Second Amendment

Oregon Considers Toughest Gun Restrictions in the Country

Five-round magazines and background checks for ammo purchases

|

Allexxandar/Dreamstime.com

The Oregon Legislature isn't even in session yet, but already lawmakers are toying with some pretty draconian gun control proposals. That would include SB 501, which reads like a grab bag of all the latest gun control ideas, turned up to 11.

The bill would require a person to obtain a license in order to own a gun, keep said gun locked and secured in the home once acquired, and submit to a background check anytime they buy ammunition for it.

Speaking of ammunition, firearm owners would be limited to buying only 20 rounds every 30 days unless they're purchasing them at a gun range. That would allow you to go load four five-round magazines—the largest magazine allowed by SB 501.

There would also be a two-week waiting period for gun sales. Folks who don't report a stolen or missing gun in 24 hours would be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor, and could face up to 30 days in jail and a $1,250 fine.

The bill was introduced by Sen. Rob Wagner (D–Lake Oswego), but the specifics were crafted by Students for Change, a high school student group formed in the wake of the Parkland shooting to agitate for new gun control measures.

Wagner says the legislation may be a stretch, but, well, he just can't say no to kids.

"[It's] probably a long shot that something like this passes in whole cloth," he told the Statesman-Journal. "We told [Students for Change] that this is your movement, and we want to support you as representatives."

A companion bill has been introduced in the Oregon House by Rep. Andrea Salinas (D-Lake Oswego).

Any number of its provisions would be vulnerable to constitutional challenges, says Michael Hammond, the legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America. He argues that some of the restrictions are so onerous as to effectively ban the use of common firearms.

"By going to a five-round magazine, you're dealing with a magazine that probably isn't amenable to most of the firearms that take magazines. So therefore, you are basically outlawing firearms that take magazines. I can't conceive that's constitutional," he tells Reason.

A provision of New York's SAFE Act that banned gun owners from having a magazine with more than seven rounds in it—passed in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting—was ruled unconstitutional in 2013.

Hammond says it's a similar problem with the 20-round monthly purchase limit, which he says is so low as to effectively prevent a person from using their firearms.

Other provisions are on sounder constitutional footing, including requiring a license to own a firearm—a policy states like Illinois already have in place.

The extreme nature of SB 501 will likely make it a tough sell. Other gun control bills in the Oregon legislature might stand a chance, however. That would include HB 2251, which would ban those under 21 from owning semi-automatic rifles. (A similar policy passed by ballot initiative in neighboring Washington state with 59 percent of the vote in 2018.)

Another bill, HB 2505, would require firearms to have a trigger lock or be stored in a locked container.

The passage of any of these would be another step back for Oregon, which once had some of the country's saner gun laws, but has in recent years embraced everything from background check requirements for private gun transfers to extreme risk protection orders—which empower law enforcement to confiscate guns from otherwise law-abiding citizens who are feared to be a harm to themselves or others.

That is part of a wider polarization of gun laws in the country, where blue, rural states like Oregon and Vermont embrace stricter firearms regulations, while deep red states like Arizona or Kansas have allowed permitless concealed carry.

Advertisement

NEXT: California Voters to Decide the Future of Their State's Bail System

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Common sense gun safety legislation is always a good thing. And best of all, as longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn has repeatedly shown, it’s perfectly consistent with the Constitution.

    #GunSense
    #LibertariansAgainstTheNRA
    #UnbanMichaelHihn

    1. OBL, don’t ever change.

    2. A five round magazine limit would ban even a classic Colt revolver, including my Great-Grandparents’ pistols handed down from the old West.

      Cold dead hands indeed.

      1. Note: I have never seen a revolver with a magazine.

        1. The cylinder could be classified as a magazine. A magazine doesn’t have to be removable. The Springfield 1903 has 5 round magazine. It is simply not detachable. The M-1 Garand has an 8 round magazine. Same thing.

          1. It could be classified as a magazine, but I suspect they are not classified that way in Oregon. Speed loaders, however, I imagine are.

