HB 3265 Bans magazines above 10 round capacity

VOTE:NO – Died In Committee

Status (overview) of bill:https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Measures/Overview/HB3265

Personal Choice and Responsibility
Only a few handguns come with magazines of ten or fewer round capacity and these are too small to be very useful for self-defense. The standard self-defense handguns owned by millions of Americans came with mags holding between 11 and 20. These are not “large capacity,” they are the standard capacity the gun was manufactured to use, and was shipped with. To force Oregonians to sell or permanently alter hundreds of thousands of magazines to accept only ten on the premise that it might save lives, which it never has, is simply an exercise in people control. The reasoning given is that murders, particularly mass murders, might not be as deadly if the perpetrator only used ten-round magazines, and perhaps victims could tackle the perpetrator while they reloaded – even though this has never happened. Mass murderers aren’t going to follow magazine limit laws, and even if they did they generally use multiple firearms and multiple magazines, and a practiced perpetrator can change a magazine in 2 seconds. Meanwhile, a woman using her gun in self defense could fire ten rounds without wounding her attacker seriously enough and be killed while trying to reload. This situation happens much more often than mass murders do.

Fiscal Responsibility
any expenditures made to enforce this would be wasted as it would not save any lives. The federal ‘assault weapon’ and magazine limit ban was allowed to expire in 2004 as it could not be shown to have had any effect.

Limited Government
Limiting the number of rounds a person can have access to in their firearm is as unconstitutional an infringement as limiting all firearms to single-shot varieties. What is magical about the number 10? why not 5? or 1? Though a few judges have upheld mag limits on strained reasoning, they will be ruled unconstitutional in the end. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an injunction against California’s ten-round limit in June 2017, holding that “Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms”” and “the statute is adjudged an unconstitutional abridgment.” This 66-page decision can be seen at http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Duncan-v.-Becerra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf. The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals then upheld this injunction.


  1. David T Eckhardt says:

    So we are all created equal but you see a need to make us nu-equal? This ridiculous limit will do nothing to stop criminals. In – case you haven’t heard —- criminals are people who DON”T obey laws. If this were to pass you will exempt yourselves and police and any other political groups you favor. What you will also do is create a whole new class of lawbreakers, that will be called citizens with a BRAIN, who refuse to kneel to your unconstitutional restrictions.

No tags for this post.

Comments are closed.