Draconian Oregon Legislation Would Require Permit to Purchase, Cap Mags at 5 Rounds

If passed, Oregon’s governor and gun control advocate Kate Brown is almost sure to sign the anti-gun legislation. (Photo: Kate Brown/Facebook)

The Democrat-controlled Oregon legislature would become the most restrictive state in the Union with a new raft of gun-control measures set to be considered in this year’s legislative session.

Among other restrictions, SB 501 would require a permit to purchase any kind of firearm, cap magazine capacity at five rounds, limit ammo purchases to 20-rounds per month, and delay firearm transfers for 14 days.

The bill is being sponsored by Senator Rob Wagner (D-19) and Representative Andrea Salinas (D-38) at the behest of a Portland-based student group called “Students for Change.”

Wagner said that it’s “probably a long shot that something like this passes in whole cloth,” but he submitted exactly what the students wanted. Wagner also admitted that the students did all the research for the bill, and he hasn’t looked much into its constitutionality.

Democrats hold supermajorities in the House and Senate and are backed by a Democratic governor. But Republicans in the Oregon legislature are still encouraging their constituents to visit the capitol in opposition to the bill.

“Oregonians need to show up to the Capitol and express their concern over their personal safety and the harm caused by this kind of legislation,” Rep. Bill Post (R-Keizer) said in a statement.

SEE ALSO: Oregon Gov. Kate Brown Signs Confiscation Legislation

Post pointed out that the ammo restrictions will severely limit how much gun owners can practice with their firearms. Hunters may not be able to meet their bag limits with 20 rounds per month, and the mag restrictions would outlaw six-shot revolvers.

“The Oregon Constitution is clearer about the Second Amendment than the United States Constitution. We value and respect firearms in Oregon — and this is not a partisan issue,” Post concludes. “The bill is culturally blind to the heritage of our state and Oregonians’ values.”

The bill would also require permission from a county sheriff to purchase any kind of firearm.

To qualify for a permit, a gun owner would need to be at least 21 years old; have no criminal convictions; not have violated a restraining or stalking order; not use illegal or controlled substances; and provide proof of completing a firearms safety course.

SEE ALSO: BREAKING: Sen. Cornyn Reintroduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Legislation

Even if a person meets all those requirements, a sheriff could still deny the permit if he or she believes the person is “likely to be a danger to themselves or others.”

The legislation would also limit firearm purchases to one handgun and one long gun per month, require firearms be stored in a locked container or with a trigger/cable lock, require reporting of lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours, and require background checks for purchasing ammunition.

If passed, many of Oregon’s new policies would likely be held up in state and federal courts. Article I, Section 27, of Oregon’s Constitution (to which Rep. Post alluded) states, “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]”

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over four years and enjoying them for much longer. With family in Canada, he’s seen first hand how quickly the right to self-defense can be stripped from law-abiding citizens. He escaped that statist paradise at a young age, married a sixth-generation Texan, and currently lives in Waco. Follow him on Instagram @bornforgoodluck.

{ 42 comments… add one }
  • MaryC June 25, 2019, 2:25 pm

    I normally don’t get into these type of comments but after seeing the news tonight Oregon Government needs to obey the 2nd amendment and look at the fact that Oregon has more pedophiles per capita of any other state in the USA. THAT report should hinder the growth of Oregon where families are concerned. Thanks for letting me run my .
    mouth

  • Stan March 28, 2019, 12:24 am

    And THIS is happening in America!

  • Michael J January 23, 2019, 7:40 pm

    Jerry Brown’s sister is as looney as he is.

  • Joseph Tessaro January 22, 2019, 11:45 am

    Limiting ammo sales to 20 rounds per month means a lot of Oregonians will be driving to Washington or Idaho to buy ammo.

  • DaveGinOly January 21, 2019, 4:48 pm

    I’ve just made this point at another article:

    Crime reduction IS NOT THE OBJECTIVE of gun control legislation. As crime control, it’s SUPPOSED to fail. This is not a bug, it’s a feature. Because when the most draconian gun laws are in place and “gun crimes” are still happening, liberals will throw up their hands and admit gun control failed – MAKING CONFISCATION NECESSARY. Today’s “gun control” is laying the groundwork for the abolition of the private ownership of firearms.

