Senate Bill 501 would basically make it a crime for anyone living in Oregon to purchase a gun without first obtaining a government permit – also known as getting the government's permission. It would also prohibit the purchase and possession of magazines that hold more than five rounds of ammunition, subjecting violators to up to one year of prison and/or thousands of dollars in fines.
Further, SB 501 would prohibit every individual from purchasing more than 20 rounds of ammunition in a 30-day period – the penalty for having a magazine that accommodates more than the allotted five round maximum being not only one year in prison but also a whopping $6,250 fine.
As reported by Steve Pomper from OpsLens.com, SB 501 would not just apply to people wanting to buy guns – it would also apply to people who already own them, meaning nobody with existing firearms, magazines, and ammo stores would be grandfathered in. In other words, SB 501 would instantly criminalize thousands of law-abiding gun owners in Oregon – which would seem to be every gun-hating Democrat's dream.
"This is truly chilling in how much it reveals about the ignorance of anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment bullies," Pomper writes. "They don't know the first thing about the thing they wish to ban, and they do not believe you have a right to self-defense."
The Constitution couldn't be clearer: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed
The provisions of SB 501 would appear to be arbitrarily burdensome – and perhaps that was the goal all along. But nitpicking every detail of gun ownership, Wagner and Salinas would seem to want to make it practically impossible to own guns, ammunition, and magazines without somehow being in violation of their proposed new law.
But the Constitution couldn't be clearer about the fact that Americans' Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed. This means that no politician, law enforcement official, nor anyone else ever has the right to prohibit, or in any way punish, gun ownership, as SB 501 is attempting to do.
A quick dictionary analysis of the meaning of the word infringed clearly indicates that it involves any limitations imposed on one's freedom to do as he or she wishes as it pertains to owning a gun, as well as owning and possessing all gun-related accessories. This means that any attempt to limit magazine size, for instance, or require that a person first obtain permission from the government in order to buy a gun, is entirely unconstitutional.
"The left has become so radical they no longer fear raising confiscation, which so obviously infringes on the people's gun rights and, therefore, on their inalienable right to self-defense," Pomper adds. "Make no mistake, this is not just about taking away property. This is about taking away your right to self-defense, which denies you your liberty and could very well threaten your life."
Pomper further notes that it's not the government, or even our Founding Fathers, that granted us this right to gun ownership – it was God himself. This means that only God can take away that right, and if anyone else tries, well, that's why we own guns in the first place.
"You have no right to life if the government won't allow you to effectively defend yourself against someone who would take your life," Pomper contends.
"So, of course, to properly defend yourself, you must have a right to keep and bear the most efficient, common means to that defense. The most efficient means for personal defense in 1787 and today is a firearm."
For more gun-related news, be sure to check out Guns.news and SecondAmendment.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
