portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts oregon & cascadia

government | police / legal


See the bill here:  http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measpdf/hb3200.dir/hb3200.intro.pdf
Massive Gun Ban Introduced


Two days after Senate Democrats claimed they would not seek a ban on modern firearms and feeding devices, Democrats in the Oregon House introduced just that.

Seven Senators joined with eight House Reps to introduce a sweeping ban on virtually all modern firearms. Among the Senators is, of course, Ginny Burdick, who claimed on Wednesday "that she is backing off an attempt to push through a bill on gun clips [she probably means magazines]that she drafted following the December shootings at the Clackamas Mall." The other sponsors are:


Remember them.

HB 3200 not only bans most modern guns and magazines, it allows warrantless searches of your home, requires background checks and registration for a firearm you already own and as-of-yet undefined storage requirements. We say "a firearm" because even if you comply with the restrictions in this bill you may still only own one.

(Of course the bill does not apply to "government employees".)

The bill combines the most extreme and irrational elements of other bills that have been introduced across the country. For example, one of the firearms banned under this bill would be a pistol with a "folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock." No, that is not a misprint.

The principle sponsor of the bill is House Rep Mitch Greenlick, who in the past has concentrated on such worthy endeavors as banning children in bike trailers and making possession of cigarettes a crime.

The bill bans such deadly features as "pistol grips" and "barrel shrouds" because clearly they add to the lethality of any firearm. These people are so full of hatred for gun owners they don't even understand what they are banning.

Never have we seen legislation that was a product of so much ignorance and blind hatred. And don't take any comfort from the claims that bills of this kind are not going to get a hearing. You will recall that last session they said the same thing about a ban on licensed carry in schools. They claimed it was dead and then revived it in the closing days of the session without even allowing public testimony. It was only our relentless efforts that killed it.

Contact your local and national representatives. Tell them to restore the law of the Constitution and maintain the spirit of Oregon.

Hysterical bullshit 24.Feb.2013 14:53


Funny the top search results for this bill are all far right patriot garbage websites, leading with the Ronulians:

Oregon HB 3200/ Gun Ban and Illegal Search and Seizure - Daily Paul
www.dailypaul.com Forums Daily Paul Liberty Forum
Oregon HB 3200/ Gun Ban and Illegal Search and Seizure. Submitted by garyw on Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:39. in. Daily Paul Liberty Forum. Attn: All Oregonians ...
Oregon Gun Ban Bill HB 3200 Includes Police Inspection of Gun ...
1 day ago - Text of HB 3200 here. It's the usual extremist "everything must be banned" type total ban of all modern firearms, with criminalization, prison time, ...
Massive Gun Ban Introduced - Oregon Firearms Federation
2 days ago - HB 3200 not only bans most modern guns and magazines, it allows warrantless searches of your home, requires background checks and ...
Oregon state Democrats introduce HB 3200 - banning guns ...
2 days ago - Oregon state Democrats introduce HB 3200 - banning guns, magazines, and allowing warrantless searches of legal gun owners homes ...

For the record I have no problem with guns. I do have a problem with the NRA cult.

so? 24.Feb.2013 16:34


it is still a bill that will effect every one.

And It was introduced by the far left. Why is surrendering to the state always come with unconstitutional Cowards?

Hey! @ssoul 25.Feb.2013 01:27

Tracy Mapes news1st@hotmail.com

You Will Never Complain About Anything Until It is Something Taken From You.

It doesn't matter if it's Guns, Cigarettes, Motorcycle Access or to Take a Shit. Until "They" try to Strip Some Freedom You Enjoy, You will Sit Idly By. And When That Time Comes, When You Have Nothing Left, There Will Be No One to Hear Your Cries about What You are about to Lose.

This is why "They" Divide Families, Neighbors, and Friends. They Do Not want to Hear You Whimper when You Lose What You Have.

