Details On Oregon’s New Insane Gun-Grab Bill, with Sneak Amendment

3
2221
democrats war on guns

SB 978 has it’s first “amendment”. It’s 44 pages long and turns the bill into a nightmare anti gun bill.

We told you about SB 978 yesterday and assured you that this harmless looking bill was going to be gutted and stuffed with draconian anti-gun language, and it has been.

Here is a link to the “Dash 1” amendment to the bill. And of course we use the word amendment quite loosely.

The “amendment” is 44 pages long. The “bill” was a few paragraphs.

After our first review of the bill here are the elements we noticed immediately. No doubt we missed a few.

If this “amendment” is adopted, the hateful bill will:

  • Allow gun stores to refuse to sell firearms and ammunition to young adults (As Bi-mart, Walmart and Fred Meyers have done in violation of the law.)
  • Exonerate gun dealers who violated our anti-discrimination laws, even if they did it before this bill was passed. (Get out of jail free card for corporations that broke the law.)
  • Require that your self defense firearms be locked up. Under this bill you can be prosecuted even if you did lock up your guns with a cable lock if someone has “access” to a device to defeat the lock. Which of course, is anyone who has access to almost any tool.
  • Hold gun owners responsible for two years for guns they “transferred” unless they could prove the transferred gun had a trigger or cable lock. (This is one of the most inane ideas we have ever seen.)
  • Hold gun owners responsible for crimes committed with guns that were stolen from them.
  • Treat “80 % lowers” as complete guns requiring background checks and registration. If the lower is transferred and has no serial number, the police need a “detailed description: or the lower.
    Ban “undetectable firearms.”
  • Ban “untraceable firearms”
  • Increase CHL fees.
  • Allows cities, counties, metropolitan service districts, airports, schools, colleges and universities to ban CHL holders from “public buildings.” Please note. The bill does NOT say buildings owned by those entities. It says “public buildings.” Under this bill a school in John Day could forbid you from carrying your firearm in a public building in Troutdale.
  • Ban CHL holders from airports. No, not just the terminal. But the parking lots and grounds “adjacent” to parking lots. Picking up your spouse at the airport? Go to jail.

This “amendment” is insane.

If you can come to the capitol on April 2nd to testify against this please come. The sideshow hearing starts at 8am with sign ups to testify starting at 7.30 am in room 50 in the Capitol basement.

If you cannot be there in person please upload testimony to sjud.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov

You can contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee here.

The Senators who support your rights on that committee are: Kim Thatcher, Cliff Bentz and Dennis Linthicum. All the rest are opposed to your rights.

The person allowing this outrage to go on is Senate President Peter Courtney. You can, and should, contact him here.

This is not the end of it. Floyd Prozanski is planning another anti-gun bill to be heard on April 8th 2019 where, not doubt he plans to take away whatever he missed on this bill.
It’s essential that you get involved. NOW.


Oregon Firearms FederationAbout Oregon Firearms Federation:

The Oregon Firearms Federation has proven itself to be Oregon’s only no compromise lobbying group, OFF takes the same tough stands and serves as a vehicle for educating gun owners, promoting their rights and when necessary, fighting the freedom haters in court. Visit: www.oregonfirearms.org

3 COMMENTS

  1. So they can just nullify Amendments? How about the 13th and 19 next?
    This government is already engaging in Prison Slavery . .. just make it Official to pay the National Debt.

    Sue them for violating your CIVIL RIGHTS:
    We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment.
    Find one government in all of history that banned it’s own ARMED FORCES from “Keeping and Bearing” ARMS.
    Find one government in the history of humanity that felt a need to document a “RIGHT” for it’s ARMED FORCES to possess ARMS.
    Oppressive Governments are ALWAYS banning the People’S RIGHTS to arms.
    The claim that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to give Our ARMED FORCES a “right” to keep and carry ARMS is S-T-U-P-I-D.
    The only reason for the Second Amendment is to clearly spell-out the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep & bear ARMS.
    The only reason for the BILL(list) of RIGHTS was to codify INDIVIDUALS’ GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
    Has there ever been a government that was not chock full of it’s “rights” up to and including declaring itself to be the Lord God Almighty?! (Rome, Egypt, Israel,etc)
    Does the 1st Amendment mean the GOVERNMENT is allowed to give speeches? Try shutting up any Politician. But THEY would LOVE to shut YOU up, hence the FIRST Amendment.
    Anyone who tells you the 2nd Amendment applies to the Army or State Militia, is telling you they think you are STUPID.
    There has NEVER been a government that felt it had to codify it’s army’s/soldier’s “RIGHT” to “Keep and BEAR ARMS” because there has NEVER been a government that refused to allow It’s own soldiers to KEEP and BEAR ARMS!
    The Second Amendment was written for the People, like the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. This was confirmed by the SCOTUS in the DC vs Heller decision, where they stated that the “People” in the Second Amendment were the same “People” that are mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendment.
    The 2nd Amendment clearly codifies the “right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms”, and certainly not “the Militia”.
    Why would “the Militia”, a type of army manned by citizen-soldiers as opposed to full-time “regulars”, need a constitutional amendment to guarantee they have the right “to keep and bear arms”?
    Is there any specific statement anywhere in the Constitution that the army Congress is empowered to raise has the “right to keep and bear arms”? Of course not. …………. That is assumed.

Comments are closed.