Oregon's New Anti-gun Bill

[BStrong]

When I was more active, it was nothing to shoot up a couple of thousand rounds per week. Most of this I reloaded... Load all week, shoot it all up on the weekend. I usually tossed in a “brick” of .22 rimfire ammo as well.

This is pretty much standard for serious target shooters and competitive shooters of all types.

My personal monthly ammunition usage (up until 2013) was 1200 rounds centerfire handgun m/l, 400 rounds .22 LR (through a .22 conversion kit on a Government Model receiver) 50 rounds m/l 12 gauge shotgun and 240 rounds 5.56mm through the carbine.

Before I retired, departmental supplied ammunition was in addition to the above.

This 20 round a month proposal is beyond foolish, but it will make people who don't know anything happy.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[The Norseman]

Yeah. Wonder what will happen after the fact that this law will have zero effect on crime in general, zero effect on gun crime, and the unintended consequences of regular people who will get tripped up and arrested and funneled through the already overburdened criminal justice system.

I bet they just blame Idaho or Washington for their "continuing gun problems". No, Washington is a liberal state and Idaho is a conservative state, so silly me... they'll just blame Idaho for that.

I have to admit that this is one of the few times I hate admitting being a leftist and get lumped in with all this anti-gun nonsense.

 

[Tormac]

I am curious, for those that think that the 20 rounds a month limit is a sensible step in the right direction, what specific issue will the 20 rounds per month limitation solve?

I think 20 rounds would be more than enough to commit a robbery with, or to shoot up a corner where a rival drug dealer hung out at. I suspect that that is enough to be a professional mugger, and even a serial killer will not run out of bullets at two per victim per month.

Most “crimes of passion” that I can imagine (i.e. I want to murder my ex-wife and her new boyfriend as an example), could easily happen with 20 rounds.

If I was off my rocker and decided that I wanted to really shoot up a church or a school, 240 rounds of 12 gauge #4 buckshot would be so much that I think my shoulder would get tired of it before I ran out of the shells that I had saved up for the year for.

But 20 rounds a month does not seem like enough to teach my son to be proficient at shooting before we go squirrel hunting. Twenty rounds a month does not seem like enough for me to practice for the .22 free hand pistol competition my range holds (20 rounds enough is not enough for me to actually compete in said competition).

For non-shooters imagine someone who was really into basket-ball being limited to 20 shots at the hoop per month.

I know, before anyone says it, basket-balls are not instruments of death, designed to murder people, while guns are. But consider that laws like these prevent people from being able to learn how to shoot proficiently. Hunters and sport shooters are no longer able to practice adequately.

I understand and support back-ground checks. I think that people who are certified with mental conditions should not be allowed to possess fire arms, and I support that people convicted of felonies also should not be able to possess fire arms. The idea of back-ground check program seems designed to prevent people who should not possess fire arms from purchasing them. I don’t understand the purpose of these 20 round per month laws though. It seems to me that they will not prevent crime, even if criminals are limited to 20 rounds a month. But they will be a heavy burden to sports shooters and hunters.

Am I overlooking a common crime that this 20 rounds per month law will impede?

 

[smartcooky]

The great majority of target ranges I've gone to don't sell ammo. If a person wants to spend a few hours at a range that doesn't sell ammo for their gun, they will will have to stockpile it, load their own or obtain it out of state.

Well, there is a great business opportunity for shooting ranges.

 

[Tormac]

Yeah. Wonder what will happen after the fact that this law will have zero effect on crime in general, zero effect on gun crime, and the unintended consequences of regular people who will get tripped up and arrested and funneled through the already overburdened criminal justice system.

I bet they just blame Idaho or Washington for their "continuing gun problems". No, Washington is a liberal state and Idaho is a conservative state, so silly me... they'll just blame Idaho for that.

I have to admit that this is one of the few times I hate admitting being a leftist and get lumped in with all this anti-gun nonsense.

I suspect that they next step is background checks for ammunition purchases. After that one round a month will be grudgingly be allowed Barney Fife style.

 

[smartcooky]

I am curious, for those that think that the 20 rounds a month limit is a sensible step in the right direction, what specific issue will the 20 rounds per month limitation solve?

Under such legislation, it would have taken Stephen Paddock 4½ years to stockpile enough ammunition to wound 422 people and kill 58 in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017.... and that is, if he didn't use any of it during that time.

 

[ServiceSoon]

My predictions if this were to pass is that it would most likely:
1. Have a de minimis impact on the homicide rate.
2. Increase the cost associated with this hobby.
3. Reduce the rate of Americans that actively shoot firearms.
4. Reduce the rate of Americans that are passionate about the 2nd amendment.
4. Allow for more restrictive regulation easier to pass in the future (Which I believe is ultimately the desired result that most anti-gunners desire).

 

[theprestige]

Well, there is a great business opportunity for shooting ranges.

... For shooting ranges that -
- Want to be in the business of storing large amounts of ammo
- Have the space to set up a secure ammo storage room or locker
- Have the money to do so
- Don't mind the extra insurance
- Don't mind adding a whole new set of vendors, purchasing, inventory management, etc. to their business.

Besides, it's perverse to create "business opportunities" by taking away consumer choice. That's not economic activity, that's economic friction. It should never be done for its own sake, but only if there's a very good reason to do it.

And there's no very good reason here. Just friction for people and for businesses.