  • JOE January 18, 2019, 9:03 pm

    So this is Constitutionally Legal how when NY tried limiting to 7 rounds and a federal Judge ruled it is not Constitutionally Legal or California recently where a Federal Judge ruled limiting the capacity Unconstitutional.

  • JOE January 18, 2019, 8:27 pm

    Six shot revolver is an Assault pistol ?

  • Samuel Stephens January 18, 2019, 7:37 pm

    I guess Oregon has replaced Kommunist Controlled Kalifornia with the most dingbats in control of state government. Their thinking is more outrageous than Kalifornia Democrats and they’re the epitomy of stupidity and buffoonery and that is saying something, cause you can’t get much more stupid than Kalifornia DemocRATs.

  • Cam King January 18, 2019, 6:49 pm

    Screw Deemontards

  • tom January 18, 2019, 4:34 pm

    Make it 2 rounds, or better yet 1 round. I will never obey this law anyway. I’m a 25 year law enforcement officer and If I will never obey who does he think will??? I would never arrest anyone in violation nor would I confiscate private personal property. I don’t know any rank and file officer who would. The command staff will spit out he “party line” it’s in their best interest. The men and woman working the road, nope no hope there.

    • Stan March 28, 2019, 12:27 am

      Good for you! I hope the overwhelming majority are like you.

  • Richie January 18, 2019, 3:59 pm

    i of course will not obey their insane policies and laws, when it comes to their stupid five round max. I’m now a criminal”

  • Norm Fishler January 18, 2019, 11:22 am

    I’ll bet Clint Smith is not very happy about that right about now . . .

    • DaveGinOly January 21, 2019, 4:36 pm

      Clint will just declare Thunder Ranch independent. (I was there last September. Great experience.)

  • Bad Penguin January 18, 2019, 10:48 am

    Permission from the Sheriff? That reminds me of how women had to get permission from the Sheriff in the 60’s to get their tubes tied.

  • Zupglick January 18, 2019, 9:37 am

    Are the cops and the politicians security limited to 5 rnd mags? Will they be limited to 20 rnds/month?

    • I Love Liberty January 18, 2019, 4:24 pm

      Of course not. The lords of Oregon will have their armed body guards. The body guards for the lords will be equipped with fifteen to thirty round magazines in their firearms all paid for by the peasant citizens of Oregon. The peasant citizens of Oregon can dial 9-1-1 on their phones and hope the police show up within fifteen minutes. And the peasants of Oregon must keep their guns locked up at all times so they cannot use them effectively for self defense.

      How much hacking and slashing can one armed thug do with a knife in fifteen minutes?

  • Richard W Sands January 18, 2019, 9:29 am

    Dear Folks…We already have these restrictions here in Maryland and look at how safe it’s made us. Baltimore is always ranked as the most dangerous city in the country and Maryland is the “Breaking and Entering” capital of the U. S. Carjacking is our favorite contact sport. On and on…

  • Sean Carberry January 18, 2019, 9:07 am

    You are an idiot. Dumber than dumb. I know single celled organisms that are smarter than you. Inanimate objects make more sense in their arguments than anything you wrote. If you’re not trolling this site with your ridiculous baby talk then what is your purpose? Stop wasting oxygen. You are the reason more people die. Maybe it’s a good thing. Like lemmings running off a cliff. Some(the dumb ones)will follow your idiocy.

  • Paul January 18, 2019, 8:58 am

    Hey Vlad hope you can load your musket i time when some one kicks in your front door to rob you!

  • Sean Carberry January 18, 2019, 8:54 am

    ???what kind of stupid is this

  • BigC January 18, 2019, 7:10 am

    Yep, that should do it, no more gun violence!!! Oh wait!! Maybe criminals and terrorists won’t obey these laws, only law-abiding citizens will obey and in so doing, put themselves at risk!! Sick of these do-gooders and their draconian efforts to make us “safe”, which have the exact opposite effect but it makes them feel good and their moronic supporters praise them for it!!!
    IDIOTS!!!

  • h2s January 18, 2019, 5:55 am

    Everyone should be limited to 20 words per month and no more then 5 political website per day

  • Patrick Green January 18, 2019, 4:30 am

    Any politician proposing such legislation deserves to be drug from their office, strung up at the nearest tree or light poll, and torched while still alive. This is treason. Plain and simple and all those that support it deserve to die a traitors death.

