HB 3223 Requires registration of ‘assault weapons’

This bill requires registration of ‘assault weapons’ with Oregon State Police or take other actions (remove from State, sell to dealer, turn in for destruction or make permanently inoperable) within one year of effective date, prohibits further acquisition of ‘assault weapons’ after registration.

Personal Choice and Responsibility
This would be both unconstitutional and ineffective, which the sponsors of this bill would know if they had discussed this with any appreciable number of law enforcement professionals or researchers in the field. This 2017 paper by anti-gun researcher David Hemenway among others: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27842178 looked at peer-reviewed studies from 1970 to 2016 and found “Specific laws directed at firearm trafficking, improving child safety, or the banning of military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in firearm homicide rates.” That Oregon legislators would put this forward saying anything about crime reduction with a straight face, is truly an affront.

Fiscal Responsibility
If there were compliance with this, there would be cost in processing the registrations, required background checks and turned in firearms, with no reduction in crime, thus a fiscally irresponsible expenditure. Canada did away with their rifle registry in 2012 after spending $2.7 billion on it since 1998, as it had never helped solve one single crime. That $2.7b could have gone to more cops, investigators and lab equipment which could have actually had an effect.

Limited Government
The opponents of liberty are becoming more honest about their intentions. This bill actually states “the department will maintain a registry” – something they denied intention of previously. There is no reason for a registry but for use in later confiscation. No firearm registry has ever helped solve, or prevent, any crime. A registry is illegal at the federal level. It is merely costly and ineffective at the state level. The Heller decision did say that “dangerous and unusual” weapons might not be constitutionally protected. To suggest that most modern firearms are “dangerous and unusual” is just not serious. Of course all firearms can be dangerous. But unusual, no. This is not constitutional.