Oregon gun initiative would force surrender of “assault weapons” or register them with the state police

bayonet2Wait until you see the full list of what they define as an “assault weapon.”

From KATU: A recently filed Oregon initiative would make manufacturing, importing, possessing, purchasing or selling an assault weapon or large capacity magazine a crime – with only a few exceptions.

If passed, Oregon Initiative 42 would only allow owners to keep their assault weapons and large capacity magazines if they register them with Oregon State Police.

If the initiative goes into effect, anyone who owns an assault weapon or large capacity magazine will be required to remove them from the state, sell the items, surrender the items to a law enforcement agency for destruction, render the assault weapon permanently inoperable or, if eligible, register the assault weapon or large capacity magazine with Oregon State Police within 120 days.

Anyone who moves into Oregon with an assault weapon would have 120 days to surrender it to law enforcement, transfer it to a licensed firearm dealer, render it permanently inoperable or register it.

Unlawful possession or transfer of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine would be a Class B felony.

In order to register an assault weapon under the act, the owner would need to submit a form to the Oregon State Police with the owner’s name and address and identification number of the assault weapon. The owner must also allow police to conduct a criminal background check to confirm the person is not a prohibited possessor.

Anyone hoping to register an assault weapon or large capacity magazine must prove to police that the items are securely stored and that they are only kept on property owned by the registered owner or on someone else’s property with express permission.

The initiative includes exceptions for government officers, members of the armed forces or peace officers. It would also allow firearm manufacturers to the build assault weapons to sell to the armed forces or law enforcement agencies in Oregon.

Sales and transfers of the weapons or large capacity magazines would only be allowed between licensed firearms dealers and branches of the armed forces or law enforcement agencies in Oregon.

The initiative defines an assault weapon as:

A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:

  • Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock or any other stock
  • Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand
  • A folding or telescoping stock
  • A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel
  • A forward pistol grip
  • A flash suppressor, muzzle brake, muzzle compensator, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, muzzle brake, or muzzle compensator
  • A bayonet mount or a grenade launcher or flare launcher
  • A semiautomatic pistol, or any semiautomatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
  • A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches
  • A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:
  • Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand
  • A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock
  • A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel
  • The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip
  • A threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor or forward pistol grip

Semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:

  • Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock or any other stock
  • A folding telescoping stock

Semiautomatic shotgun that has at least one of the following:

  • A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds or an ability to accept a detachable magazine
  • Shotgun with a revolving cylinder and conversion kit, part or combination of parts from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under control of the same person.

A large capacity magazine is defined as any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds or any conversion kit or combination or parts from which such a device can be assembled,

DCG

23 responses to “Oregon gun initiative would force surrender of “assault weapons” or register them with the state police

  1. Sheep being led to the slaughter

    Liked by 3 people

  2. “If the initiative goes into effect, anyone who owns an assault weapon or large capacity magazine will be required to remove them from the state, sell the items, surrender the items to a law enforcement agency for destruction

    In other words, this is another gun confiscation bill, like Illinois’ HB 1465.
    https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2018/03/19/illinois-state-assembly-approves-gun-confiscation-bill/

    Liked by 3 people

  3. All flagrant violations of Oregonians civil rights.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. They are targeting the exact Weapon we would need to defend ourselves from a Tyrannical Government.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. I hope none of them are turned in if this does pass. Defend the 2nd Amendment. Come and take it!

    Liked by 3 people

  6. So now states rights trump the Constitution of the United States. Are they trying to succeed from the Union. Last I looked all the States fall under the law of that Document. So when did they decide they do not have to abide by it any more? If this starts snowballing it will be all over the country because of the emotionally driven snowflakes who demand everything they want and it seems they get what they want in some states. Be prepared when it hits your state to call your congressman or congresswoman and senators non stop till you make your point and dive it home.

    Votes and Money is all they understand lets take both away from them. They are throwing the proverbial bull dung onto the wall and they are going to see if it sticks and if it does, the grassroots will crop up in every state to start the ball rolling. Molon Labe

    Liked by 1 person

  7. If this passes, it’s time to start the revolution.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. What law, if any, allows these states to violate the Constitution?

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Kevin J Lankford

    Passing it is one thing, enforcing it will be the true test of their authority; or should I say tyranny?

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Those wonderfully honest, law-abiding government officers are, of course, excepted from this law.

    Liked by 4 people

    • John . . . . It really peaked my interest . . . . the fact that “government officers” are exempt. Tell me what is the definition of a “government officer.” Is that a mayor, is that someone on the city council, is that our local state legislators, or senators ???? Who are these “government officers” who get a pass on this law.

      As you can see, those of us who live in Oregon have a 900 lb gorilla on our backs, in the guise of our state legislators.

      Liked by 2 people

  11. “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
    – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

    Liked by 3 people

    • dkolb2010 . . . . Thank you for bringing that quote to our minds. There is no doubt that this quote is 100% true . . . just look at those areas of the country that have extremely loose gun laws–their crime rate is much lower than the areas that have draconian gun laws.

      Liked by 2 people

  12. so, when does the federal govt step in to declare this stuff unconstitutional?
    yeah….not!

    Liked by 3 people

  13. Forced to surrender many things and anything is DICTATORSHIP, and I don’t have to surrender my purchase because I lawfully bought it and REGISTERED it, I am a law abiding citizen and I solely purchased it to protect myself and he’ll BECAUSE WANTED TO OWN ONE.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. I wonder how this is going to play out….

    Liked by 2 people

    • True George . . . . I have a sneakin’ hunch that there will be a very low amount of these weapons that will be turned in, or registered. Why isn’t the State of Oregon offering to pay the owner, if they expect the owner to give up something that he/she legally purchased.

      Liked by 3 people

      • yeah, why would people expect to turn in their property without receiving compensation. Even in NYC there used to be a program to compensate people if they turned in their unregistered gun. politicians don’t think things out…..

        Liked by 1 person

  15. How about I do neither? Freakin’ commies!

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Here’s how I see it:
    Those with guns they wish to keep, and with the ability to move out of state, will. This scenario will repeat itself as each successive state tries to reign in the 2nd Amendment.
    Eventually we’ll have a schism of two United States: one inhabited by arms-owners; the other with those who prefer to give up their Constitutional Rights to Liberals. When the Great Civil War 2 breaks out, who do you think is going to be better armed to fight the other side?
    What remains to be seen is who will the military, local, & state police back? I don’t think it will unanimous. More importantly before it gets to that, is who will the SCotUS back? My guess is — we the people and our 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights. Although they may well get “re-defined” somewhat…

    Liked by 2 people

    • BTW, watching the march against the 2nd Amendment right now on CSpan.

      Scary. What will we do once this generation finds it can literally change our Constitutionally-guaranteed Bill of Rights by MOB RULE rather than via democratic process, legislation, and voting?

      My guess? We’ll soon find ourselves losing the 1st Amendment as well — the right to speech, free press, and to practice religion as we desire, any time those rights interfere with the Left’s politically-correct agenda.

      The same way the stoner culture convinced state governments to pass laws, in conflict with federal laws, to make the consumption of marijuana legal (for medical and in some states, recreational use). DUI arrests locally have gone up 25% in the last 5y. There are 10,000 deaths from crashes per year caused by DUI, the majority of which are now from marijuana in states that have legalized it. I’m at best of the same mind for pot use as I am for booze: if you’re going to use it, STAY HOME. Don’t endanger my right to life and my property by driving while stoned… But many just can’t resist the urge.

      We CANNOT allow mob rule by the few, especially those of minority age, to alter our Constitution and Bill of Rights, or legislation generally!

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s