            1. Speed loaders aren’t feeding devices, they’re loading devices. Like the stripper clips used to load rounds into non-removable magazines in older military rifles. They’re also used to load removable magazines. Military ammo comes on stripper clips.

              1. This is true, I’m just trying to say that the people writing these laws are themselves dolts so expecting them to have any type of legal or logical consistency is probably expecting too much.

            2. (c) “Large-capacity magazine” means an ammunition feeding device, whether fixed
              or
              detachable, with the capacity to accept more than five rounds of ammunition,
              but does not
              include any of the following:
              (A)
              An
              ammunition feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it is not
              capable, now or in the future, of holding more than five rounds of ammunition;
              (B) A 0.22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or
              (C) A tubular ammunition feeding device that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

              1. So it’s fuzzy enough to depend on whether a cylinder “feeds” ammunition or not. My guess is it may be amended before it goes anywhere if anyone points out it’s unconstitutionally vague. Then again what were we to expect from legislation written by school kids? Hell, if they’re public school kids they’re lucky to be able to read the law much less write it.

          2. The venerable Remington 870 is 4-7+1.

        2. Some black powder revolvers have the functionality to change the cylinder to a pre-loaded one. There’s no practical reason that regular revolvers couldn’t do the same.

          1. The cylinder on a single action revolver can be easily removed by pulling out the pin that holds it to the frame. On double action revolvers, which are the type carried for self-defense, you need tools.

            But even on single action revolvers, swapping out cylinders is too slow to be a practical reloading option in a gunfight. And yes, I know that’s people often did reload black powder revolvers by swapping cylinders, but that was the fastest option available to them.

            1. In that case, swapping the cylinder is indeed faster since a lot of those guns were cap and ball. Ain’t nobody got time for that.

    3. “Common sense gun safety legislation” means the total confiscation of firearms from the little people so our ruling elitist turds can enslave us faster.
      What could possibly go wrong?

    4. Wait, I thought 10 rounds was common sense, so how is 5 rounds now common sense? If 5 rounds is common sense then that would have been the limit from the time mag bans were first proposed. This just goes to show that “common sense” has lost all meaning when it comes to gun control, you just label anything you think of as “common sense”

      To put it another way, have you ever heard a gun control proposal that wasn’t common sense?

      1. 10 rounds is common sense and 5 rounds is commoner sense, pretty simple. Single shot, of course, will be commonest sense. One step at a time.

        1. Most commenester would be requiring muzzle loading flint locks, just as the Constitution intended. Anything using a cartridge, less than 30″ barrel, and ability for any attachments is an assault weapon.

          Of course, bayonet lugs should be allowed. Because 1776. But no magazines.

  2. LOL! Stephen Colbert is so funny!

    We got our hands on Trump’s handwritten State of the Union address.

    Click through for a hilarious picture. I promise it’s worth it!

    #TrumpRussia

    1. The Respectable Man’s QAnon

      1. So funny. Much clever.

        1. Fuck man pick something this decade.

          1. Eat a bag of dicks.

  3. 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    All these unconstitutional gun control laws just cannot keep pace with all the rollbacks of gun control in other locations.

    Oregon will just have more residents traveling to Idaho to buy guns and ammo.

    1. You need to read more Michael Hihn. He’s been a libertarian activist for decades and he says there are countless forms of gun safety legislation that are permissible under the Constitution.

      1. LOL Michael Hihn, the “libertarian activist”.

      2. Hihn got banned. His posts got removed last night.

        1. Does that include all the Hihnsocks?

          1. His socks are banned on a piecemeal basis when he inevitably melts down in a shitposting fervor.

            I look forward to collecting more Dumbfuck Hihnsano sockpuppet scalps.

            1. Some of us are just honored to have been nominated to the list.

              1. No doubt that the official list is enshrined on the wall of Hihn’s padded cell.

              2. Some of us are just honored to have been nominated to the list.

                I’m listed on there twice, although I believe Yellow Tony is marked under three different names, which is actually more amusing.

