Kitzhaber open to restrictions on assault weapons
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Last week's shooting in an Oregon shopping mall and massacre at a Connecticut elementary school have made it all but certain that gun control will be on the table when the state Legislature convenes Jan. 10.
It remains to be seen, however, whether any restrictions will be approved in a state where a majority of households have guns, and where Democrats, who are generally more favorable to regulation, hold a slim 16-14 advantage in the Senate.
When Gov. John Kitzhaber ordered flags at half-staff for the victims of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, he said he supported President Barack Obama's call for meaningful action to limit future tragedies.
Kitzhaber's spokesman, Tim Raphael, said Wednesday that the Democratic governor has asked his staff to bring forward a range of options to improve school security, expand access to mental health and address firearms regulations.
The twin rampages caused everyone to reflect on these intertwined issues and there's "clearly an opportunity to make progress," Raphael said.
Though improving school security and mental health might find bipartisan support, a potential ban on military-style assault weapons would not.
Ceasefire Oregon, a nonprofit group the seeks to reduce gun violence, has pushed for a ban on such weapons and has support from several Democratic legislators, including Sen. Ginny Burdick and Rep. Mitch Greenlick, both of Portland. The governor also appears to be on board.
"He really sees no reason for civilians to have assault weapons," Raphael said.
Burdick also plans to introduce legislation that would ban ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Greenlick, meanwhile, is sponsoring a bill to help schools pay for security enhancements.
"I believe in a well-regulated militia," Greenlick said. "But I don't believe every person has to have an assault rifle, or an atomic bomb or a tank or whatever."
The support of Greenlick and Burdick is not unexpected because both have long backed gun control. There is no indication, however, that pro-gun legislators are ready to switch positions.
Shortly after the Connecticut carnage, in which a gunman killed 20 children and seven adults, state Rep. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, emailed several school superintendents to say the death toll would have been lower if the gunman had been confronted with a weapon. Richardson said at least three officials in every school should be trained in the use of firearms.
Sen. Ted Ferrioli, of John Day, the top Senate Republican, said laws restricting certain firearms would affect law-abiding citizens and do nothing to deter criminals or madmen.
"Nothing makes sense if we're talking about someone who is deranged," he said. "You can't reach them with a deterrent and you can't reason with them."
To draw a parallel, Ferrioli said he believes some killers are motivated to shoot up public places because they want notoriety. Banning the media from releasing the names of mass killers might reduce violence, he said, but at the cost of First Amendment rights.
Ferrioli said lawmakers are under tremendous pressure "to do something" after a major event, but finding a fair, effective solution is easier said than done.
"There are a lot of forms of grieving, and one of them is to try to take some meaningful action," he said. "But I don't think anything I've heard suggested so far is meaningful."
Besides holding a two-seat advantage in the Senate, Democrats control the House 34-26. Even with those advantages, getting the votes for gun control will not be easy, Greenlick said.
"It's not an easy call for some of the legislators, particularly some of the new ones," he said. "They are, as I am, being bombarded by mail from all over the state, telling us that we're leaders of a fascist state trying to take away the guns of the citizens."
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
Kitzhaber is a loser. Â He screwed up the state once, and now he's doing it again.
Its easy for people with constant armed protection to sit there and talk about restricting weapons. Us regular folk actually have to worry about protecting ourselves and our families. So if you ban semi-auto weapons for citizens, does this mean that your secret service can't use them either? Of course not, because you deserve to be protected by them....just not the rest of us. I don't have specially trained people to watch my back, nor that of my families and friends. Put yourselves into our shoes with no protection and then we can talk about restricting stuff. I am all for requiring proper training and in-depth background checks, but limited the rounds in a magazine or just trying to take away the rifle all together is completely ridiculous and will not solve anything. We can't these people just meet halfway
Oh I almost forgot.  That Prius you drive around in everyday has killed more people by far than guns have.  So should we ban cars too?  Just where does it stop.  Look how many people were killed in the world trade center,  should we also ban airplanes?  I can't believe I moved here to have to listen to all you idiots that want to hide in your little holes till voting time then think that one person is going to change the way everything goes for the rest of us.  Makes me sick.  Maybe if everybody was forced to learn how to use guns just like learning to use a car we would have more people aware and not scared of guns.
