By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Beaver State lawmakers have backed off a bit on gun control, stripping out a provision for a three-day waiting period and eliminating another tenet which would have raised the minimum age for gun possession.
OregonLive/Portland Oregonian is reporting the Senate Rules Committee voted Wednesday “along party lines” to move a scaled-back Senate Bill 243, which has Oregon Second Amendment activists still fuming. The bill retains a ban on devices which can allow some semi-automatic handguns to fire in full auto. The bill also allows local governments to ban even licensed concealed carry in certain places.
The Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF) posted a blistering reaction: “According to the supporters of this bill this is needed because CHL holders, the most law abiding Oregonians, make some people ‘uncomfortable’ and ‘unable to access their democracy.’”
Perhaps not surprisingly, opponents of SB 243 vastly outnumbered proponents. According to OFF, “Testimony against this bill was 1503 with a mere 187 in support.”
A public hearing on the bill was held Monday, and according to KATU News, “the bill allows cities, counties, and governing bodies of a metropolitan service district to prohibit possession of concealed guns in buildings and on grounds adjacent to buildings owned or controlled by the governing body.” Translation: Even legally-carried guns would be prohibited in public buildings. However, the Oregonian report notes that the provision expanding the public building prohibition to adjacent grounds has been dropped.
State Sen. Anthony Broadman, a Bend Democrat on the Judiciary Committee “told the Rules Committee that adding a 72-hour wait period would have driven up the cost of the bill. It also would have tied the bill up in the Ways and Means Committee instead of allowing it to head straight to the Senate floor,” the Oregonian reported.
He also made an assertion which seemed to contradict common sense and history.
“With this legislation, we can make sure that fully automatic firearm conversion devices are kept out of our state and that people can engage with their local governments without the threat of gun violence,” Broadman reportedly contended.
There is no evidence that any gun prohibition ever prevented criminals from having any kind of firearm they could get their hands on, nor have restrictions prevented crazed people from committing mayhem in public buildings.
Almost six years ago, on May 31, 2019, a man identified as DeWayne Craddock, opened fire inside a municipal building in Virginia Beach, Va. Described as a “disgruntled city employee,” Craddock killed 12 people and wounded four others in the rampage. He was fatally shot by responding police.
In August 1986, postal worker Patrick Sherrill—armed with three handguns—entered the post office in Edmond, Okla., and opened fire, killing 14 people and wounding six more. As noted by Wikipedia, it was this incident which “inspired” the grim phrase “going postal.” Sherrill committed suicide, as have many other mass shooters who ignored existing laws to open fire in schools or other restricted places.
Broadman reportedly acknowledged the waiting period and age restriction could be added as amendments to other gun bills.
According to the OFF website, “SB 243 will make criminals out of thousands of law abiding Oregonians even while Oregon’s Democrat machine makes damn sure violent offenders are protected. It criminalizes the possession of countless firearms accessories that are currently legal.”