Take Care,

-Tracy Mapes

"They may Seem Far Out and Fools Alike? ...But These are The Assholes They put in Charge of Your Future."

ivresse matinale 25.Feb.2013 10:13


state bills aside, every ordinance currently enacted or proposed by the u.s. government can easily be construed as constitutional. citizens lost to the federalists in 1787 and 1788 and so contend with the u.s. government's implied powers designed for endless expansion. the constitution is a brilliant document engineered by brilliant lawyers, but it would be foolish to think it was drafted with your best interests in mind. in practice the u.s. constitution is more coup d'etat then a preservation of rights.

the preamble alone sets a precedent of dividing government from the populace: "we the people of the united states...do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america." they're the people of the united states, the corporate, mercantile, ruling-class, while the united states of america, the land and its inhabitants, is the country itself. remember, a government is not a country. governments come and go, and the united states is no different. they know this and secure power through obfuscating law.

one subtly employed device is the term "united states" appearing fifty times in the u.s. constitution, alternately referring to the federal government, to the nation as it relates to other nations, and to the individual states. this ambiguity opens law and jurisdiction to elastic interpretation. undefined aspects of "emergency" powers, the "necessary and proper" commerce clause, and the ominously incomplete article iii regarding the judiciary also negate any accountability the u.s. government might have to its subjects.

meaningless 25.Feb.2013 14:33


Yup, hlc's semantics are amusing and useless. This is veiled Patriot Teabagger 2nd Amendment hype.

Origins 25.Feb.2013 18:30



This came from Oregon Firearm Federation (OFF) - they are not a part of the "cult" @rex. Note the lack of NRA links on their site. OFF recognizes the bullshit of the NRA, and they do a great job promoting firearm safety and political activism.

There's an update as well:  http://www.oregonfirearms.org/anti-gun-zealots-change-their-tune

@Fidelity 25.Feb.2013 20:34


Thank you for your input on OFF, Fidelity. However, I'm not convinced.

This wweek article should raise flags:
 link to www.wweek.com

"The Oregon Firearms Federation and similar groups from around the country today wrote to members of Congress asking members to keep their hands off Americans' guns and gun rights.
Here's a statement from OFF:

Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF), the state's only "no compromise" gun lobby joined two dozen other gun rights advocate groups across the country today in sending an important letter* to the members of Congress urging them to protect the 2nd Amendment. "Stripping away a God-given, Constitutionally protected right as a reaction to the crimes of madmen is a ridiculous way to make national policy," said OFF Executive Director Kevin Starrett. "Concentrating all power in the state was the central them behind every murderous regime in history. It must not be allowed to happen here." "

Kevin Starrett is the brother of Mary Starrett, a darling of the Constitution Party. She has her own nutty connections:

The Constitution Party networks with a variety of racist and militia groups, including fascist sympathisers and violent anti immigrant goons.
 link to www.dailykos.com
"Constitution Party (formerly dba US Taxpayer's Party)

The Constitution Party--under both its present identity and its past name as the US Taxpayer's Party--has long been a darling of "Christian Militia" groups, Klan groups, Christian Identity practitioners, and similar racist rogues."

 link to www.splcenter.org

Active 'Patriot' Groups in the United States in 2011
"he Southern Poverty Law Center identified 1274 anti-government "Patriot" groups that were active in 2011. Of these groups, 334 were militias, marked with an asterisk, and the remainder includes "common-law" courts, publishers, ministries and citizens' groups.

Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the "New World Order," engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines. Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist."

However the violence of many militia groups is documented:

These people are dangerous. Organisers may sound sane, but they know they're exploiting a violent base. Kevin Starrett networking with such wacked out folks means he either supports their racist bs or is too naive to know what he's doing.

