said that her group believed that gun owners didn't need the
guns covered by HB 3200 for such purposes as hunting and self defense.
And she argued that gun owners who kept one of the guns under the
proposed ban in the bill would be "agreeing to allow this search."

Greenlick said he would want to greatly amend the bill if it started
to move through the process. For now, he said, it's mostly stimulating
debate.

"It's not where they [most legislators] want to go and it's not where
I think we're going to go," said Greenlick, "but it's where we should
be going."

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

DOA violates the 4th amendment more foolishness by so called LAW MAMERS.

[Charlie MacNeil, SASS #48580]

Got this back a little bit ago from one of the other folks I wrote to about this bill. He's one of the original supporters of it:

 

"

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX,

 

Thank you for writing me with your thoughts on House Bill 3200. I
understand your passion for the issue and appreciate your perspective. I
signed on to the bill because I'm hearing considerable interest from my
constituents in reducing gun violence. Since then, you and others have pointed out valid
concerns with a number of specific provisions of the bill. I cannot see
myself supporting the bill in its current form, but I am glad that its
introduction has stimulated discussion. My hope
is that we will be able to come together on smart policies that keep
guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, while
respecting the second amendment rights of law abiding Oregonians.
Increased background checks and an increased commitment to
mental health care are among the things I think we should consider. I
welcome your thoughts, and will keep them in mind as the session
progresses.

 

Please keep in touch.

 

Best,

 

Tobias Read

 

Representative Tobias Read, HD 27

Democratic Whip

900 Court Street NE, H 286

Salem, OR 97301

Capitol: 503.986.1427

District: 503.641.6800

Rep.tobiasread@state.or.us"

 

Not as positive as I'd like, but he at least does seem capable of listening to reason.

[Charlie MacNeil, SASS #48580]

And I got this one today:

 

"Thank you for your e-mail pertaining to HB 3200. I would like to set the
record straight. HB 3200 was proposed in the House by Rep. Mitch
Greenlick and I do not support it. As I have previously stated, if an
assault weapons ban or high capacity magazine ban is to move forward
this year, I believe it should be addressed in Congress. Accordingly, I
do not plan on taking up any such legislation this session. I also
understand that Chair Jeff Barker does not plan on hearing HB 3200 in
the House Judiciary Committee. So it should be dead!

I am a supporter of both the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and
Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution. As a gun owner for
over 40 years (I bought my first gun when I was 15 years old), I believe
an individual has the right to use a firearm to for self-defense and
the defense of others. At the same time, I believe Congress and the
states have the authority to establish reasonable regulations on
firearms.

Thank you for your views on this issue. I look forward to an open discussion
on your concerns and greatly value your input when making these kinds of
decisions.

Floyd Prozanski
Senate Judiciary Chair"

 

Again, still not perfect, but at least somewhat positive...

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

Keep a close watch on 'em, Charlie...this is from today's Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF) ALERT:

 

 

Now let’s take a look at mass email that anti-gunner Floyd Prozanski is sending out. In his email he claims that he is not a supporter of HB 3200 and he says “…it should be dead.”

But the really interesting part of Prozanski’s email is this: “I am a supporter of both the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution. As a gun owner for over 40 years (I bought my first gun when I was 15 years old), I believe an individual has the right to use a firearm to for self-defense and the defense of others.”

Ok, most of us are wondering how Floyd could have “bought a gun when he was 15.” Seems like there might be some legal issues there. But more important is Prozanski’s claim that he is a “supporter of the Second Amendment.”

Prozanski supports an end to private transfers of firearms, a ban on lowly “citizens’ ” concealed carry at the Capitol and extreme new restrictions on issuing of CHL’s. This hardly sounds like a person who understands the term “shall not be infringed.”

As soon as a politician tells you a bill won’t pass, that’s a good time to keep your eye on that bill.

Last session Prozanski claimed that a bill banning self-defense firearms on school property was dead and then it was resurrected in the closing days of the session. So be forewarned. Anything can happen.

But what we think is coming very soon will be hearings in Prozanski’s committee for some or all of the bills he wants or has sponsored.

An end to private transfers, new restrictions on CHL’s, a ban on licensed carry and more. We expect to see these bills scheduled as early as next week. As always, we will keep you informed, but it would not be a bad idea to let the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee know that you oppose all new gun control. Their contact info is here.

[Utah Bob #35998]

All of the dang anti gunners claim to be pro 2a.

At least their version of it.