                1. Is anyone listed in BOLD ALL CAPS?

            2. Speaking of scalps collected, today has been a good day for me.

      3. A fucking plus

    2. Article 1, Section 8: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization… To declare War …

      Article 1, Section 9: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight … I have never seen this used in any context but slavery, which is the only subject the Framers dodged, kicking the can down the road 20 years. They didn’t dodge war or naturalization; why single out immigration, which was not contentious?

      14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

      9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      For someone who likes to quote absolute phrases (“shall not be infringed”) as gospel, you do a remarkably poor job of justifying immigration control. How about showing where the federal government gets its authority to control immigration?

      Don’t fall back on hand-waving about border control being too obvious to enumerate; it’s hard to think of a natural right more obvious than self-defense.

      1. Are you familiar with the notion of the exception that proves the rule, and what it means?

        1. Also, is there a reason you left out the necessary and proper clause? Not that I’m a huge fan, but it is written down in there so it’s curious you’d leave it out.

      2. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to acknowledge a fundamental right and prevent government action; infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

        Controlling immigration and naturalization is a power granted to the government.

        Acknowledging rights and granting powers are not analogous.

        1. Where is controlling immigration listed in the constitution? I find the ability to create naturalization rules, but not a peep on immigration.

          Maybe my copy’s too old….

          1. in order for someone to become naturalised, he has to COME here to settle, live a while, decide that he WANTS to become a naturalised citizen. So OF COURSE immigration is one of the steps along the path to naturalisation. Is THAT so difficult to understand?

            So is BEING here, learning the language, becoming culturally acclimated, finding a community, olace to live, perhaps work…… studying for the test, taking it, passing it….. appearing before the magistrate to take your own of citizenship…. how many of those steps are named in the COnstitution? Silly, None are. but they ALL are part of the process…… as laid out by the COngress, as part of its duties spelt out in the Constitution.

      3. EVERY DAY you find some irrelevant place to do a cut and paste of the above drivel and drop it here. to what purpose no one knows, likely not even yourself.

        WHY

        WHAT is your point? It connects with no part of the discussion, nor the article.

  4. “he just can’t say no to kids.”
    Yes. Yes, you certainly fucking can and should.

    1. No, you can’t have ice cream for supper. No, you can’t have my car tonight. No, I will not buy you a new Iphone.

    2. Being unable to say no to kids is one thing when they say “We want ice cream for dinner!”*

      It’s another thing when they demand you pass insane and illegal laws.

      *At least, until we get single payer health care, and it becomes illegal to contribute to the development of diabetes in an American citizen. Then we’ll be lucky if the ice cream shops themselves are still legal, and they’ll require background checks to sell ice cream to customers to ensure they have, indeed, eaten a healthy** dinner and have not had ice cream to exceed their allowed once a month allotment.

      **According to the latest moving target distributed by the FDA, updated weekly.***

      It would be daily, but we all know nothing in government moves that fast.

      1. well, the widdow kiddies haven’t yet taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. This senator HAS. And it don’t matter WHAT his Rice Krispies tell him, whatever bills he floats MUST be consistent witih the content and intent of the Constitution. Else he has committed felony perjury in swearing his oath of office then wilfully violating it.

        Tell the kids to come back when they’ve got about ten years of life under their belts.

    3. Right. Because the kids wrote it themselves. All on their own.

  5. Speaking of ammunition, firearm owners would be limited to buying only 20 rounds every 30 days

    El Oh Fucking El.

    1. Oh fuck. I just had 2500 rounds delivered to my door because there was a rebate and I couldn’t pass up the “savings”.

      Lol.

      1. That’s a ten year supply you have there, pardner. Hand it over……..

        Oh, and did the postman conduct a background check on that brick?

  6. “[It’s] probably a long shot that something like this passes in whole cloth,” he told the Statesman-Journal. “We told [Students for Change] that this is your movement, and we want to support you as representatives.”

    Jesus Fucking Christ, we’re electing retards who take direction from children.

