Latest news with #GiffordsLawCentertoPreventGunViolence
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gun control vs. gun rights: More than 2 dozen Oregon firearm bills introduced this session
Gun control vs. gun rights continues to be a hot-button issue in Oregon, with more than two dozen bills relating to firearms introduced this legislative session. None have yet to gain serious traction for a combination of reasons. A barrage of bills is clogging the system, Measure 114 is facing ongoing court challenges, and the state has already reformed several gun laws in recent years. Many of the record 3,317 bills, resolutions and memorials introduced this session will inevitably die. Separate state and federal challenges have left Measure 114, a sweeping expansion of Oregon gun laws voters narrowly passed in 2022, in legal limbo. Even without the muscle of Measure 114, which would require Oregonians to apply for and obtain a permit before purchasing a gun and outlaw large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, Oregon has some of the strictest gun safety laws in the nation. It ranks just outside the top 10 by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (No. 11) and Everytown for Gun Safety (No. 12). The Giffords Law Center annually ranks states based on new and preexisting gun laws. Oregon's grade has risen from a D+ to an A- in the past 10 years and has what the organization recognizes as the 11th-strongest gun laws in the U.S. 'We probably could be doing a better job publicizing what we have on the books, but there's still more work to do,' said state Sen. Lisa Reynolds, D-Portland, a chief sponsor for a handful of firearms-related bills this session. Here is a look at some of those and others introduced this session. Senate Bill 697 would limit gun possession for people who are under 21 years old with exceptions for certain groups such as police officers and military personnel. The bill is also known as the Russell Paul Evans Act, after the late grandfather of Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, and a carryover from a bill introduced by Evans during the 2023 session. House Bill 2006 received a public hearing but died in committee upon adjournment. While Senate Bill 697 addresses concerns about the role of young people in gun violence incidents, including mass shootings, opponents argue it infringes on the Second Amendment rights of 18- to 20-year-olds. The bill would make it illegal for someone under 21 to use or possess semiautomatic rifles or shotguns, and it would have a significant impact on high school trap shooting, one of the fastest-growing sports in the country. An estimated two-thirds of firearms used in trap shooting are semiautomatics. Senate Bill 429 would implement a mandatory 72-hour waiting period for transfers of a firearm or unfinished frame or receiver from the time a gun dealer requests a criminal background check and has received an approval number from Oregon State Police. Supporters say waiting period laws delaying the purchase by a few days can reduce gun homicide and suicide rates and allow for more thorough background checks. Opponents argue the bill has no provisions for OSP accountability or timely response to the application, leading to what they would expect to be an indefinite waiting period. House Bill 3076 would direct the Department of Justice to study the establishment of a state gun dealer licensing program, which sponsors believe necessary to deal with a handful of bad-faith gun dealers who skirt regulations and whose guns sold are disproportionately found among those used in crimes. Opponents argue a state-level licensing program would be redundant. Oregon gun dealers already need a Federal Firearms License from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and they must renew it every three years. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia require dealers to obtain a license, including Washington and California, to engage in the retail sale of firearms. House Bill 3742 would allow members of the Legislature and their staffers with concealed handgun licenses to possess a firearm in the Capitol, a response to concerns for their safety walking to and from vehicles and an increasingly hostile political climate. The bill comes four years after armed protesters breached the security at the Capitol, which was closed to the public at the time. That same year, lawmakers passed a bill banning firearms in the Capitol. Oregon gun rights organizations and CHL carry permit holders are outraged. 'We adamantly oppose this attempt to, once again, elevate the members of the legislature over the people they work for,' the Oregon Firearms Federation posted on its website, calling it an 'outrageous insult' to deny citizens this right while allowing legislators to be armed. Senate Bill 696 would create the crime of unlawful transport, manufacture or transfer of a rapid-fire activator, a device attached to a firearm to increase the trigger rate and mimic automatic weapon fire. The crime would be punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison, a $250,000 fine or both. The bill also would create the crime of unlawful possession of a rapid-fire activator, punishable by a maximum of 364 days in prison, a $6,250 fine or both. Matching House Bills 2396 and 2780 would automatically qualify a person to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm if they hold a valid concealed handgun license. A permit-to-purchase system, part of Measure 114, has yet to be established, let alone defined or resourced, because of the ongoing court challenges. The permit system would require anyone who wants to buy a firearm in Oregon to pass a background check and take a firearms safety course first. No permit is currently required, and a gun can be given to a buyer after three business days, even if the background check is unfinished. Three identical bills have been introduced, two in the House (2606 and 3074) and one in the Senate (243), requiring the Department of State Police to study the efficiency of background checks for gun transfers. All three bills direct the department to submit findings to the interim committees of the Legislative Assembly related to the judiciary no later than Sept. 15, 2026. Senate Joint Resolution 27 proposes an amendment to the Oregon Constitution establishing a right to carry concealed firearms. The resolution would refer the proposed amendment to the people for their approval or rejection at the next regular general election. Capi Lynn is a senior reporter for the Statesman Journal. Send comments, questions and tips to her at clynn@ and follow her work on X @CapiLynn and Facebook @CapiLynnSJ. This article originally appeared on Salem Statesman Journal: Oregon gun control legislation among barrage of bills in 2025
