Oregon’s Senate Judiciary Committee has brought a sense of déjà vu to the state’s firearm owners with hearings on the newly amended Senate Bill 348 (SB348).
Originally, SB348 required the State Department of Justice (DOJ) to study ways to address the unlawful possession of firearms and provide the results of the study to lawmakers.
However, Amendment -3 effectively stripped the verbiage of the original bill, replacing it largely with the provisions of Measure 114, Oregon’s last gun-control effort, which is currently facing legal challenges in both federal and state courts.
Measure 114 passed by a narrow margin in Oregon’s last election, prompting lawsuits from pro-gun organizations.
Federal Judge Karen Immergut initially allowed the law to stand at the federal level, but Oregon Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio issued an injunction against its implementation pending a Constitutional challenge at the state level.
“Senate Bill 348 is a disingenuous attempt to usurp the authority of Oregon courts, an attempt to violate the separation of powers,” Oregon NRA Director Aiobheann Cline told KOIN News.
SEE ALSO: Judge Blocks Oregon’s Measure 114 — At Least for Now
During testimonies, other opponents of the bill shared similar concerns as the true nature of the bill was only revealed on Friday when State Sen. Floyd Prozanski, the sponsor of the bill, introduced a 64-page amendment that constituted the substance of the bill.
“It’s an end-run around our system of checks and balances,” said Bryan Mumford, owner of Clackamas-based PDX Arsenal, in an interview with GunsAmerica Disgest. “[Measure] 114 is tied up in the courts, so they’re trying this to get around the legal challenges.”
Mumford has a vested interest in both Measure 114 and the newly-rebranded effort in SB348. He says that there was a significant increase in firearms training and licensing during the civil unrest of the riots in downtown Portland and across the country, and this trend continued after the passing of Measure 114.
Here is my testimony in Oregon from this past week. Democrat chair limited my testimony to 2 minutes. He wouldn’t let the Republican members ask me any questions. He wouldn’t let the other speakers let me have their time.
— John R Lott Jr. (@JohnRLottJr) April 2, 2023
What are the Democrats afraid of?#2A #GunControlNow pic.twitter.com/aoUb0UAYSD
Mumford, through PDX Arsenal, even produced a short documentary addressing the key challenges to Measure 114 that he says he sees reflected again by SB348.
“Measure 114 was so poorly written that there were no standards, and no clarification as to who could provide the training. It created a lot of uncertainty not only for us as trainers, but for the people as well,” Mumford said.
SEE ALSO: Oregon Democrats Propose 3 New Bills in Latest Gun Control Push
The text of Measure 114 laid out guidelines for training and safety classes, but it lacked any specific standards for the training requirement or information on who was authorized to provide the training. This ambiguity, combined with the absence of a solid framework for the permitting system, led to the court’s injunction. The law mandated a permit that was impossible for anyone to obtain. The trial for the legal challenge against Measure 114 is set for September.
The progress of SB348 would seem to fly in the face of the court’s effort to address the Constitutional challenge of Measure 114, while doubling-down on the amount of gun control it seeks to impose.
In addition to the implementation of the provisions of Measure 114, SB348 would strip most gun rights from adults aged 18-20, impose a 3-day waiting period after a background check approval, a requirement that any legal challenge “must be commenced in the Circuit Court for Marion County,” and it would more than double the proposed PTP fee from $65 for a 5-year permit to $150.
“This can put some people out of the ability to actually buy a firearm and use them,” Candace Yow, the Oregon Director for DC Project, a nonpartisan firearm advocacy group for women, told KOIN News.
SEE ALSO: Oregon Appellate Court Overturns 2A Sanctuary Ordinance
SB348 faces stiff opposition already, despite the last-minute nature of Prozanki’s amendment. Testimony at a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee was overwhelmingly in opposition to the bill. The Capital Chronicle noted that supporters were outnumbered 5 to 1 by those who opposed to the measure.
“It doesn’t really give you a feeling like you’re really being represented by your government in that situation.”
Bryan Mumford of PDX Arsenal, on giving testimony to the Oregon Legislature
Mumford, who made the trip to Salem from the Portland area several times during the latest gun-control efforts, said that even in the face of such a large number of people willing to give testimony against the measure, “You could see that the sponsors of the bill wouldn’t even engage with people. They were looking at papers, or looking around, not really even seeming to pay attention.”
Available on GunsAmerica Now
He added, “It doesn’t really give you a feeling like you’re really being represented by your government in that situation.”
As of the writing of this article, GunsAmerica has not received a response from Prozanski’s office regarding the likelihood of SB348’s implementation in light of the legal challenges facing Measure 114.
With another working session scheduled for April 4th, and no floor sessions yet scheduled, updates to SB348 will surely be forthcoming.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
Oregon is bringing the suck, hopefully the courts can fix this liberal garbage, what bunch of horse sheet.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -John Adams
It’s likely that we have reached the point where “we the people” no longer deserve the freedoms set fourth in the US Constitution and noted by John Adams. Does that mean that “all men” are no longer created equal? If that is the case then our government is also illegitimate since it would be deriving it’s authority from a corrupted people. Also, what roles did the US Government play while a once great populace was corrupted? MK-ULTRA for instance.
So, before the people are disarmed, should the US Government be disarmed first? Now I know that the practicality of such a course of action could hardly be worked out. Who would disarm the government? After the government is disarmed, who would disarm the corrupted “people”? And, are there NOT also so many looming dangerous threats to the US? Does the anti-2A crowd care about the looming threats to the common men and women?
Any attempts to disarm the common people should be applied first at the local, state and federal levels.