I've owned guns since I was old enough to know how to use them and I've never shot anybody.  Now we want to put a ban on "assault rifles"  and limit how many bullets my guns can hold.  I have a marlin model 60 .22 long rifle that holds 16 rounds.  So is this an assault rifle?  My opinion your trying to punish a lot of good people by the work of very few bad apples.  Use your brain not your wallet!
Not commenting one way or the other on proposals, and I realize that this is a bit 'nit picky', but....
Â
The term "assault weapons" keeps getting thrown about. So, let's see here;
Â
as·sault  /ÉËsôlt/ Verb: To make a physical attack on.
Â
Or, from a legal dictionary if you'd like;Â
an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
Â
weap·on  /ËwepÉn/  Noun: A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
Â
So, couldn't an 'assault weapon' just as accurately be a baseball bat, knife or fists?
Â
I get somewhat bothered when politicians use wordsmithing so as to avoid saying what they really mean. Assault rifles, Â automatic rifles, semi-automatic rifles. I get that they are trying to avoid actually saying the word so as to not draw the ire of the gun nuts, but they are not talking about "assault weapons" in general. They are proposing restrictions on a very specific class of "assault weapons". Semi and/or fully automatic rifles.Â
Weapons bans have not worked in the past, and they won't work now! There is a reality that criminals just don't care about breaking the laws of the land. One more law is not going to change their minds.
Â
Only imbeciles and idiots believe that more laws will stop or slow down the criminals.
Â
If this passes in Oregon, I am going to move to Arizona. Â John Kitzhaber is a waste...he makes decisions that benefit what he wants and doesn't consider anyone else. Â Proof of this is his instituted moratorium on the death penalty in Oregon. Â He is a terrible governor.....typical knee-jerk liberal. Â
Oregon only had 1 death by rifle last year, same with Washington. Restricting certain types of rifles isn't the answer, easier access to mental health care is.http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
*Correction, murder by rifle.Â
i just don't understand why the mental health aspect of this isn't the main issue. Â Instead it always seems like just an afterthought. Â I don't think you'll find a single (sane) person who will disagree with the fact that all of these people were mentally ill. Â We could be getting support from all sides if they would push for mental health care reform.
Â
It's not as easy to figure out a solution but it's addressing the problem. Â Restricting guns is just treating the symptoms.
Most of the federal limitations such as the loophole are already prohibited in Oregon. This is all media posturing.
Â
I was going to explain to people how we get around this; how I bought "assault rifles" (lol) during the Clinton-era ban, how assault rifles are ALREADY restricted which is why gunshow booths have "LEO ONLY" items, and how I know people who get together and have AK-47 "build parties" from parts, but... nevermind.Forget it. Ban assault weapons. That'll make it harder for irresponsible teachers with psychotic kids to get their hands on them so their psychotic kids can go commit crime. The rest of us either already have them, or know how to get them regardless of the "ban." Cheers.
Yeah, don't take away our guns you fascists. How does someone like Ginny Burdick get elected anyway? She seems like some evil soccer mom gone wrong.
Lets be honest for a minute....... CRIMINALS LOVE RESTICTIVE GUN LAWS!!!!!!!
Â
limiting what is allowed for law abiding citizens ONLYÂ GIVES THE SICK AND TWISTED CRIMINALSÂ A GREATER ADVANTANGE AS THEY DON'T GIVE A RATS ARSE ABOUT GUN LAWS.
@kramr No, criminals don't love restrictive gun laws. They want easier access to buy with money that isn't theirs, or more options for stealing them. Their bravado doesn't allow them to use the logic that you would apply to the situation if you were a criminal.
I'm open to restrictions on Kitzslobber!
So the anti gun people in this State think that a guy that confronts a gun man in a shopping mall with his own gun,  that then causes the gunman to end his rampage early, is a bad idea? No different than the sandy hook guy killing himself when he heard first responders moving in. It's never a good idea to limit the potential response or weapon a caring individual can provide towards an uncaring killer.
What does Kitzhaber mean by an "assault weapon"? If we're going to talk about banning stuff, one should be precise about what is to be banned. People who actually know something about firearms don't use the term "assault weapon".
 @thesixthmoon I'm all in favor of restricting sales of M-16s, M-60s, G36s, MACs, Uzis, M203s and the like to LEOs, licensed contractors and Guard types only.
Â
That'll fix it. Let's make that a law. ;>
Typical of liberals...always ready to take away a persons freedom.