  • Stephen MacKay January 17, 2019, 9:37 pm

    Sounds like there trying to start a civil war. They should tell these ignorant kids to shut up.

  • Edward Williams January 17, 2019, 2:51 pm

    People forget, all someone has to do is drive across the state border to Idaho and they can buy thousands of rounds of ammo and bring it back. Are they going to make reloading illegal as well, I can reload 20 rounds in a couple of minutes and I have enough brass, primers and powder to last until I decide to drive to Idaho again. Are they really limiting you to having 20 rounds of ammo in your house? Boxes of handgun ammunition come in 50 rounds, that is 2 1/2 months worth, minimum purchase. Certainly they haven’t considered that this increases the chance that innocents will be killed because you cannot go to the range and practice very well with only 20 rounds a month, some of which need to be kept for self defense. So, you will probably be shooting with a gun you have never used when you defend yourself in your house.

  • Vlad January 17, 2019, 1:51 pm

    Picture the mayhem that could be done with 20 rounds a month. Save up for a year and have 240 rounds with which to demolish a public gathering. This proposal does not go nearly far enough to ensure the safety of our children. It should limit guns to a single shot (since that is what the founders had in mind when the second amendment was drafted), maximum gun ownership to 2 – one handgun and one rifle, based upon an demonstrated need to own deadly firearms. Ammunition should require a permit to purchase (obtainable on a convenient may-issue basis from the chief law-enforcement officer of the resident county). The aforementioned permit would require mental health pre-screening by three certified mental-health experts, passing a minimal 3-week gun-safety and non-violence workshop and the requirement to show a reasonable and genuine need for the ammunition. Maximum ammunition ownership will be strictly limited to 4 rounds total at any given time. Research has proven again and again that such minimal and reasonable firearm safety legislation reduces deadly gun violence by 80%.

    • Chris January 17, 2019, 6:31 pm

      Vlad, Why would you even be on this website posting your anti gun / anti 2nd amendment rhetoric. If your so concerned about the safety of others maybe you should be concentrating your efforts on prescription drug over doses, medical malpractice, vehicular deaths, suicide and death by inanimate objects that anyone of them by themselves kill more people per year than all the gun deaths combined and let’s not forget to mention that the stats for those gun related deaths have a huge number of self inflicted wounds/deaths by suicide. By the way how would you know what the founders had in mind specifically. So in that line of thinking we should not have freedom of speech on cell phones, the internet, text messages and the such. Our founding Father’s wanted us to be able to defend ourselves (the Republic) and be the last line of defense against foreign and domestic enemies of the Republic. So your saying that they only wanted us to have single shot rifles throughout all the ages and technological advancements? I don’t think so.

    • C.E.2A January 18, 2019, 12:56 am

      Vlad (ironically a traditionally Trump loving. Hiliar paying, Russian name), I uh, we missed the links to the again, and again research… and gosh that 80% number trotted out by every DTJF is old now. But, thank God legislation always and only targets citizens and never addresses criminals. Kinda sucks that the DTJFs expect all citizens to have single shot muskets, with trigger locks, locked in a safe with keys held by law enforcement but criminals are allowed to run free killing, robbing, and doing other Detroitisms, Baltimorisms, Chicagoismusm, DCisms with no laws ever designed or successful in disarming them. We the people are our own first responders at home and in public. Law enforcement are LAST responders always in time to draw chalk outlines, take reports, and pimp for the Liberal Media Complex. So, that’s why we prefer to be armed in your Utopia. Thousands of years and civilizations have tried to legislate human behavior, and it always fails unless forced on a society where the government kills millions to give people Utopia, and give the Bernies power and lives of luxury their sheep will never experience. Moloney Labe baby…

    • JT January 18, 2019, 2:35 am

      Don’t give them any ideas!

    • Raymond Hudson January 18, 2019, 3:13 am

      And this research you speak of can be found where??

      • Robert January 18, 2019, 8:52 am

        You can look it up on any anti gunner democrat site and is normally put out by big bird and friends and no one in their right mind would try to fudge that kind of number.

    • Texas Jim January 18, 2019, 8:45 am

      Personally, i believe this guy is just flaming the conversation. He can’t TRULY think that a single shot rifle ( or pistol) is reasonable to defend against a bad guy with a revolver or pump action shotgun ( much less any magazine capable weapon , that criminals would NOT give up ) . If so , he’s just an idiot.

