Senate Republicans in Oregon are opposing Senate Bill 243, arguing that it imposes ineffective gun restrictions that do not address the primary causes of gun deaths, such as mental health issues and violent crime. The bill includes measures like banning firearm purchases for 18-to-20-year-olds, imposing a three-day waiting period on purchases, and banning unloaded firearms in many public areas. Republicans criticize the bill for punishing law-abiding citizens and lacking transparency, as a significant amendment was introduced just before the public hearing. They advocate for addressing mental health and crime instead of adding more gun control measures.
The main arguments against SB 243 presented by the Oregon Senate Republicans are:
1. Ineffectiveness in Reducing Gun Deaths: The bill does not address the primary causes of gun deaths, such as mental health issues and violent crime. Most gun deaths in Oregon are suicides, not homicides, and the bill’s restrictions will not effectively reduce these numbers.
2. Punishing Law-Abiding Citizens: The bill imposes restrictions that affect responsible gun owners, such as banning firearm purchases for 18-to-20-year-olds, imposing a three-day waiting period, and banning unloaded firearms in many public areas. These measures are seen as punitive and unnecessary for those who already comply with strict background checks.
3. Lack of Transparency and Public Input: A significant 23-page amendment was introduced just one day before the public hearing, replacing a half-page study bill. This last-minute change is viewed as an abuse of power that denies Oregonians the transparency and input they deserve.
4. Ignoring Mental Health Crisis: Oregon has one of the highest rates of mental illness and ranks poorly in mental health treatment access. The bill does not address these core issues, which are seen as the real drivers of gun deaths.
5. Comparison with Other States: States like New Hampshire, which have fewer gun restrictions, experience lower firearm deaths per capita. This suggests that stricter gun laws may not necessarily lead to reduced gun deaths.
6. Urban vs. Rural Divide: The bill is perceived as urban legislators imposing restrictions on rural gun owners, ignoring the unique needs and traditions of rural communities.
SB 243 affects young adults’ firearm rights by:
• Banning Handgun Purchases: It prohibits 18-to-20-year-olds from buying handguns entirely.
• Limiting Firearm Options: It relegates young adults to a short list of outdated long guns, significantly restricting their choices and leaving them defenseless.
• Impact on Rural Traditions: The bill disrupts rural traditions where young adults often use firearms for various purposes, including self-defense and recreational activities.
Comments?
Contact: forrest@townandcountrypac.com