It's funny on the basis that assault rifles are already illegal...........unless you have very expensive paperwork.
This gov disgraces himself just about every time he opens his mouth.
I would expect this from someone like him.
In fact, I would expect anything he tries to enact to be worse than what Barry cooks up.
After all, its just a little constitutional right.
What a shock a liberal Commucrat is open to more gun control Legislation. Hey Kitz how about you step away from your armed guards and police protection and live like a normal person and them tell me your views on the subject. What a Dbag. More gun laws will accomplish NOTHING. the last ban was useless the next one will be nothing more than feel good legislation. Lets address the real issues here the failure of our mental health system.
Guess that means I can't have a flame-thrower, either.... darn it...
 @margay1 No more patriotic barbeques in Communist America,
 @PDXguy23  @margay1 You can BBQ tofu on the grill but only if the fire doesn't produce smoke. Unless the fire is made of weed.
I really wish people would educate themselves on what an "Assault Weapon" entails....it does very little actually to ban them and even the CDC found no evidence that the 94-04 federal ban did anything to reduce gun crime.
Â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
 @JimmyWally How dare you speak with logic and facts!!!
 @JimmyWally Furthermore, during the ban you could still buy Chinese and Russian SKS and AK-type semiautomatic rifles..   Whatever. Let 'em make their laws, I guess. Didn't stop me before.
Seems like guns are only part of the problem, the glorification of violence in movies and video games seem to be what is responsible for desensitizing these mass murderers, Justice Scalia was mistaken in thinking there is no evidence linking violence and these games, when almost every one of today's crazy gun killers has been addicted to these violent video games, that is actually pretty good evidence. It's wrong to think that banning them is a freedom of speech violation, for the same reason snuff films are illegal, realistic virtual snuff video games should also be made illegal.
Â
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250811/Sandy-Hook-shooting-reignites-debate-violent-video-games.html
 @g w GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM,  STUPID PEOPLE ARE!!!!
 @g w The same games are played elsewhere in the world, such as Canada and Europe, and they don't have these problems. I play 'em on occasion. So the theory that violent video games compel somebody to murder is like saying Cowboys and Indians and cap guns did. You can't ban Cowboys and Indians. Having said that, I've started to notice an increase in violence in today's video games. I'm gonna call it as I see it. One video game starts with a Japanese officer putting a cigarette out in a Marine prisoner's eye, another starts with a little girl being vaporized by a truck bomb. In the western game I'm playing you can ride your horse across the border to shoot at Mexicans and as long as you're wearing a bandana, it doesn't affect your score because they can't recognize you. You should see what happens if you lasso people and leave 'em on the train track. The games seem to becoming much more mean-spirited and visceral. They're also widely popular with the troops.
 @g w You don't need to desensitize a mass murderer. If violent video games and movies were really responsible, there would be a whole lot more mass murderers out there. You know how many people play violent video games or watch violent movies on a frequent and regular basis?
 @g w That myth was debunked long ago, and if even Justice Scalia knows that... icing on the cake. If you'd thrown the name of any other Judge out there it wouldn't have meant as much, but Scalia saying there is no evidence, dang.
"He really sees no reason for civilians to have assault weapons," Raphael said."
Â
That's because he is government. The potential for government tyranny is the reason the populous needs to be well armed. It prevents tyranny.
 @RalphCramden I don't see how an assault weapon would do much good against a dronestrike. That idea might have made since around the time of the creation of the constitution, but it's not really plausible now.
 @PDXguy23  Then clearly we need to have Stinger missiles available for purchase at Wal-Mart...
 @mine9  @PDXguy23 You should never shop at Wal-Mart. But I bet you can still get Chinese semi-automatics there.
@PDXguy23 @RalphCramden assault weapons are already banned. So what's the problem?
Kitz is open to anything including opening the US/mexico border to illegals, open the taxpayers wallets to fund and support illegals....I would not trust Kitz any further than I could P
Let's have an initiative and place the issue on the ballot.Â
 @peckishpete Ya! in fact, lets have a vote on all the amendments.
I'm sure we are all weary of one or another of those pesky constitutional rights.
"I believe in a well-regulated militia," Greenlick said. "But I don't believe every person has to have an assault rifle, or an atomic bomb or a tank or whatever." Yeah, because a semi-automatic small caliber rifle is exactly the same as an atomic bomb.