    1. At least they’re being honest about how they’re beholden to a special interest group.

      1. No, they’re not. They’re holding kids up in front of the legislation they’ve always wanted to pass and saying ‘no, but this time for really reals we’re doing it for the kids!’.

        I mean, that’s my spin on it anyway.

    2. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
      The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
      The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
      And a little child shall lead them.

      1. Guess the “little child” was actually the Anti-Christ.

        1. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

      2. And the Reverend shall post with the Libertarians

    3. The city council in Aurora, Colorado passed a “no smoking in your car” ban for the same fucking reason–because they were petitioned by a bunch of Girl Scouts.

    4. “[It’s] probably a long shot that something like this passes in whole cloth,”

      But they’ll happily settle for 50% of it, with nothing given up in return.

      Then they’ll call it a “compromise.”

      I’ve seen this movie before.

    5. His middle name does not begin with the letter F. And you rail on the kids?You’re old enough to know better.

  7. Sad now they will have less means to stop the bad guys with guns….

  8. So it will take me a year just to get enough ammo to go to the range for a few hours. Looks like we’re going to need a bigger wood chipper. Democrats are not Americans.

    1. So it will take me a year just to get enough ammo to go to the range for a few hours.

      In Oregon. You can still buy a mountain of ammo out of state and rent a dump truck to haul it to wherever you live in Oregon with just a driver’s license (CDL). Or, depending on how the law is interpretted, order it online. Even then, I don’t know your specific range but many locally are a registered FFL is more than willing to accept and hold your online order for one mountain of ammunition.

      1. All I know is that if I’m living in Weiser, Payette, or Ingard, Idaho, I’m looking to set up a gun and ammo shop and stocking up BIGLY on common ammo calibers.

      2. I’m thinking there are probably a lot of Oregonians who don’t do their shooting at a licensed range.

        1. Don’t tell RRWP! He’s setting up his ammo shop across state lines like an idiot.

          It would be *hilarious* if this passed and the number of ranges in OR jumped by some ungodly amount overnight.

          1. Don’t worry, I suspect their representatives had the forethought to make getting the license to open a firing range super restrictive and about as fun as a rectal exam.

            1. Seriously? They openly admit that they’re following the ill-advised wishes of high schoolers. I’m pretty sure there’s some kind of violation of oath or breech of ethics going on in abdicating power in such a manner.

              1. Politics and ethics are rarely bedfellows, and an oath is only as good as the human that swears it.

          2. Better to set up shop in the less-regulated area.

    2. Firearm owners would be limited to buying only 20 rounds every 30 days unless they’re purchasing them at a gun range.

      Neglecting the considerable markup that most ranges have, you could just buy 5,000 rounds there and take them home with you. They probably didn’t require that the ammunition be consumed at the point of purchase.

      something something…gun range loophole…

      1. Negligible markup?

      2. you can bet the prohibition from taking the unused part of what you buy at the range WILL be part of the law…. like California requires that ALL arms purchased by California residents can ONLY buy them in state, and now same with ammunition.

  9. That is part of a wider polarization of gun laws in the country…

    Laboratories of democracy, where certain labs experiment with testing the limits of ignoring constitutional protections.

    1. I’ve seen horror/sci-fi movies. I know what can go wrong in a laboratory.

      1. It’s alive!!!

      2. You end up with something that’s half Jeff Goldbloom?

        1. Charlie or River?

      3. Venom was amusing.

  10. Already unconstitutional.

    1. Oregon will find a judge to approve it. And then Roberts will “evolve” on the issue just as the media starts putting pressure on him to do so

  11. It would be entertaining to watch the heads explode when they learn a six-shooter revolver actually holds six bullets.

    1. They make five-shooters.

      Also, LeMat.

      1. They make ten-shooters in 22LR.

      2. There have been some crazy revolvers made in the past. like this 20 shot double barrel revolver

      3. and sevens, and eights. Watch, someone will come out with an even larger cylinder specifically to skirt the mag cap limits.

    2. But they aren’t magazines and you don’t have to load all six bullets.

      1. See above. A magazine is simply a storage place for ammunition (e.g., a ship’s magazine). A magazine doesn’t have to be removable. M1 Garand has an 8 round magazine. Not detachable.

      2. Depends on what legal definition you write for “magazine”. I could easily write something that would sweep revolver cylinders into the mix. It would actually be harder to define them out.

        And, no, you don’t have to load all six – just like you don’t have to fill the 10-round magazine of a semi-automatic. But leaving it half-empty does nothing to protect you from the law against the magazine itself.

      3. I suspect there could be a revolver exception in a law like this. Since they are so common and perceived as less bad than semi-auto pistols.

        I also suspect that this particular legislation has about zero chance of passing.

    3. S&W has a nice 8 shot 357 revolver. it may be my next purchase

  12. Rural Blue states. Heh. Oregon is deeply deeply Red. Except for Portland and Eugene. Sort of like California, where everything east of I-5 (except Davis) is Red or at least reddish purple.

    1. Davis is west of I-5. East of I-505, but that doesn’t count.

    2. more like fifty or more miles east of 101.

  13. Virginia’s proggie governor is also making stupid noises about restrictions and confiscation.

  14. Idiots. Sooner or later, they are going to lard some much carp on the 2nd Amendment that even Roberts won’t be able to find a loophole big enough to rationalize it.

  15. …keep said gun locked and secured in the home once acquired…

    Didn’t Heller address this?

    1. I copied that portion and was coming here to say the exact same thing.

      Heller was 10 years ago, and it seems that neither state nor anti-gunner seem to have read it.

      1. I think it really is to the point that they’re going to have to start losing primary elections on the issue before they drop it.

        1. Even that won’t “cure” them. Something something dog returning to its vomit.

    2. 10th amendment says states don’t have to listen to SCOTUS rulings if it’s for the children. Or something.

  16. “Other provisions are on sounder constitutional footing, including requiring a license to own a firearm?a policy states like Illinois already have in place.

    Ah yes, the only constitutionally enumerated right you need permission from the crown to exercise.

    And these same folks will turn around and say showing ID at the voting booth is an “onerous burden.”

    1. What a bunch of hypocrites they are.


    2. Ah yes, the only constitutionally enumerated right you need permission from the crown to exercise.

      Well said, sir.

      1. Thank you

    3. And these same folks will turn around and say showing ID at the voting booth is an “onerous burden.”

      Yeah, the FOID is required for ammo purchases as well. So maybe less onerous than needing to do a check every time someone wants to buy ammo but pretty functionally equivalent.

    4. Keeping black people from voting: Racism.
      Keeping black people from being keep and bear arms: Good policy.

  17. “[It’s] probably a long shot that something like this passes in whole cloth,” he told the Statesman-Journal.

    “Long shot”?! Fuck, Wagner — How about a trigger warning?!

  18. submit to a background check anytime they buy ammunition

    Think of the JOBS!!


  19. That would allow you to go load four five-round magazines?the largest magazine allowed by SB 501.

    *buys a revolver*

  20. Sen Wagner, it is quite literally your job to say no to kids who propose unconstitutional or just plain stupid public policies.

  21. Oregon is on the right path.
    Prohibition of alcohol worked.
    Prohibition of drugs is working.
    Prohibition of guns will work too.
    History is on Oregon’s side.

    1. Just like how –

      FHA made homes affordable
      US DOE made education affordable
      Obamacare made healthcare affordable

      Isn’t it funny how all these “affordable” and accessible government plans are now American’s biggest crisis.
      Can’t wait for them to start the “Everyone deserves a dentist” plan so I can re-mortgage my house and file for bankruptcy every-time I need a cavity filled.

  22. That would include HB 2251, which would ban those under 21 from owning semi-automatic rifles. (A similar policy passed by ballot initiative in neighboring Washington state with 59 percent of the vote in 2018.)

    If this passes, the only way people under 21 can get a semi-automatic rifle is to join a gang.

    Do people really believe that lawful purchasers of semi-automatic rifles are more likely to commit murder than gangbangers are?

