SB 501 VOTE:NO – Died In Committee
Status (overview) of bill:https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Measures/Overview/SB0501
Committee assigned to bill:https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Committees/SJUD/Overview
This bill requires a permit in order to purchase any firearm. A ‘permit to purchase’ is valid for 90 days and only one permit for handgun and one permit for long gun may be acquired in any 30-day period. Provides process for appealing denial of a permit. Requires firearms be trigger locked or be in a locked container any time they are not being carried or within reach, requires reporting loss or theft of a firearm within 24 hours of when the owner ‘knows or should have known’ of the loss or theft, bans fixed and detachable magazines with capacity over five rounds with exceptions for .22 caliber and lever action tube magazines, requires background check to purchase ammunition and limits ammunition purchase to 20 rounds per month, with exception for ammunition purchased and used at a shooting range, mandates a 14-day wait AND a positive result of background check to purchase firearms.
Personal Choice and Responsibility
Laws already exist to prosecute those who allow firearms to fall into the wrong hands; a new requirement specifying exactly how owners must secure them is not needed.
Under this bill if a firearm is stolen and the owner returns home and does not notice it stolen for two days, they are guilty of a crime because they “should have known.” Limiting firearm and ammo purchases is an attempt to remove rights from all, rather than focusing on the tiny number who are the problem.
No reputable research has ever shown that permits to purchase firearms or background checks for purchasing ammunition have decreased crime. The majority of criminals do not acquire their guns at gun stores, so background checks and permits will not affect them in any way. This would only affect those who follow the law, and they are not any part of the problem this purportedly intends to solve.
Under this bill if someone purchases a firearm then a week later finds a better deal, they cannot purchase that second firearm and sell or return the first.
Five-round capacity magazines do not exist for standard pistols and most rifles. This would therefore effectively make already-owned firearms illegal to use. Even if they did exist, police officers carry sidearms with 15 round capacity because that has been determined to be the minimum number needed to stop multiple attackers in most instances. Under this law, if a law abiding citizen were faced with multiple attackers, they would be unable to defend themselves.
Most ammunition is sold in 50-round boxes, so a 20-round purchase limit would again make a firearm virtually unusable as ammunition could not be purchased as manufacturers and stores will resist the cost of repackaging. Preventing citizens from purchasing firearms including the ammunition necessary to use them, has been found to be unconstitutional infringement: if they cannot purchase, then they cannot keep and bear. Criminals will simply source ammo from outside the state or on the black market, they would not be impacted by this.
A 14-day wait to purchase firearms could hypothetically allow someone to “cool down” if they are buying the gun to kill someone but murderers usually have access to other weapons, and/or are mentally ill and untreated, and still will be in 14 days so this will be ineffective. On the other hand, a woman needing to buy a gun to protect herself from a violent ex must wait 14 days, and he knows that. This is a clear, and deadly, infringement on her constitutionally protected right to defend her life.
Requiring a ‘positive’ background check result in order to buy a firearm: 99.8% of ‘delayed’ (inconclusive) background checks are false positives; paperwork errors which can take months or more to clear up. During this time, that woman still can’t acquire a gun to protect herself. The delay could be forever, or until the end of her life.
This bill has no relation to ‘reasonable’ or ‘common sense’ and is not put forward in good faith.
This bill has been requested by “Students for Change”
Seriously, before these proposed bills are written up, they should have to pass a common sense test. Here’s another bill which will turn law abiding citizens into criminals, endanger the lives of people about to become victims, and real criminals will still not be prevented from acquiring firearms. That’s real change alright.
Why not focus on the root of Oregon’s Problems instead of attacking law bidding citizens rights to protect and defend themselves? Drug and alcohol use is rampant in our State and is causing so much more harm creating dysfunctional people, broken families, displaced children that end up in the streets or the welfare systems.
I live in a rural county with one of crime rates in the State, at any given time I could go to town and locate someone selling cocaine, heroin or just about anything a drug addict could dream of.
I personally will not comply with 5 rounds to defend myself knowing that tweekers run rampant in my City, County and State, never mind the coyotes and mountain lions, I am more concerned with the weirdos and freaks that break into my home and my neighbors homes looking to steal so they can get their next fix!
I personally have had my doors kicked in, my life thre as threatened, my kittens heads stomped into my livingroom floor, unknown tweekers trailers dropped on my driveway and burned the ground in the middle of the night and the sherriff can take over 3 hours to respond because they were on call at the other end of the county on other calls. These new proposed gun laws are not Common sense approaches to the safety of the Citizens of Oregon.
I get it, the legally owned guns in this state will be confiscated if we do not comply but as of yet I have NOT heard whether this will be a misdemeanor or a FELONY ! Great excuse to deny you your gun rights because the state made citizens felons because of this asinine law. This could only be thought up by urban folks…