    • JMB1911 January 18, 2019, 9:51 am

      To your first point. Wrong. Provably false. There were high cap guns at the time of the founding. Steven Crowder put together a fantastic vid about it. Youtube bro, easy to find. Also, a computer wasn’t a thing when the Founders wrote the US Constitution, so by extension does that mean your 1A rights (Assuming you’re not a bot) don’t extend to your speech over a computer? Common fella, logic fail…but you’re probably not concerned with logic.

      “Shall not be infringed” means no medical screening, no ammo limit, no state agency determining worthiness to exercise a right. These are all violations (as court precedent that references the 2A) of the 2A.

      Your 80% stat is not cited, and if it were, it would be roundly debunked.

      Nice try, beta bot Vlad. Your nietzschean will to power language has to power here. It’ll ironically have to be earned by others doing your bidding through violence with guns.

      Say when!

    • Rounduptheusualsuspects January 18, 2019, 12:33 pm

      Great comment.

      Its tough to do satire well.

      Amazing and a little sad how many responders here apparently can not recognize satire. Some folks are far too serious and wound just a tad bit too tight.

      • al January 18, 2019, 2:56 pm

        In fact, I saw that too, but he did it so poorly that now he reaps the wrath of those who didn’t.
        And I disagree, Satire isn’t that tough when dealing with the thoroughly inane and stupid Left.

        • DaveGinOly January 21, 2019, 4:44 pm

          It’s a rhetorical device know as reductio ad absurdum – showing how absurd something is by carrying it to its logical (and absurd) extreme. I thought it was rather well done. And he’s quite right. For instance, if the idea is to limit carnage, why not one-round magazines? Heck, why not guns with no capacity for ammunition at all!

          The point of all this legislation is not to stop crime. It’s supposed to demonstrate how futile gun control is. This is not a bug, it’s a feature. Because when they have the most draconian laws in place and “gun crimes” are still happening, liberals will throw up their hands and admit gun control failed – so confiscation is necessary. They are actually laying the groundwork for the abolition of the private ownership of firearms.

    • I Love Liberty January 18, 2019, 4:01 pm

      The Second Amendment is a hedge against tyrants and thugs. All sane red blooded Americans should own a twenty or thirty round semi automatic rifle and also pistols for this purpose. Our Second Amendment likely protects and saves over 200,000 people per year mostly for the deterrent factor. Thugs do not want to break into homes and attack people that are well armed for fear of death.

  • PNW,Patriot January 17, 2019, 1:21 pm

    My guns, ammo, magazines, and other 2nd Amendment protected property will never be surrendered, given up or taken. The British tried this 240 years ago and American Patriots and gun owners kicked the butts back across the Atlantic Ocean to lick their wounds and wallow in defeat. Once again we face the same enemy at our doors. Our very freedom, liberty and country stand in the balance-and again it will be the armed patriot who protects our freedom, liberty, and country with his gun! Oregonians WILL NOT COMPLY to this illegal gun legislation, and we will fight it any way we have to to protect our Constitution, and 2nd Amendment Rights! “SI VIS PAKEM PARA BELLUM”

  • Timothy Toroian January 17, 2019, 1:10 pm

    Let’s see that get by SCOTUS. I hope they remembered Article 1, section 9, clause 3 of the Constitution, too.

  • D.J. January 17, 2019, 12:54 pm

    Again , what part of , ” Shall not be infringed ” , do we NOT understand ?

  • Anthony L. DeWitt January 17, 2019, 10:28 am

    I know this is going to set someone’s teeth on edge, but I believe Oregon should go ahead and do this. Do all this capping and banning and make it as draconian as possible.

    Why would a gun owner and constitutional lawyer want that? Simple: Because the more draconian and outlandish it is, the less likely it is to survive a constitutional challenge. Federalism says that states should be permitted to experiment with various legislative schemes, and this is a good example of an experiment that’s doomed to fail. First because it goes against the teachings of Heller, and second, because it will make Oregonians less safe. But by all means, let them do it (my apologies in advance to people unlucky enough to live in Oregon). Let them develop their utopian ideal of a gun-free Oregon and see what it gets them. Then let the Supreme Court do its job (for once) and explain that the Second Amendment means what it says.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend