Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Oregon HB 3200 AWB


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 delNbones

delNbones

    Physics Pirate

  • Contributor
  • PipPip
  • 207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anchorage, AK

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:38 AM

The gist of Oregon HB 3200

- Limits you to 1 "AW" (Sec 4.4)

- Limits possession to 3 magazines (Sec 4.4)

- Allows an inspector in your home to "inspect" the firearm (Sec 4.5.b. and Sec 5.4)

There's more to it and I encourage everyone to read it before writing/emailing/calling their state reps and senators. A friend of mine said that "if your senator or rep does not recognize you voice on the phone, you're not calling them enough."

 

OFF link for HB 3200


Just an Alaskan with a PhD in Physics surviving one day at a time.


#2 Odd Man Out

Odd Man Out

    DOES NOT SUFFER FOOLS LIGHTLY...

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,663 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2013 - 01:52 PM

Def need to do all we can to squash this -- if this goes through I become a criminal and that would suck rotten peas!


But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Matthew" 10:33

#3 Gulo

Gulo

    Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 48 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:04 PM

  • sent via automailer:
  • HB 3200 bans virtually all modern firearms. It even allows the police to search my home with no warrant!

    This is extremely unconstitutional.

    Never have I seen a piece of legislation that was more a product of hatred and ignorance than HB 3200. This bill bans products that don't even exist.

    I am shocked and disappointed that legislation like this would even be considered in my state. The very reason I moved to Oregon is that the gun laws are favorable to gun owners. It is extremely troubling that Oregon has legislators who are trying to ban tools they don't even comprehend.
  •  
  • This is also extremely unconstitutional and a danger to our Republic and its' people.

  • I have a son and a wife. She is looking to buy a Glock 22 in the near future to not only protect herself but our child from those that would do them harm. I also plan to buy several firearms, not just for sporting purposes but for defense of myself and those around me from any that would seek to inflict lethal harm upon others and/or myself. This law would leave her, myself and others defenseless in the inevitability of these events. Furthermore, my ancestors fought in the revolution, not for "sporting" firearms but for the rights of the people to decide a form of government that would not act in oppressive manners.
I am also not comforted that Senate Democrat have claimed they will not move forward with a bill of this kind. Last session we were told that a ban on licensed carry on school property would not move forward and then Peter Courtney revived it in the last days of the session and tried to ram it through with no opportunity for public testimony!

This is also very unconstitutional in nature.
  •  
  • This is also very unconstitutional in nature.
  •  
  • I very strongly urge you to oppose HB 3200 and any bill that mindlessly attacks the rights of the people.


In case you need a refresher:
"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms Shall Not Be Infringed!"
 


Edited by Gulo, 23 February 2013 - 10:05 PM.


#4 delNbones

delNbones

    Physics Pirate

  • Contributor
  • PipPip
  • 207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anchorage, AK

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:19 PM

My Letter:

 

Dear Representative or Senator,

 

My name is delNbones and I am a graduate student at Oregon State University. I am currently working toward my PhD in physics and I would like to discuss the current proposed legislation regarding the lawful ownership of firearms, namely HB 3200. I shall make my case using cited facts about crime and gun ownership.

 

Over the past 20 years, the discussion about reducing violent crime has centered on the regulation of firearms. During this period the number of violent crimes in the US has dropped from 1.9 million (1991) to 1.2 million (2011) while the population has increased from 252 million to 311 million [1]. This equates to a violent crime rate of 758 (crimes per 100,000 people) in 1991 to 386 (crimes per 100,000 people) in 2011 [1]. During this time we have seen a federal assault weapons ban, 1994-2004. Many like to point out that this spurred the drop in crime, which is not the case. The firearms listed in the ban have become more popular than ever and there are more of these firearms in civilian hands than prior to the ban. Since the tragedy at Sandy Hook, the NICS, the free FBI background check system, has had over 2.7 million checks [3] mostly due to fear of a permanent ban on semiautomatic firearms.

