Gun Control Watch

[MechAg94]

WA HB-1132 would limit gun purchases to 1 a month and limit ammo purchases to 1k rounds (except. 50cal which is limited to 50 rpunds) a month.  Civil infraction to violate, fines depend on the violations.  Misdemeanor for 2nd offense, gross misdemeanor for 3rd or subsequent offenses.

1 gun per month.  1000 rounds per month.  ...  Sounds like a challenge.   


And I sort of assume they mean calendar month.  I wonder if it has language about 30 days between individual purchases or something like that. 

[AmbulanceDriver]

And Oregon's Measure 114 was yesterday found "constitutional" by the state court of appeals.   Currently still on hold until plaintiff's decide to appeal (up to 35 days). Oregon Firearms Federation and their attorney have indicated they do plan to appeal. 

Meanwhile the federal appeal is on hold pending the outcome of California's mag cap ban at the 9th circus circuit

[Ben]

And Oregon's Measure 114 was yesterday found "constitutional" by the state court of appeals.   Currently still on hold until plaintiff's decide to appeal (up to 35 days). Oregon Firearms Federation and their attorney have indicated they do plan to appeal. 

Meanwhile the federal appeal is on hold pending the outcome of California's mag cap ban at the 9th circus circuit

Ugh. As someone who travels to Oregon at least once a week, this is so frustrating (though I know it's far worse for you guys living there). I must have read that law a dozen times and I'm still unclear what it means for me when I cross the border with my CCW. The Sheriff of the OR county where I got my permit has said that he won't be enforcing any part of the law, but that doesn't help much if a guy runs into a state trooper or travels outside of the "sanctuary" county.

As of now, if it passes, I'm resigning myself to just trying to remember to swap out to a 1911 when I go to Oregon. I know that I could buy a couple of ten round Glock mags and just swap mags, but I'm not doing that out of stubborn principle.

[WLJ]

As a memory refresher

Measure 114 includes the following provisions:

    Permit requirement: It requires a permit to acquire guns. To obtain a permit, an individual must pass a criminal background check, complete a gun safety course, and not be a danger to themselves or others.
    Closes loophole: It closes the "Charleston Loophole," which allows firearm transfers to proceed if a background check takes more than three days.
    Restricts high-capacity magazines: It limits magazines to no more than 10 rounds of ammunition, with exceptions for law enforcement and the military.

Appeals court rules Measure 114 is constitutional, lifts hold: 'Oregonians voted for this'
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/oregon-appeals-court-rules-measure-114-constitutional-lfits-hold/283-f4b1adf3-08fc-4c65-91f9-d30fefb2120a

[WLJ]

Today's decision is a big step forward for gun safety in Oregon. This measure gives us the tools to make sure gun buyers go through background checks and get proper permits, helping to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and making our communities safer."

Yeah because that's worked so well before

[tokugawa]

Is the ten round provision for possession, (currently owned) or purchase and transfer?

[Ben]

Is the ten round provision for possession, (currently owned) or purchase and transfer?

The latter always scares me, because the way it seems to always work with LE and DA offices is that rather than them having to prove that you obtained the "illegal" magazine post the new law, you are required to prove that you acquired it pre the law. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't keep receipts for stuff like magazines.

[cordex]

Ironically, I own a couple of ban era magazines with the date stamped into them along with LE/Military Use Only.  Wouldn't it be funny if a magazine that says you can't own it is the reason you get out of a charge about possessing an illegal magazine?

Yeah, I know it doesn't get you the possession side of things, but it was a funny thought.

[WLJ]

Is the ten round provision for possession, (currently owned) or purchase and transfer?

In the article they say purchase and current owners are okay. But you can bet dollars to donuts if you're caught with a >10 mag and can't somehow prove you bought it before the ban they going to throw the book at you.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Purchase or transfer.  However if you own a >10 round mag, you cannot use it outside of your home or a designated range.

[Devonai]

The latter always scares me, because the way it seems to always work with LE and DA offices is that rather than them having to prove that you obtained the "illegal" magazine post the new law, you are required to prove that you acquired it pre the law. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't keep receipts for stuff like magazines.

That's exactly what Connecticut did in 2013, as well as a registration requirement. Either a receipt of purchase or a notarized affidavit. I did neither because there's a military exemption, but whenever I get out I'll have 90 days to comply. I think there's a pretty big 5th Amendment problem with this system but I also (probably) can't afford to fight it in court. However, one must consider the likelihood of getting "caught" with an unregistered magazine.

[WLJ]

Glock getting sued for....yeah you're going to love this one

In April of 2022, 62-year-old Frank James put on a gas mask and set off smoke bomb in a New York City subway car as it travelled through Brooklyn. That caused the other passengers to run to the opposite end of the car. Once there, James opened fire on them with a 9mm handgun.

James wounded 10 passengers and more were injured in the chaos that resulted. All told, 29 people were hospitalized, but — miraculously — no one was killed.

But wait, how is this Glock's fault?

The plaintiffs allege that GLOCK is liable because their marketing of the G17 pistol the subway shooter used emphasized its ability to be concealed, something that’s allegedly attractive to criminals and would be terrorists. The suit also alleges that GLOCK has made too many handguns. They claim that has resulted in more sales of used guns on the secondary market. How, exactly, that promotes criminal use isn’t really clear.

