04.04.2023
Hydrogen and Stupidity Are The Most Common Things In The Universe. But Not In That Order.
Today anti-gun bills moved in both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Joint Subcommittee on Ways and Means.
In Senate Judiciary SB 348, as amended, passed on party lines. However, Prozanski also pulled another switcheroo and added another gut and stuff to another “placeholder” bill, SB 393.
It is unknown what the purpose of SB393 is. While it has a different implementation date than SB348, it does not appear to include any new provisions.
One thing that was clear at the hearing was that none of the members of the committee had any idea what this added bill does.
Prozanski’s attempts to explain it demonstrated he had no idea what his own amended bill does or why.
In his garbled explanation he could not even keep the different bills straight.
In defending it, Prozanski took the bizarre position that it would save lives by adding a 72 hour waiting period before a person could take possession of a gun they bought. He appeared to be completely unaware that this language was already in his other anti-gun bill, SB 348.
But the truly inexplicable part, and something no one questioned, was why having to wait 72 hours would reduce dangerous impulses any more than the 8 to 12 months a person already had to wait under SB 348. That’s if they are lucky and the Oregon State Police ever start doing their job.
What is clear, is that along with all the other elements of these bills, anyone with any firearm’s magazine will be subject to arrest after it becomes law. And despite the incorrect information given today by the committee counsel, under SB 348, if you are charged with possession of a magazine, you have no right to the presumption of innocence. The “affirmative defense” mentioned in the bill means it will be up to you to prove you’re not guilty. And by the way, that’s impossible. No photograph or receipt means a damn thing for devices that all look alike and have no serial numbers.
In the Joint Subcommittee on Ways and Means. HB 2005 A moved forward with new amendments .
This bill strips young adults of their right to own modern firearms, bans personally manufactured firearms, and places vast and unspecified areas of Oregon off limits to CHL holders. The discussion around banned places also demonstrated the terrifying ignorance legislators have about the bills they pass. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, one of the most extreme opponents of constitutional rights, intentionally mischaracterized the bill to suggest the firearm’s prohibitions only included “buildings” when in fact they include undefined “grounds adjacent to”. Something Rep. Rick Lewis had to correct. In a moment of obvious deceit, Steiner Hayward insisted that she would find it very “problematic” if localities actually enforced the law and charged people for being close to a public building. But she did agree it could happen.
Anti-gun zealot Paul Evans made the preposterous claim that this bill “protected” localities that did NOT want to institute gun bans and this somehow prevented the state from coming back and changing the rules. Given that changing the agreed upon rules is all the Democrats have been doing for years, this comment was beyond ludicrous.
These bills combined will essentially end Second Amendment rights in Oregon.
At this time there has been no indication that the Republicans plan to do anything to stop them. In fact, they often help the Democrats pass bills.
They are content to sit back and be crushed by the Democrats and leave it to the taxpayers to fund an endless stream of lawsuits. So far none of them have offered to bankroll any of those lawsuits.
If the Republicans are on the floor for votes on any of these bills, their votes are “yes” votes no matter which button they press.
Your rights will evaporate and they will ask you for money to keep them in office.
These are the Republican “leaders.”
503-986-1727
Representative Vikki Breese Iverson
503-986-1459