Proposed Bill Aims at Assault Weapons

video preview image

SALEM, Ore. — A bill proposed in Salem would enforce tighter gun control regulations in Oregon and one of the co-sponsors is from the Rogue Valley. An official of gun organizations in the state is calling the bill possibly the most extreme anti-gun bill in the country.

House Bill 3200 has support from more than a dozen politicians state wide one of which is Peter Buckley of Ashland. The bill’s summary states that it would require owners of assault weapons and large capacity magazines to either dispose of them or register them with the state.

The maximum punishment for unlawful possession under this bill would be 10 years in prison and a fine of a quarter million dollars. NewsWatch12 spoke with Representative Peter Buckley on the phone from Salem, he said he doesn’t expect the bill he co-sponsors to pass, but he believes something must be done to end mass shootings.

The bill outlines specifics for what would qualify as an “assault weapon” including features on semi-automatic assault riffles such as a pistol grip or thumb-stock hole or a folding telescope stock.

The bill has yet to go to committee and is currently at the speaker’s desk awaiting referral. The Oregon Firearm’s Federation says the bill is extreme and doesn’t make any sense.

Click here to view the full text of the bill.


No ping yet

  1. Rick says:

    It’s bad enough that the government is trying to fix a problem with the wrong solution, but now they are wasting taxpayers money on foolish things that they KNOW WILL NOT PASS???
    Where is the common sense/accountability?

    1. James says:

      When an elected leader comes on TV and makes the comments he did it just shows he is very uninformed is out to waste taxpayer money and is wanting to punish law abiding people. Where did the common sense go?
      Yes lets protect children but don’t violate an oath of office putting out bad law, passing do nothing laws that make criminals out of honest, law abiding people. I think it’s time we reevaluate who we elect.

  2. Support The Rights of the Citizens says:

    Exactly what Rick said… oh I bet Ashland is so Proud right now. He is a Moron….and a lazy one at that.

  3. Adam says:

    The write-up neglects to mention that the only those that currently legally own a newly classified “assault weapon” would be able to register a single identified firearm and three “high capacity magazines.” An additional background check, beyond the initial purchase background check, would be required for this single weapon. The owner would also have to submit to their property being inspected by law enforcement to verify undocumented storage requirements. Finally, the bill would enact a state of emergency to make it take effect immediately upon passage. Current owners would be given 120 days to comply. This is why the Oregon Firearm Federation called it “extreme.”

  4. Dave says:

    Let’s think for a second. Been to a gunshow? Gun store? Bi-Mart? Heard what is going on nationwide? Small arms ammunition is at full production, and stores, if they even have any left, will sell out immediately when new supplies come in. Personal Defensive Firearms are flying off the shelves, even at inflated prices. The citizens of this country are spending a lot of money acquiring arms and ammunition. This yahoo, and his ilk in other parts of Government from the top to the bottom were once talking about “reasonable” regulation, but have now dropped all pretense and are proposing confiscation, unconstitutional warrentless searches, and other direct infringements of an Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United Staes of America. A Right equal to that of the Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Religion. They are proposing legislation that has been proven ineffective. They are proposing to punish law abidinig citizens for the acts of criminals and a handful lunatics. Do you think people will just hand over their arms? We are not talking about driving cars, hunting, or nanny state wonder insurance for all. We are are talking about natural, God-given human rights. If you don’t think people take that seriously, then look again at how the citizenry has been voting with their pocketbooks and arming themselves.

  5. Connie says:

    As the United States Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”[21] In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.[22]

    Weapons capable of fully automatic fire, including assault rifles, have been regulated heavily in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934.[23] Taking possession of such weapons requires paying a $200 federal transfer tax and submitting to an FBI background check, including ten-print fingerprints.[24]

    Many civilians have purchased semiautomatic-only rifles that look like military assault rifles. These civilian rifles are, unlike actual assault rifles, incapable of automatic fire.

