Proposed Oregon Gun Bill: Ineffective and Oppressive

Thomas DiGennaro | United States

OR SB 501 is working its way through the state legislature. Originally proposed by Democrat State Senator Robert Wagner, it has the potential to severely diminish the rights of Oregon gun owners. Before it got to Wagner’s desk, a group of activists Students for Change drafted the Oregon gun bill.

Apparently, a group of college kids who know next to nothing about firearms is definitely qualified to draft legislation that affects over 1,000,000 gun owners. If the bill passes, citizens will face stricter regulation than even Connecticutians or Californians. When the two states with the strictest gun laws are in there for comparison, you know it’s serious.

What OR SB 501 Entails

  • Bans magazines/weapons with a capacity of over 5 rounds
  • Limits ammunition purchases to 20 rounds per month
  • Mandates a permit for any firearm purchase (regardless of firearm class)
  • Mandates background checks on ammunition
  • Implements 14-day waiting periods on firearm purchases

The Firearms Policy Coalition has included this Oregon gun bill, and countless others, on their take action page, where you can contact your representatives to oppose this legislation.

Even New York has a 10 round magazine capacity, does not require a permit for rifle or shotgun purchases, and has neither limits nor background checks on ammunition purchases. This is the state with the world’s biggest city and some of the strictest gun laws in the country. However, these measures would have Oregon far surpass the Empire State.

The Oregon Gun Bill: Ineffective Measures

Clearly, these proposals egregiously violate the most basic rights of gun owners. They also make owning a firearm for legitimate purposes very inconvenient. Obviously, the five-round capacity is outrageous. This would force gun owners to turn in or destroy common, legally owned six-round revolvers, remarked Republican Oregon Representative Bill Post.

Moreover, limiting the purchase of ammunition to 20 rounds per month would interfere with individuals who wish to engage in basic target shooting or hunting. Without a doubt, most gun owners go through more than that in just one hour at a range.

A 14-day waiting period could endanger those seeking a firearm for their own self-protection. In many cases, individuals desire a gun when they or their families may be in danger. 14 days is plenty of time for an aggressor to mount an attack on an unarmed defendant.

I shouldn’t have to explain why background checks for ammunition are ludicrous. Background checks for firearms are already in place.

Stay in Your Lane

Not only is the proposal repressive towards basic sporting, hunting, and self-defense, it also will be largely ineffective in deterring crime and mass shootings. These measures would partially disarm legal gun owners.

However, they would have little to no impact on the illegally-owned firearms in circulation. If you cap magazines at five rounds and ammo purchases at 20 rounds per month, law-abiding citizens will have inadequate arms and munitions to defend themselves from those who operate on the outside of righteousness.

This attempt to find a solution to gun violence is an absolute blunder. It is a prime example of why those ignorant on the subject should not be involved in the legislative process.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!