Most of the coverage surrounding the “Community Safety Firearms Act” approved by the Oregon legislature this week has focused on its ban on “rapid-fire devices”, which are vaguely defined as anything that increases “the rate at which the trigger is activated.. to a faster rate than is possible for the firearm without the device; or the rate of fire increases to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire the firearm without the device.” The bill specifically bans bump stocks, trigger cranks ,hellfire triggers, binary trigger systems, burst trigger systems, as well as switches and auto sears, but could arguably trip up any gun owner who puts in an aftermarket trigger that has less pull than what comes standard on the firearm in question.
While that portion of the legislation is bad enough, it’s far from the only onerous measure included in the omnibus gun bill.
It would also allow local governments to pass policies prohibiting people with a concealed handgun license from carrying a gun into certain public buildings.
“A governing body that adopts such policy must post a clearly visible sign at all normal points of entry to the building and grounds and post a notice on the governing body’s website,” the bill says.
The bill also sets the implementation date for Measure 114, the voter-approved law passed in 2022 that bans purchases of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and requires a permit before buying a gun.
In March, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the voter-approved Measure 114 does not violate the state constitution. Barring further legal challenges, the law is effective March 15, 2026.
Democrats and advocates for stricter gun laws and regulations argued collectively the restrictions could help curb firearm fatalities and mass shootings in Oregon.
The idea that we can stop a mass shooting by simply putting up a sign telling people they can’t bring guns inside is downright idiotic. But this is also a weakening of Oregon’s firearm preemption law, and if local governments can ban lawful carryu in certain public buildings I suspect Democrats will soon follow up with legislation allowing localities to impose their own gun-free zones wherever they see fit.
It’s equally stupid to believe that criminals are going to go through the mandated training and paperwork to acquire a permit-to-purchase a firearm instead of stealing one or buying one on the black market. The permit-to-purchase requirement is just another barrier placed in front of those trying to exercise a fundamental civil right by making it a more burdensome, expensive, and time-consuming process.
Banning arms in common use, like magazines that can hold more than ten rounds, is a flagrant violation of our Second Amendment rights. In order tor that measure to be upheld, judges have to write magazines out of the Second Amendment entirely by labeling them accessories or misrepresenting what the Supreme Court has said about protected arms, which is what U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut did two years ago in upholding Measure 114.
Immergut claimed that large capacity magazines aren’t “in common use for self-defense”, and can therefore be prohibited without running afoul of the Second Amendment. The “common use” test, however, isn’t limited solely to self-defense, but for all lawful purposes, and there is no denying that the vast majority of LCMs possessed today are in the hands of gun owners who use them for things like recreational or competitive shooting, hunting, and self-defense.
The Oregon State Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on the legality of Measure 114 under the state Constitution, and the federal lawsuit challenging Measure 114 is sitting in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Those lawsuits could still delay or derail the implementation of Measure 114 altogether, but even if that portion of SB 243 is put on hold there’s plenty left in the omnibus gun bill approved by the legislature to impede and infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.
Read the full article here