 

[theprestige]

My predictions if this were to pass is that it would most likely:
1. Have a de minimis impact on the homicide rate.
2. Increase the cost associated with this hobby.
3. Reduce the rate of Americans that actively shoot firearms.
4. Reduce the rate of Americans that are passionate about the 2nd amendment.
4. Allow for more restrictive regulation easier to pass in the future (Which I believe is ultimately the desired result that most anti-gunners desire).

It also kneecaps stores that sell ammo, undoubtedly forcing some of them out of business as their customers dry up.

And it kneecaps ranges that aren't in a position to also become ammo stores.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

To be good at something, you have to practice it. Telling a gun owner they can only shoot 20 rounds a month would be like telling a guitarist they can only play 20 chords a month.

Can Status Quo sell their unused 16 chords a month on?

 

[Darat]

The great majority of target ranges I've gone to don't sell ammo. If a person wants to spend a few hours at a range that doesn't sell ammo for their gun, they will will have to stockpile it, load their own or obtain it out of state.

Sounds like a great business opportunity for those target ranges.

 

[Ranb]

Does the 20rnd a month rule cover just centerfire, or does it cover rim fire as well? Would one have to wait over two months to buy a fifty rnd box of .22lr?

It just says ammunition. I could not determine if Oregon defines primers as ammunition.

Does it mention limiting the amount of primers, powder, or lead one can purchase in a month. Could make reloading more popular

Not that I can see.

 

[theprestige]

Sounds like a great business opportunity for those target ranges.

Besides, it's perverse to create "business opportunities" by taking away consumer choice. That's not economic activity, that's economic friction. It should never be done for its own sake, but only if there's a very good reason to do it.

And there's no very good reason here. Just friction for people and for businesses.

- An ISF Member, probably​

 

[Ranb]

Sounds like a great business opportunity for those target ranges.

Well the law is not very specific in one regard.

(4) This section does not apply to ammunition purchased and used at a target shooting range.

I suppose an established gun store with a range could sell unlimited amounts of ammo to a person who says they will bring it to another range to shoot. Of course then we would hear the loud crying and tearing of clothes while people protested that those gun owners were "exploiting a loophole".

 

[The Norseman]

Under such legislation, it would have taken Stephen Paddock 4½ years to stockpile enough ammunition to wound 422 people and kill 58 in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017.... and that is, if he didn't use any of it during that time.

So? Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter waited the mandatory 30 day waiting period between buying the two pistols he used for his shoot-em-up.

Maybe the guy would wait the five years before going on his shooting spree... or maybe he'd just make a big fertilizer bomb or drive a rental truck through a crowd, too.

 

[Border Reiver]

I think that restrictions like this are counterproductive.

a. It is a restriction on a lawful activity that will have little to no positive effect (it would be akin to restricting the monthly sales of beer to 20 cans/bottles/month to reduce impaired driving);
b. It imposes burdens on out of state manufacturers (ammo is often packaged in quantities greater than 20 rounds (specifically ammo such as .22 rimfire and pistol calibre ammo);
c. It is silent on matters like reloading components and black powder; and
d. There are workarounds that make a mockery of the law (driving to out of state sites to purchase ammo and return, reloading, etc.).

The last one is the most troubling. By making it so easy to circumvent the intent of the law, it reduces the respect people have for the law, and reducing people's faith that their law makers and law enforcers are on their side. It's what happened in Prohibition - the ease by which the Volstead Act could be circumvented, the large amounts of money that were available to criminals to make off of what were before ordinary people engaged in a lawful activity made it lucrative to get involved in degraded the respect for the law in American culture. And prohibition was similiarly ineffective - it was easy to get booze from Canada or Mexico (or rural America - hard cider is easy to make) and the law had hundreds of loopholes, and in the end didn't eliminate drunkenness, it changed the drinking culture from having a few pints in the local pub to binge drinking to drunkenness. This law will not be a success.

 

[plague311]

So? Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter waited the mandatory 30 day waiting period between buying the two pistols he used for his shoot-em-up.

Maybe the guy would wait the five years before going on his shooting spree... or maybe he'd just make a big fertilizer bomb or drive a rental truck through a crowd, too.

Or, or, or...

It's a seal!

Yeah, awesome job at proving that there are, indeed, other ways to kill a large amount of people.

Now think about that, here in North Dakota buying that much fertilizer would raise more than one eyebrow. That's in North Dakota.

Waiting 30 days in comparison to 4.5 years. LoL, yeah, that passes the sniff.

 

[plague311]

I think that restrictions like this are counterproductive.

In an absolutely mind blowing turn of events. Someone that overwhelmingly supports the 2A thinks that restrictions are counterproductive. In other news, Donald Trump lied today, and then denied he actually lied! More at 11.

 

[Tormac]

Under such legislation, it would have taken Stephen Paddock 4½ years to stockpile enough ammunition to wound 422 people and kill 58 in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017.... and that is, if he didn't use any of it during that time.

I can't argue with your math smartcooky, but from what I read of Stephen Paddock, he had tons of money to spend, and planned his crime out meticulously.

I wish I thought that there was a way to keep people like Stephen Paddock from killing and hurting people.

 

[plague311]

I can't argue with your math smartcooky, but from what I read of Stephen Paddock, he had tons of money to spend, and planned his crime out meticulously.

I wish I thought that there was a way to keep people like Stephen Paddock from killing and hurting people.

Every single other developed first world country has figured out a way to do it. Every single other developed first world country has strict gun control.

Am I missing something?