CNN
04-03-2025
- Business
- CNN
Mexico urges US Supreme Court to let it sue American gunmakers over cartel violence
As President Donald Trump pressures Mexico to address the flow of migrants and drugs heading north into the United States, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Tuesday in a major appeal about one thing that's crossing the border toward Mexico: guns. Mexico sued Smith & Wesson and six other major US gun makers in 2021 for $10 billion in damages, alleging that the companies design and market their guns specifically to drug cartels that then use them in the 'killing and maiming of children, judges, journalists, police, and ordinary citizens throughout Mexico.' The Supreme Court agreed to review the case last October, a month before Trump was elected to a second term. Since then, US-Mexican relations have been upended as Trump threatens tariffs – including a new round set to take effect on Tuesday – to pressure the Mexican government. The case does not center on the Second Amendment, but gun-control and gun rights groups are nevertheless closely engaged in the fight. 'The gun industry defendants are trying to use this case to rewrite the law and dramatically expand their immunity to include actions that break the law,' David Pucino, legal director with the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence told CNN. 'The Supreme Court should reject that dangerous invitation to shut the courthouse door on victims of gun violence.' The Mexican government argues that between 70% and 90% of guns recovered at crime scenes in its country are made in the United States. There is only one gun store in all of Mexico, its lawyers said, and 'yet the nation is awash in guns.' Gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, say that the lawsuit is an effort to 'destroy' the American firearms industry by making it easier to sue for huge sums, despite a 2005 law meant to protect gun makers from an increasing number of lawsuits filed by Democratic governors and mayors nationwide. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act generally shields gunmakers from liability for crimes committed with their products. An exception permits those suits when there's a close connection between the harm – in this case, the use of guns in Mexico – and the companies' actions. 'Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right,' the NRA told the Supreme Court in a brief. 'Now (it) seeks to extinguish America's.' A win for Mexico would allow its case to move forward in federal court. Mexico alleges the manufacturers are aiding and abetting the purchase of firearms by cartels by selling to dealers known to supply to them. It also argues the gunmakers have resisted design changes to their products – such as making serial numbers harder to tamper with – that would make the guns less appealing to gangs because the weapons could more easily be traced. The manufacturers, Mexico said in court documents, advertise the guns as 'military-grade' and design special-edition products like the Super 'El Jefe' pistol the country says are targeted for sale to gangs. 'The Supreme Court is facing a choice: Hold the American gun industry accountable for fueling organized crime at the southern border or give American manufacturers near total immunity,' Hudson Munoz, executive director of Guns Down America told CNN. 'This case is not about the Second Amendment – it's about whether an industry can facilitate illegal arms trafficking, destabilize a neighboring country, and face zero consequences.' A federal district court backed the gun makers, but the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals concluded Mexico's suit could go forward. The gun companies appealed to the Supreme Court in April. The 6-3 conservative Supreme Court is expected to take a skeptical view of Mexico's suit, in part because of a decision it handed down just two years ago in a case dealing with the social media company now known as X. In Twitter v. Taamneh, the family of a victim killed in a 2017 terrorist attack in Turkey tried to sue the social media giant for contributing to the attack because it hosted content helping ISIS recruit followers and raise money. In a unanimous decision, the court said the connection between the content at issue and the attack wasn't closely related enough to allow the family to sue. It's a point the gun manufacturers are quick to highlight in their written arguments. The short version, according to the companies, is that they have no control over what people do with the guns they make. 'This court has repeatedly held that it requires a direct connection between a defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury,' the gun manufacturers told the high court in their appeal. 'In its zeal to attack the firearms industry, Mexico seeks to raze bedrock principles of American law that safeguard the whole economy.' But the appeals court ruling in favor of Mexico, which was also unanimous, said that the gunmakers' conduct may have been something more than what was alleged against X. All three appeals court judges who reviewed Mexico's case were appointed by Democratic presidents. 'They are not mere passive observers of the buyer's illegal activity,' the three-judge panel wrote, 'but more akin to a calculated and willing participant in the supply chain that ends with a profitable illegal firearm market in Mexico.'
