Oregon: The Walkout is Over and Gun Control is on the Move

Update: The Senate passed HB 2005 on June 15^th by a vote of 17-3 with nine Republicans absent and one independent excused. It has been schedule for a 3^rd reading in the House on June 20^th.

Oregon Senate Republicans led a walkout this session that denied a quorum and effectively stalled the Democrats’ extreme partisan agenda to unconstitutionally infringe on Oregonians’ Second Amendment rights. The walkout lasted for 6 weeks, an Oregon record. Today, some of the Senate Republicans returned granting quorum as part of bipartisan negotiations.

The return yielded some victories for NRA members, including striking the 18-20 year old firearm possession ban and municipal concealed carry bans in public buildings, along with rejecting SB 348 and SB 393, which sought to legislatively implement Ballot Measure 114, usurping the will of the voters and the courts – the NRA has already sued the State of Oregon over Ballot Measure 114’s unconstitutionality, which was the subject of a 5-day federal trial just weeks ago.

However, the agreement paved the way for some gun control to continue to move forward. House Bill 2005’s unfinished frames and receivers and unserialized firearms and parts provisions will continue to move forward. The amendment was adopted today in the Rules Committee and passed 3-2. The amended bill is expected to receive a vote on the Senate floor very soon. NRA-ILA is strongly opposed to HB 2005 in its entirety, including the unconstitutional restriction on home-built firearms and raw material parts. Please contact your senator and representative and let them know you oppose HB 2005 as amended.

NRA-ILA strongly opposes HB 2005 and many of the provisions left in the bill are subject of multiple ongoing lawsuits, including a federal judge granting a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of the ATF’s unfinished frame or receiver rule. Further, HB 2005 includes the terms “casting” and “machined body” in its definition of an “unfinished frame or receiver.” A court in Nevada has already determined that these terms in the definition are exceedingly and unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. The Court ruled that those terms, alone and together, were so unclear and uncertain that they did not provide fair notice to a Nevadan of ordinary intelligence as to what specific conduct [the bill] AB286 prohibited, rendering the bill unconstitutional.

HB 2005, as amended, must pass the full Senate body, and then the bill will then have to go back to the House for final passage. Again, please contact your senator and representative to oppose HB 2005.