The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced.
Creates crime of unlawful possession or transfer of assault weapon or large capacity magazine. Punishes by maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, $250,000 fine, or both.This bill was introduced on my birthday to the Oregon State House of Representatives.
Requires current owners to dispose of or register assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
Directs Department of State Police to conduct background checks and maintain registry of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
Declares emergency, effective on passage.
Michael Malkin has some unkind words to say about it.
Essentially, this bill includes:
- owners of "high-capacity" magazines and/or "Assault Weapons) must dispose of them either by selling (to a dealer who also must not possess this "bad stuff")
- .or or turning them over to a governmental agency (without compensation)
- or 'rendering (them) inoperable
- or "registering" it/them.
Assault Weapon: whatever we say it isActually, the provisions of this bill are nothing new at all at all at all. See "1994 Assault Weapons Ban". (NOTE: A Wikipedia link. As much as I am loath to accept Wikipedia as an authoritative resource, I'm inclined to cite them if only because their articles are subject to review by contributors with 'opinions' which may not directly agree with those of the original authors.)
Hi Capacity Magazine: whatever we say it is (so far: 10 rounds)
Here's the Washington Post's take on the effectiveness of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban .. essentially, they think it was A Good Idea, but ten years was just not sufficient time to properly evaluate the laudable effects of the law.
Factcheck (an Annenberg project) strongly implies that the 1994 ban on assault weapons showed a lowered risk by "assault weapons" but it was offset by crimes involving "hi-capacity magazines".
Obviously, Oregon Liberal Representatives have decided to correct the errors of preceding administrations by banning both.
The National Institute of Justice, in a research brief, disingenuously observed that:
[emphasis added] Note that the comment "prices fell afterward" doesn't mean that prices fell after the ban took effect; it refers to the fact that prices fell after the "SUNSET CLAUSE" in the original bill took effect in 2004! As for the comment that "...they must have become less accessible to criminals..."; that strikes me as especially facetious, in that criminals have always had access to banned items. That IS their Job Description!
A number of factors—including the fact
that the banned weapons and magazines
were rarely used to commit murders in
this country, the limited availability of
data on the weapons, other components of
the Crime Control Act of 1994, and State
and local initiatives implemented at the
same time—posed challenges in discerning
the effects of the ban. The ban appears
to have had clear short-term effects
on the gun market, some of which were
unintended consequences: production of
the banned weapons increased before the
law took effect, and prices fell afterward.
This suggests that the weapons became
more available generally, but they must
have become less accessible to criminals
because there was at least a short-term
decrease in in criminal use of the banned
Authors and co-signatories of the bill are: (Representative GREENLICK; Representatives BAILEY, BUCKLEY, DEMBROW, FREDERICK, READ, REARDON, TOMEI, Senators BURDICK, DINGFELDER, HASS, MONNES ANDERSON, MONROE, SHIELDS, STEINER HAYWARD)
The State Representatives are all Democrats. The State Senators are all Democrats.
I've written to MY state representative. If you live in Oregon, I suggest you do the same.
Perhaps you'll manage to sound less outraged than I did.
UPDATE: February 25, 2013
I received a response from my state representative at 06:20 am this morning:
Thank you for your letter about HB 3200. I am not one of the co-sponsors of the bill and I do not serve on a committee that considers gun related bills, so I have not had time to look at it carefully since it was introduced on Friday. It is my understanding that gun bills are unlikely to receive hearings this session. In the event the bill does come out of committee, I will remember your concerns as I evaluate the bill in its final format.
Thanks again for writing.
Representative Sara Gelser
Chair, House Education Committee
House District 16 (Corvallis/Philomath)