And it gets better

But wait, there’s more. They also criticize GLOCK for failing to remove the use of its brand name and product images from “song lyrics, movies, television series and video games.” We suppose the logic here is the use of GLOCK’s name and guns in popular culture somehow glamorizes their use in the eyes of criminals and other wackos.

In more detail

Defendants, through their marketing practices in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of guns, including the subject Glock firearm, have contributed to creating and maintaining a public nuisance in the State of New York and have endangered the public health and safety in the following manner:

a. Marketing that emphasizes firearm characteristics such as their high capacity and ease of concealment, that appeal to prospective purchasers with criminal intent, including but not limited to through advertisement, product placement in movies and rap music;
b. Purposely supplying more firearms than the legitimate market could bear in order to induce sales in the secondary market;
c. Not training dealers to avoid straw sales and other illegal transactions; and
d. Refusing to terminate contracts with distributors who sold to dealers with disproportionately high volumes of guns traced to crime scenes.
e. Failing to have Glock removed from song lyrics, movies, television series and video games.
f. Failing to stop the glorification of Glock ownership and use through media and celebrity endorsements.
g. In successfully burying news articles, stories and documentaries that criticized or publicized Glock’s history and marketing

I for one would like to know how they intend to explain how Glock managed g

Lawsuit Claims GLOCK is Liable for 2022 NY Subway Shooting Because it Makes Too Many Pistols and Advertises That They’re Concealable
https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/crime-and-punishment/lawsuit-claims-glock-is-liable-for-2022-ny-subway-shooting-because-it-makes-to-many-pistols-and-advertises-that-theyre-concealable/

Guns and Gadgets video

RIDICULOUS: Glock Sued Over Their Role In Mass Casualty Events
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsF9kYGN1_0

Direct link to the lawsuit https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.530034/gov.uscourts.nyed.530034.1.0.pdf

[WLJ]

Bill moving through California legislature that will ban Glocks and any other firearms that can accept a "switch". According to G&G no grandfathering and the guns can be seized with no warrant.

Guns and Gadgets video

HISTORIC Glock Ban Moving FAST!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM8tNn-JNPY

Here's mom's if you can stomach their language

FACT SHEET: AB 1127 Stops the Spread of DIY Machine Guns in California
https://momsdemandaction.org/press/fact-sheet-ab-1127-stops-the-spread-of-diy-machine-guns-in-california/

[WLJ]

Here's the bill. Haven't had a chance to go through it yet

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1127/id/3209201

[WLJ]

Here's Schiff for brains
Snowball this is hell, hell this is snowball.

Adam Schiff
@SenAdamSchiff
The time to act is now.

I'm introducing the Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2025.

https://x.com/SenAdamSchiff/status/1917570108605554913

[WLJ]

Found more info
According to this it bans possession so I guess no grandfathering
Just them grandstanding as this has zero chance of going anywhere at this point.

Schiff, Murphy reintroduce assault weapons ban
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5274890-democrats-reintroduce-assault-weapons-ban/

[WLJ]

Looking for the actual text of the bill and coming up short at the moment. They're suppose have a news conference later today maybe after that it will pop up. Curious what it says

[WLJ]

Wow, the dems have been busy today

G&G Video 
2A ALERT: 3 Bills Look To Ban Em All!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa2X1TmXqPQ

#1 The GoSate Act Claims to protect the 2A while at the same time "regulating" gas operated guns. We seen a similar bill attempted before during the Biden admin some pages back and it has even less chance now but I think they know that and this just show for their audience.

https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/gosafe

The GOSAFE Act is a commonsense proposal designed to protect communities from gun violence, while safeguarding Americans’ constitutional right to own a firearm for legitimate self-defense, hunting, and sporting purposes.

    The GOSAFE Act regulates firearms based on the inherently dangerous and unusual lethality of their internal mechanisms, as opposed to focusing on cosmetic features that manufacturers can easily modify.
    If enacted, the bill would regulate the sale, transfer, and manufacture of gas-operated semi-automatic weapons by:
        Preventing unlawful modifications of permissible firearms;
        Mandating that future gas-operated designs are approved before manufacture; and
        Preventing unlawful firearm self-assembly and manufacturing.

But it goes even further

Protects Americans’ Second Amendment Right

    The GOSAFE Act protects Americans’ constitutional right to own a gun based on a firearm’s established use for self-defense, hunting or sporting purposes.
    The GOSAFE Act accomplishes this by including exemptions based on maximum ammunition capacity according to a firearm’s individual class: a rifle, shotgun, or handgun.
    This capacity must be “permanently fixed” meaning the firearm cannot accept a detachable, high-capacity magazine that would increase the number of rounds that can be fired before reloading and make reloading easier.

This would effectively ban any gun that can accept a detachable mag

#2 The Bump Act
Does exactly what it says plus goes to ban any device that increase rate of fire


#3 The above mentioned Assault Weapons Ban of 2025
Basically a rehash of the 94 bill. Still looking for the text of the bill

 Schiff, Murphy reintroduce assault weapons ban
https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/schiff-murphy-reintroduce-assault-weapons-ban/?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot