New ban perposal in oregon

Discussion in 'XDTalk Chatter Box' started by carlb87, Dec 13, 2012.

  1. carlb87

    carlb87 XDTalk Newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    Oregon residents due to the recent tragity a senitor is trying to pass a new ban. Call or email her and tell her how well criminals listen to laws!

    sen.ginnyburdick@state.or.us


    From: Sen Burdick Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:38 AM To: - House Democrats; - House Republicans; - Senate Democrats; - Senate Democratic Office; - Senate President's Office; - Senate Republicans; - Senate Republican Office; - House Republican Office; - House Democratic Office; - House Co-Speakers Office Roblan Subject: Large Capacity Magazines-invitation to sign onto legislation

    Dear Colleagues:

    The shooting yesterday at Clackamas Town Center is a tragic reminder that gun violence can occur anywhere, even in a happy crowd of Christmas shoppers. I am sure you join me in extending our thoughts and prayers to the victims of yesterday’s shooting, along with their families and loved ones.

    According to news reports, the shooter yesterday was able to rapidly fire about 60 shots. This terrifying situation exemplifies the danger of large capacity magazines in our community. Large capacity magazines can dramatically increase death tolls and have no legitimate place in our neighborhoods.

    Even hunters are restricted from using large capacity magazines: there is a five cartridge limit for large game hunting, and three for bird hunting. If we limit capacity for hunting animals, why do we not extend that principle to guns that may harm our neighbors?

    In the wake of yesterday’s tragedy, I wanted to share with you a bill I’ve had drafted for pre-session filing for the 2013 Session.

    LC 1031 (attached) creates a crime of knowingly selling or transferring a large capacity magazine. A large capacity magazine is defined as “ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.”

    The concept creates an exception for law enforcement and military personnel.

    The penalty for selling or transferring such a device is punishable by a maximum of one year’s imprisonment, $6,250 fine or both.

    I invite you to sign onto the bill as co-sponsor. If you would like to sign onto the bill before next Friday’s deadline for pre-session filing, please contact my office at 503-986-1718, or come by our office, S-213. -

    Senator Ginny Burdick
     
  2. ///MCoupé

    ///MCoupé XDTalk 2K Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,978
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Land of the Free
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    silly perposals by senitors based on tragitys..
     
  3. cjd3

    cjd3 XDTalk 100 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Anchorage
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    Stealing guns should also be against the law.
     
  4. js12278

    js12278 XDTalk 4K Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,498
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Central Illinois
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    I want to know why the AR 15 did this.....
     
  5. sdprof

    sdprof XDTalk 5K Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,159
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Near the Black Hills of SD
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0
    Shooting people should be against the law.

    People that do it should be locked up for a long, long time.

    Wait......we got that already.

    More to the point, if a would be mass killer, who isn't going to obey the laws anyway, had a pocketful of 10 round magazines, would it really make much difference compared to one 30 rounder? Two mag changes takes what, five seconds total?

    Legislators shouldn't be allowed to present laws about things they know nothing about.
     
  6. mojoman

    mojoman XDTalk 2K Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,377
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Lakewood WA
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    You're got to be kidding I'm suppose to be getting my CCL there pretty soon and I don't need this to happen so whatever it take I will do it.
     
  7. Shadow1973

    Shadow1973 XDTalk 100 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2012
    Messages:
    137
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    More people are killed by drunk drivers daily. Why don't we limit all vehicles to a maximum speed of 10 mph? Hell, on top of that; nobody can own or operate a vehicle until they cleared a $25 federal background check, have a cleared phychiatric evaluation, have completed the state/local CCV (Civilian Controlled Vehicle)course, waited the 90 days and received a state/local issued CCV permit, and then finally have proof of insurance provided at a "reasonable" price by the Federal Government?
     
  8. 1lowlife

    1lowlife XDTalk 15K Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    16,519
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Great Lone Star State
    Ratings:
    +67 / 0
    Sorry...:mad:
     
  9. katokahn99

    katokahn99 XDTalk 2K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,654
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Don't you know my IP?
    Ratings:
    +16 / 1
    That high capacity magazine just jumped up and killed 60 people!!!!

    That AR-15 would not have been stolen if stealing were banned.

    That bad bad man wouldn't have done a mall shooting if malls were banned.
     
  10. yocan

    yocan XDTalk 10K Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    13,601
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Illinois
    Ratings:
    +40 / 0
    Intolerable cops are the worst shots areound why would you give them the ability to spray and pray.

    Blatantly unintelligible.
     
  11. tkilla

    tkilla XDTalk Newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2011
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Bay area, California
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    I talked with an old coworker that works at a store in that mall and was told the actual rounds fired off were about 20 and not anywhere near 60.
     
  12. ArmyGuy45

    ArmyGuy45 XDTalk 10K Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    13,837
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Mesa, AZ
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0
    Doesnt matter, the media says 60 so its 60.

    Either way why didnt anyone shoot back? Was it a gun free zone?
     