 

Many people argue that registration does not lead to confiscation. The rebuttal for this argument points to historical incidences of where a national government has disarmed their own citizens by enforcing registration. I will forgo the usual foreign examples and instead use domestic examples of confiscation. In 1967 New York City enacted comprehensive firearm registration, this included long-guns and handguns. At the time politicians spouted how this would not lead to confiscation, however in 1991 the city council made private possession of certain semiautomatic rifles and shotguns illegal, similar to those banned between 1994 and 2004, and confiscated them using random searches of people’s homes. This however did little to curb crime as a vast majority of firearms used in crimes were not lawfully registered nor were they rifles or shotguns. The FBI Uniform crime reports show that a vast majority of firearms related crimes are committed using handguns. Current legislation in California is threatening to collect the state’s 167,000 registered “assault weapons” without compensation for their owners. Current New York legislation has lowered the magazine limit from 10 to 7 rounds, which is receiving fierce opposition on the county level. Looking beyond the violation of the Second Amendment, these laws also violate eminent domain as they do not compensate the owners for their property.

 

The state of Oregon has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country at 248 violent crimes per 100,000 people [1], comparatively New York and California have violent rates of 398 and 411 per 100,000 respectively [1]. I would also like to note that roughly 40% of Oregonians own firearms [2] [4]. This gives credence to the idea that possession of firearms does not lead to crime.

 

We can also delve into firearms case law. In 1939 a case, US v. Miller, came before the Supreme Court of the United States questioning if the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) violated the Second Amendment. The court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to “ordinary military equipment.” Semiautomatic firearms fall under this because their fully automatic counterparts are standard issue in all branches of the armed services. The next landmark firearms case in the nation’s highest court was the widely publicized DC v. Heller (2007). The decision in Heller expounded upon Miller by stating that the Second Amendment applies to the firearms that used by militia, in other words, it applies to those which have common use for lawful purposes. Next I’d like to mention McDonald v. Chicago (2010), which did set the standard that firearms can be regulated, more specifically: "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." This, however, is not a license for bans on types of firearms, only reasonable restrictions on whom may possess them and where they may possess them. Lastly, I would like to note that in Haynes v. US (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that felons have no duty to register their weapons because it violates their Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. These all address the restriction layed out in HB 3200 as being unconstitutional based upon the Second Amendment but it also violates firearms owners’ Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizures. The text in HB 3200 explicitly states that an “inspector” can “inspect” the firearm and its storage container without a warrant (Sec 4.5.b. and Sec 5.4). This places an undue burden upon lawful gun owners while not curbing a criminal’s ability to acquire guns.

 

I would also like to address the misnomer that the police have the duty to protect civilians. The Supreme Court and the DC Court of Appeals have ruled that the police only have obligation to enforce the law. In Warren v. DC (1981) the DC Court of Appeals held that the police have no obligation to provide protective services to an individual except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals. This is interesting because it stated that police have no duty to victims of criminal acts. In the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme Court found that the police had no obligation to enforce a restraining order and therefore could not be deprived of their Fourteenth Amendment rights (due process clause). These rulings affirm the concept that the individual is ultimately responsible for their own safety.

 

I implore you to vote against any and all new firearms legislation that restricts the ability of law-abiding citizens to acquire them, especially HB 3200. None of the provisions in the bill stop criminals from acquiring firearms. This bill unconstitutionally serves to only restrict the lawful use of firearms by law-abiding citizens and by definition criminals do not adhere to laws. Instead, please focus on mental health reform so that those who need treatment can receive help, not only from medication, but also through psychiatric help. The lack of follow-up mental care needs to be addressed. Another useful reform would be to institute stiffer penalties for those who break the law using a firearm. It will help curb the violence and will not hinder the law abiding citizen defending themselves.

 

Oregon Constitution Section 27:

The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

 

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing your reply. If you would like to discuss the finer points of firearms ownership or the current laws, I will gladly either meet with you or discuss them over the phone. Sincerely,

 

delNbones

 

References

1. FBI Uniform Crime Reports: http://www.fbi.gov/a...e/violent-crime

 

2. http://usliberals.ab...-Population.htm

 

3.http://abcnews.go.co...-december-2012/

 

4.http://www.oregonliv...t_monolith.html


Edited by delNbones, 25 February 2013 - 02:33 PM.

  • Gary and Gulo like this

Just an Alaskan with a PhD in Physics surviving one day at a time.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users