    1. What’s with raising the age for stuff lately (new thing seems to be raising hte tobacco buying age)? Just pick an age of majority and stick with it.

      1. What’s really curious is that they don’t seem to be interested in raising the age to join the military to 21. Why does the government want to give away fighter jets, hellfire missiles, aircraft carriers, and nuclear ICBM’s to children one might ask?

      2. Politicians tell 18 yr olds:

        “You are old enough to fight in the wars I start. You can carry a rifle, and other weapons, and go kill foreigners at my behest. You can possibly die, or get limbs blown off, or get TBI. You’ll come home with PTSD, and maybe commit suicide. but you can handle it”

        18 yr olds ask: “Might I purchase a gun for my own lawful use?”

        “No, you’re not mature enough.”

      3. Also, politicians say, “Hey 18 year olds, you’re wise and mature enough to vote me into office. You can take place in the collective decision making that is politics, and affect the lives of millions of other people.”

        18 yr olds: “Might I purchase a fermented intoxicating beverage?”

        “No, your young brain can’t handle that.”

        Seems you’re an adult when it suits the needs of the state. When you want to do something for yourself, you’re a child.


        1. Seems you’re an adult when it suits the needs of the state. When you want to do something for yourself, you’re a child.

          Indeed, and gone are the days where the government might listen to such an argument RE: when they actually did lower the drinking age to 18 in response to criticisms of foreign war. Not that the government was better then, far from it, rather they at least still operated in some version of the world where they feared a response from the electorate.

    2. If we just raised the age for Internet access I think this would fix everything. 40 sounds about the right age.

  23. Is that 20 rounds per gun per month or just 20 rounds per month period?

    Would that include reloading supplies like primers,bullets and powder? Might want to open a reloading business if it doesn’t.

  24. Wonder if the Democrats are looking for a body double for RBG, so they can cover up her incapacity or death with a well-schooled replacement and keep Trump from appointing another Pro-2nd Amendment Justice.

  25. Folks who don’t report a stolen or missing gun in 24 hours would be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor, and could face up to 30 days in jail and a $1,250 fine.

    I presume the fine for reporting a stolen or missing gun within 24 hrs is only $500 and a week in jail. And the 24 hour clock starts from the moment the gun is stolen, not from when the owner first learns it’s been stolen.

    1. I know that the first thing I want to be worried about when I find out my gun was stolen is that I might be put in jail as the victim of a crime. Seems legit.

      1. I believe the purpose of this provision is to discourage people who were stupid enough to register their arms, from claiming that they were stolen, when the kings men come to complete the confiscation process.

        1. That…is a good point actually. Yikes. Still, $1,250 is a small price to pay to be one of the only people left with a firearm I guess.

        2. By crackie, I believe you’ve the right of it there, old Chap.

          Of course, the proposed law does not, yet, include reporting the LOSS….. there have been SO many tragic boating accidents these past few years, most of them resulting in the loss of someone’s LARGE gin collection.

          Ooops, typo.. GUN collection.

  26. Wow, Oregon and Washington went full prog-retard in the blink of an eye.

    1. They really have. I’m thinking about volunteering for Team Red, not because I agree with them, but just to put some fucking reins on Team Blue.

    2. Bim not full prog retard, just somewhat comatose…. and certainly oblivious. Bloomie’s money bought the stulid illegal bill in Washington, outspending the ones opposing that law twenty to one. Lazy voters never read past the title….. citizens intiatives in Washington can ONLY deal with ONE issue.. each. This bill made signficant changes in somewhere near a dozen issues Thus on its face it violates the State Constitution…… on the one-issue for ballot initiatives alone.

      1. Bloomie and his idiot minions also filed =an identical bill in Oregon to go onto the ballot…. but Oregon’s courts were not corrupt, and disallowed it from even appearing on the ballot. Washington’s Supreme COurt allowed the one there. Else it would have been DOA like Oregon’s was. And FOUR of the WA SC “justices” stood for reelection.. with NO opponents.
        think court judges are important? Yup….