    Based on these two definitions, since AR-15 is designed for civilian use, it therefore doesn’t fit with the definition of an “assault” weapon. This then begs the question why the association is being made in the first place.

  6. Rod says:

    There is no mechanical difference between a .223 AR Sporting Rifle, and a .223 Hunting Rifle. They both fire one round at a time, and use some sort of magazine feeding device. And since when is 11 rounds considered “High Capacity” Most modern pistols come with a 15-17 round Standard Magazine. Probably one of the best written responses to this is one that was written almost 200 years ago:

    “THE laws of this nature, are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator; and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack armed than unarmed persons.” Excerpt from ~An Essay on Crimes and Punishments

    Who are these regulations targeted towards? And who do they expect will actually obey these regulations?

  7. D says:

    That because mass shootings are caused by law-abiding citizens who follow the rules…. when will the idiot politician realize that its the non-law following types that cause the problems. How many of the 500+ murders in Chicago last year were caused by law abiding gangsters who legally purchased the gun and took time to register it and carried a CCW? Probably not a whole lot…..

  8. P. Edgar says:

    Rep Buckely said he cannot stand by while “children are slaughtered with automatic weapons”. AUTOMATIC WEAPONS? When did a school shooting occur using an automatic weapon? That’s news to me! (Such a school shooting has never occurred in America.)

    As explained by other commenters, laws have strictly regulated automatic weapons since the 1930’s. The “hate legislation” under discussion here restricts semi-automatic weapons that have been in common use for over half a century (such as the AR-15)..

    Is Rep Buckely merely ignorant of the difference, or is he purposely misleading us? How can he cast an intelligent vote if he doesn’t even know what he’s talking about?

    Perhaps he is following the example of Congressional Rep Carolyn McCarthy, who wanted to ban barrel shrouds, which are “the shoulder thing that goes up”.

    These are our leaders. Congratulations.

  9. badbronc says:

    I will not follow this law if it passes and none of my family or friends who number In the hundreds will either. They should think long and hard before they try to pass a law like this. This is how Civil Wars are started..

  10. Mike says:

    As a gun owner and collector, I do agree that some new regulations may be acceptable. This law though is ridiculous and shows the moral superiority these elected officials feel they have over their constituents. Besides the ridiculous amounts of flawed language included in this bill; is the exemptemtion of any “government employee” (not JUST law enforcement) from these laws and sanctioned illegal search and seizures. This is basically saying that ALL public employees are above the law?? What makes these people feel they are better qualified than any other legal gun owner to possess THEIR definition of banned weapons.

    This is another example of local politician trying to gain publicity and votes from a tragic situation by creating laws that would have IN NO WAY prevented these problems to begin with! What an absolute waste of taxpayer money.

  11. Jared says:

    I will make it simple. I am a law abiding citizen, and a Marine Veteran. I have a great family, a Job, and I pay taxes. I also have a few firearms. Some for self defense (as I carry concealed and legally), and some for fun.

    I fought for my freedom, and I will not let my Government tell me what I do, or don’t need. We hired them, not the other way around.

    Mr. Buckley… I do believe you have crossed over the line and entered my personal space. You have no Idea what you are talking about, and you have no Idea what you are doing.

    I will become the criminal if you decided to push one of these bills through. I will stand strong with thousands of others just like me… and we will show you what will happen if you step on the toes of a true patriot.

    Dear Media… stop sensationalizing psychotic shooters, and perhaps the quest for notoriety will fade. Violent people intent on doing crimes, will choose the crime that gets the most attention….

    Dear Government… Stop pretending to know up from down. You are all idiots. Gun free zones create gun crimes, because the criminals know they wont have any resistance. Tell me the last time there was a mass shooting at a NRA banquet, or at a Shooting range.


  12. Dean says:

    Freedom has risks. Sadly children are not immune to those risks. I guess its only OK when they are dressed in fatigues and sent overseas to die for OIL interest.” They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety , deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

  13. Bill Scott says:

    Recall all those elected people who sponsor the 3200 bill.

Comments have been disabled.