  13. Stogies

    Stogies XDTalk 1K Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    Hm, how many people got killed, 2? And shot how many more? 3? Doesn't seem to me that large capacity magazines worked very well in this case?

    Feelgood laws designed by fools.
     
  14. mojoman

    mojoman XDTalk 2K Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,377
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Lakewood WA
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    Or you can just carry six 10 rds mags now.
     
  15. user440

    user440 XDTalk Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    St. louis
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    Ha ha

    Carlb- I hope you hit spellcheck before sending something off. Damn brother...
     
  16. Scoobywagon

    Scoobywagon XDTalk 100 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Bremerton-Like
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    An open letter to Senator Ginny Burdick of the Oregon State Senate:

    Honorable Senator Burdick,

    I've read your proposal for legislation restricting the capacity of firearm magazines. This proposal, of course, comes in the wake of the terrible shooting at the Clackamas Town Center mall. I would like to offer some assistance in this matter, if you'd be willing to accept it.

    You propose to limit the capacity of firearm magazines on the theory that if the shooter had had less ammunition available to him, fewer rounds would have been fired, reducing the number of injuries and deaths. I admit, this does sound good on the surface. Unfortunately, what you've failed to consider is the speed with which a magazine may be changed. Such legislation also fails to consider the fact that such magazines already exist.

    Madam Senator, I no longer consider myself proficient with this weapon as I have been out of the Marine Corps since 1996. However, I can change magazines on that weapon in less than 2 seconds. As a matter of fact, I can shoot against a friend with a 30-round magazine and only be approximately 3-5 seconds behind him by doing 2 magazine changes. So, yes, while it would slow down such an attacker, it would not be particularly meaningful. This is especially true in the case of a person who is willing to spend a modicum of time training to speed up those magazine changes.

    As for the availability of "large capacity magazines", the issue here is that such magazines already exist and are widespread. Additionally, this legislation, as proposed, does not affect out of state sales. What if our theoretical bad guy bought those magazines in another state? Why, nothing at all happens. He would be in legal possession of those magazines.

    Of course, this legislation, just as with all others like it, assumes that a person who ignores laws pertaining to the theft of a weapon, the taking of another life and the unsafe discharge of a weapon will adhere to a ban on magazine capacity.

    As I've noted previously, this legislation you've proposed does have a degree of "feel good" about it. People will tend to feel better because they perceive that you, their elected official, have done something to improve their safety. In fact, this does nothing more than make it marginally more difficult for a law-abiding citizen to obtain large capacity magazines.

    Obviously, nobody wishes to see this sort of thing happen again. The question is: What do we do about it? This is a question to which there is no particularly easy answer owing to the extremely divisive nature of the question. Gun control advocates, given their druthers, would go house to house and seize every gun they could find. Gun rights advocates, on the other hand, would arm every man, woman and child. Somewhere in the middle, there has to be an answer.

    Studies have shown that the issue really isn't the number of guns available or the capacities of their magazines. The issue really is who gets those guns. Background checks go a long way here. Unfortunately, there will always be someone who slips through the bureaucratic cracks. What happens then?

    Some studies have shown that when the general public responds to such an incident, deaths and injuries are significantly lower than similar incidents in which the public waits for the police. I have seen analysis that indicates the intervention of a civilian results in 2.3 deaths vice the 14.3 deaths, on average) that result from waiting for the police. Therefore, we, as a society, must encourage people to stand against these mad men. How do we do that?

    Firstly, I should think the thing to do is to offer legal protection to such people. ORS 30.800 as enacted in 1985, commonly called the "Good Samaritan Law" protects those who provide emergency medical assistance. I would submit that this law could be amended to provide similar protections to those who choose to put themselves between a shooter and the rest of the crowd.

    Secondly, for those who choose to exercise their second amendment rights, arbitrary restrictions on caliber, capacity or accessories should be lifted. There's no reason why the good guys should be at any disadvantage against the bad guys.

    It isn't that I'd advocate the complete lifting of any restrictions on the ownership of firearms. It's just that we seem to have come to a point where our laws are working against us and THAT is what needs to be addressed.

    I thank you for your time.

    Sincerely,
    <My Name>
     
  17. DanCCH

    DanCCH XDTalk 100 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2012
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    Well said.

    Sent from my Droid RAZR HD MAXX
     
  18. smencinias

    smencinias XDTalk 2K Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,792
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0
    "The concept creates an exception for law enforcement and military personnel"

    first: isnt this illegal to do?

    second: its state level, they have NO SAY about what the military does
     
  19. Knightslugger

    Knightslugger XDTalk 5K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,193
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Ratings:
    +22 / 3
    The Militia (National Guard) is State controlled.
     
  20. smencinias

    smencinias XDTalk 2K Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,792
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0
    true, it wasnt specific so im reading into it. my fault :cool:
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
lc 1031 oregon
,
new california gun law perposal
,
oregon
,
oregon ban guns
,

oregon handgun magazine capacity limit

,
oregon lc 1031
,
springfield xdm .45 acp 4.5 for sale oregon
,
springfield xdm ban