I don't need my so called gun rights(it's really a privilege, that's why felons lose it) defended by the likes of Starrett.

reste avec nous, princesse persephone 25.Feb.2013 23:58


the preamble of the first draft of the u.s. constitution reads: "We the people ['people' with a lower case 'p', thus not a proper noun] of the States of New Hampshire...and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity." rung through the committee of detail, the committee of eleven, and the committee of style, the "People [proper noun, as it reads in the final draft] of the United States" levied in their foundation of creeping legalese thralldom. but please don't infer from their employment of legalities a respect towards rule of law (in this case, constitutional law), let alone democracy, regardless of how ornately flourishes of american myth have been fixed into its presentation.

in the beginnings of this nation state most americans were not inspirited to participate in a war waged against england for the interests of the colonial political and social elite. rural folk, in the south especially, minding their own in areas with no standing authority, saw nothing to gain in the trade of one ruler for another. by the 1760's the wealthy american ruling-class began to aggregate and redirect towards england the lower-class majority's riotous sentiment behind rebellions seeking to depose the local colonial governments. and when war broke out in the 1770's, the poor were drafted to fight and the rich paid for substitutes. modern day "patriots" have a textbook-skewed understanding of history, as do constitutionalists, liberals, and other naive statists of either the left or right political wings. this is the designed illusion of law, false dichotomies, and power.

perhaps the federalists' reluctant ceding to a bill of rights was on account of their shrewdest, alexander hamilton, furthering governmental oppression on more subtle fronts, most notably his complex snare of a banking system which, in its expanded form, today's federal reserve, renders the constitution, as a whole, irrelevant. debates about money and political posturing, or personal firearms, or a drone-enforced surveillance state, are all simply clashes between those who wish to either rule or be ruled, and those of us who believe the domination and subjugation of others is the problem and causation of reality devastatingly heaving up in historically tectonic magnitudes. the sandy hook massacre was not a crime, just as the september 11th, 2001 attacks or the french revolution were not crimes; these events are reckonings, resonating far beyond any definition of law or the word "crime" which more accurately befits the nature of corporate industrial empires at large helmed by the federal u.s. government and its allies.

@rex 26.Feb.2013 11:58

J. Garand

Rex, buddy? I was wondering if you could flesh out that idea of Privilege vs Right. I mean, the way you said it comes off kind of weird, like Socialism without any of the good things Socialism is supposed to offer.

I'm not calling you a socialist (not that there's anything wrong with that), and I have my own understanding of these terms, just wondering here how you might define them. Your take on the gun rights issue seems to be only somepeople should have them, and if any of the other people can have them too, well then no one should have them.

Its all very arbitrary.

How you feel about this doesn't change the massive amount of guns floating around out there that will always be out there.

Also the militia types kind of scare me too but the article about something from Arizona years ago makes you look a little fanatic trying to paint them a certain way. It will look better if you let them dig there own hole then you trying to bury them in a trench that's not deep enough yet. Who knows? Maybe we'll all come around to a better understanding.

Thanks for the OFF link.

I don't know if your crazy talk fits this thread, but I like it.

Damn Rex 26.Feb.2013 12:58


You really had to reach there in order to find some conservative connections.

You even quoted the SPLC. Do me a favor, go look up their board of directors and see if you really want to quote Homeland Security directors.

What do you know, the organizers of the largest gun advocacy group in Oregon are conservative. No shit. Well, if your day job doesn't pay off, at least you can always fall back and be a private detective.

"These people are dangerous." These people advocate and teach tools of self-defense. I'm sure Kevin & Mary Starrett would teach your hippy ass how to use a gun, too. The irony of calling them dangerous is like sour honey, moron.

You don't have a "Gun Right" you have a Right to Self Defense. That Right includes your freedom to purchase tools that are prohibited to certain individuals for obvious reasons. For example, everyone has a Right to Move Freely, yet some do not have access to cars after multiple DUIs. Felons still have a Right to Self Defense.

@HLC - I like the line, "these events are reckonings" - Indeed, I see it as a result of bad policy and citizen lethargy to fix bad policy. Certainly, this wasn't a problem with people having too many freedoms.