  27. Next year they will limit magazines to one round, which coincidentally will also be the limit for ammunition purchases. But they won’t seize your gun. Oh no. They’re not going to do THAT. So don’t worry. You will be able to shoot it once a year and that should be enough.

  28. Marxists who infect our government plus the media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.
    Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.
    No matter what any politician or hard-left mainstream media tells you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..
    These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family.
    Ask the six million J ews, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the N azi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.
    Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved.
    American Thinker

  29. The rural parts of Oregon are not blue, they are red. The blue part of the state is the northwest corner, dominated by lefty wackaloon Portland. Unfortunately, representation in both the state senate and the house is allocated on the basis of population, so the interests of people in the rural counties are consistently overridden by the far left inclinations of the urban counties.

    1. The proglodyte model for American then.

    2. And those are all the people who will simply ignore the laws as they are doing in Washington. If police refuse to enforce these laws, then what?

  30. but the specifics were crafted by Students for Change, a high school student group formed in the wake of the Parkland shooting to agitate for new gun control measures.

    Wagner says the legislation may be a stretch, but, well, he just can’t say no to kids.

    When the adults in the room wake up and smell the coffee, this stupid senator will wish he’d NOT been unable to say no to the kids. This ain’t high school civics class in a mock legislature drill.

    Maybe pass a law where these kids live liminting them to gas tanks that only hold five gallons, and only four fills a month. See how they like THEM apples. And remind them that driving is a PRIVILEDGE not protected by the COnstitutoin, where the RIGHT to have and use and carry about firearms IS specifically named in the COnstitutoin… which then declares “LEAVE THAT RIGHT ALONE.

  31. At what point do we discuss separating the coasts into their own country with their own culture? They can be like Pakistan and Bangladesh.

    1. It’ll be interesting. Let ’em split off CA, OR, and WA. That’s 6 D votes out of the Senate and I dunno how many out of the House. Real America gets rid of the shitty gun laws. CA, OR, and WA ban them entirely. All the guns leave those places.

      Then we invade, and take them back over, but only as territories without voting rights.

      1. For this only if you can give me a house-swap with some Austin proggie so I can get the hell out of WA before it happens.

    2. Just let each state decide to join Country Blue or Country Red. Most of the major political squabbles would go by the wayside. Not a perfect solution, but far better than what we have now.

    3. Kurt Schlichter has a trilogy based on that concept, but it runs pretty violent [makes for better reading] and of course breaks out into civil war. But it does not seem so far fetched. I say let them break away and designate that high school kids draft all of their legislation.

      Bullying will get you 10 to 20.

    4. We don’t.

      The problem is several population dense cities.

      These exist as dark blue pinpoint in seas of deep red.

      We cut them off. Isolate them. The red populations within them will finish the task.

  32. Any chance portions of this are being pushed by the gun ranges?

    1. You obviously aren’t a member of a gun range.

  33. Other provisions are on sounder constitutional footing, including requiring a license to own a firearm…

    Only because the Official Supreme Court Scrabble Dictionary doesn’t have “infringe” in it.

    What other basic Constitutional right would the Supreme Court allow to be subject to government licensing?

  34. Other provisions are on sounder constitutional footing, including requiring a license to own a firearm…

    Only because the Official Supreme Court Scrabble Dictionary doesn’t have “infringe” in it.

    What other basic Constitutional right would the Supreme Court allow to be subject to government licensing?

    1. We’ll find out when the beer label during shutdown case hits SCOTUS.

  35. Licensing people to own guns reasonably accomplishes the vetting of background checks and is an opportunity to insert some training.

    That same licence would enable the purchase of ammunition. I make my own.

    Securing your weapons when not in use is smart, even during transportation. Any lock.

    Magazine bans are stupid. They swap out so fast.

    1. Any gun restrictions are Unconstitutional.

  36. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……
    http://www.geosalary.com

  37. Oregon is about to have alot of criminals and no place to house them. Most of these “laws” will never stand but like alll lunatic leftists, they think they have to try

  38. Remember laws like this when you hear a progressive talk about “common sense gun laws”. This is exactly what they mean

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.