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Mexico urges US Supreme Court to let it sue American gunmakers over cartel violence
As President Donald Trump pressures Mexico to address the flow of migrants and drugs heading north into the United States, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Tuesday in a major appeal about one thing that's crossing the border toward Mexico: guns. Mexico sued Smith & Wesson and six other major US gun makers in 2021 for $10 billion in damages, alleging that the companies design and market their guns specifically to drug cartels that then use them in the 'killing and maiming of children, judges, journalists, police, and ordinary citizens throughout Mexico.' The Supreme Court agreed to review the case last October, a month before Trump was elected to a second term. Since then, US-Mexican relations have been upended as Trump threatens tariffs – including a new round set to take effect on Tuesday – to pressure the Mexican government. The case does not center on the Second Amendment, but gun-control and gun rights groups are nevertheless closely engaged in the fight. 'The gun industry defendants are trying to use this case to rewrite the law and dramatically expand their immunity to include actions that break the law,' David Pucino, legal director with the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence told CNN. 'The Supreme Court should reject that dangerous invitation to shut the courthouse door on victims of gun violence.' The Mexican government argues that between 70% and 90% of guns recovered at crime scenes in its country are made in the United States. There is only one gun store in all of Mexico, its lawyers said, and 'yet the nation is awash in guns.' Gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, say that the lawsuit is an effort to 'destroy' the American firearms industry by making it easier to sue for huge sums, despite a 2005 law meant to protect gun makers from an increasing number of lawsuits filed by Democratic governors and mayors nationwide. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act generally shields gunmakers from liability for crimes committed with their products. An exception permits those suits when there's a close connection between the harm – in this case, the use of guns in Mexico – and the companies' actions. 'Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right,' the NRA told the Supreme Court in a brief. 'Now (it) seeks to extinguish America's.' A win for Mexico would allow its case to move forward in federal court. Mexico alleges the manufacturers are aiding and abetting the purchase of firearms by cartels by selling to dealers known to supply to them. It also argues the gunmakers have resisted design changes to their products – such as making serial numbers harder to tamper with – that would make the guns less appealing to gangs because the weapons could more easily be traced. The manufacturers, Mexico said in court documents, advertise the guns as 'military-grade' and design special-edition products like the Super 'El Jefe' pistol the country says are targeted for sale to gangs. 'The Supreme Court is facing a choice: Hold the American gun industry accountable for fueling organized crime at the southern border or give American manufacturers near total immunity,' Hudson Munoz, executive director of Guns Down America told CNN. 'This case is not about the Second Amendment – it's about whether an industry can facilitate illegal arms trafficking, destabilize a neighboring country, and face zero consequences.' A federal district court backed the gun makers, but the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals concluded Mexico's suit could go forward. The gun companies appealed to the Supreme Court in April. The 6-3 conservative Supreme Court is expected to take a skeptical view of Mexico's suit, in part because of a decision it handed down just two years ago in a case dealing with the social media company now known as X. In Twitter v. Taamneh, the family of a victim killed in a 2017 terrorist attack in Turkey tried to sue the social media giant for contributing to the attack because it hosted content helping ISIS recruit followers and raise money. In a unanimous decision, the court said the connection between the content at issue and the attack wasn't closely related enough to allow the family to sue. It's a point the gun manufacturers are quick to highlight in their written arguments. The short version, according to the companies, is that they have no control over what people do with the guns they make. 'This court has repeatedly held that it requires a direct connection between a defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury,' the gun manufacturers told the high court in their appeal. 'In its zeal to attack the firearms industry, Mexico seeks to raze bedrock principles of American law that safeguard the whole economy.' But the appeals court ruling in favor of Mexico, which was also unanimous, said that the gunmakers' conduct may have been something more than what was alleged against X. All three appeals court judges who reviewed Mexico's case were appointed by Democratic presidents. 'They are not mere passive observers of the buyer's illegal activity,' the three-judge panel wrote, 'but more akin to a calculated and willing participant in the supply chain that ends with a profitable illegal firearm market in Mexico.'
CNN
04-03-2025
- Business
- CNN
Mexico urges US Supreme Court to let it sue American gunmakers over cartel violence
As President Donald Trump pressures Mexico to address the flow of migrants and drugs heading north into the United States, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Tuesday in a major appeal about one thing that's crossing the border toward Mexico: guns. Mexico sued Smith & Wesson and six other major US gun makers in 2021 for $10 billion in damages, alleging that the companies design and market their guns specifically to drug cartels that then use them in the 'killing and maiming of children, judges, journalists, police, and ordinary citizens throughout Mexico.' The Supreme Court agreed to review the case last October, a month before Trump was elected to a second term. Since then, US-Mexican relations have been upended as Trump threatens tariffs – including a new round set to take effect on Tuesday – to pressure the Mexican government. The case does not center on the Second Amendment, but gun-control and gun rights groups are nevertheless closely engaged in the fight. 'The gun industry defendants are trying to use this case to rewrite the law and dramatically expand their immunity to include actions that break the law,' David Pucino, legal director with the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence told CNN. 'The Supreme Court should reject that dangerous invitation to shut the courthouse door on victims of gun violence.' The Mexican government argues that between 70% and 90% of guns recovered at crime scenes in its country are made in the United States. There is only one gun store in all of Mexico, its lawyers said, and 'yet the nation is awash in guns.' Gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, say that the lawsuit is an effort to 'destroy' the American firearms industry by making it easier to sue for huge sums, despite a 2005 law meant to protect gun makers from an increasing number of lawsuits filed by Democratic governors and mayors nationwide. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act generally shields gunmakers from liability for crimes committed with their products. An exception permits those suits when there's a close connection between the harm – in this case, the use of guns in Mexico – and the companies' actions. 'Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right,' the NRA told the Supreme Court in a brief. 'Now (it) seeks to extinguish America's.' A win for Mexico would allow its case to move forward in federal court. Mexico alleges the manufacturers are aiding and abetting the purchase of firearms by cartels by selling to dealers known to supply to them. It also argues the gunmakers have resisted design changes to their products – such as making serial numbers harder to tamper with – that would make the guns less appealing to gangs because the weapons could more easily be traced. The manufacturers, Mexico said in court documents, advertise the guns as 'military-grade' and design special-edition products like the Super 'El Jefe' pistol the country says are targeted for sale to gangs. 'The Supreme Court is facing a choice: Hold the American gun industry accountable for fueling organized crime at the southern border or give American manufacturers near total immunity,' Hudson Munoz, executive director of Guns Down America told CNN. 'This case is not about the Second Amendment – it's about whether an industry can facilitate illegal arms trafficking, destabilize a neighboring country, and face zero consequences.' A federal district court backed the gun makers, but the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals concluded Mexico's suit could go forward. The gun companies appealed to the Supreme Court in April. The 6-3 conservative Supreme Court is expected to take a skeptical view of Mexico's suit, in part because of a decision it handed down just two years ago in a case dealing with the social media company now known as X. In Twitter v. Taamneh, the family of a victim killed in a 2017 terrorist attack in Turkey tried to sue the social media giant for contributing to the attack because it hosted content helping ISIS recruit followers and raise money. In a unanimous decision, the court said the connection between the content at issue and the attack wasn't closely related enough to allow the family to sue. It's a point the gun manufacturers are quick to highlight in their written arguments. The short version, according to the companies, is that they have no control over what people do with the guns they make. 'This court has repeatedly held that it requires a direct connection between a defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury,' the gun manufacturers told the high court in their appeal. 'In its zeal to attack the firearms industry, Mexico seeks to raze bedrock principles of American law that safeguard the whole economy.' But the appeals court ruling in favor of Mexico, which was also unanimous, said that the gunmakers' conduct may have been something more than what was alleged against X. All three appeals court judges who reviewed Mexico's case were appointed by Democratic presidents. 'They are not mere passive observers of the buyer's illegal activity,' the three-judge panel wrote, 'but more akin to a calculated and willing participant in the supply chain that ends with a profitable illegal firearm market in Mexico.'
