COEF + CO: Plan to Reduce Gun Violence by 30 to 50% in 5 Years

Ceasefire Oregon and the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation Release Recommendations to Reduce Gun Violence by Thirty to Fifty Percent in Five Years

The plan has three overarching goals:

  • Require higher standards for gun ownership.
  • Enhance accountability of federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs).
  • Improve safety standards for guns and gun ownership.

Ceasefire Oregon and the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation are greatly indebted to Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer for his plan “Enough is Enough”1 and to Dr. Daniel Webster, Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.2

The plan respects the values and ideals held by responsible gun owners while remaining within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Recommendations for requiring higher standards for gun ownership include (1) national universal background checks for all firearm sales;3,4,9 (2) prohibition of gun ownership for 10 years if a person has multiple offenses involving misdemeanor violence, alcohol or drug abuse, domestic violence, a domestic violence restraining order or serious juvenile offense.5,6,7 (3) secure weapons storage;8,9,10,11,12 and (4) standardized training for concealed handgun license applicants that includes marksmanship proficiency, active shooter training, and conflict resolution.13,14

Ceasefire Oregon supports Dr. Webster’s recommendations to reduce gun violence by enhancing accountability of federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs).20, 21 The pipeline of crime guns can be stopped by (1) requiring security cameras, computerized sales inventory, and other anti-theft measures as are required by other purveyors of dangerous substances such as pharmacies;2,15 (2) limiting gun purchases to one gun per month to reduce trafficking and straw purchases;16, 17 (3) repealing the Gekas amendment of the 1994 Brady Bill that allows FFLs to sell a gun without a background check if the check is not complete in three business days;18, 19 and (4) imposing a waiting period of two weeks between time of sale and possession to deter suicide and impulse shootings.9

Affordable and effective technology exists today that would improve safety standards for guns and gun ownership. This includes (1) a microstamped code on each bullet that links it to a specific gun;22 (2) magazine disconnect mechanisms (MDM) that prevent a gun from loading a bullet in the chamber;23 (3) loaded chamber indicator (LCI or CLI) to show that bullets are still in the gun;23 and (4) “smart guns” with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) or biometric recognition (fingerprint) capability.24

While only 4% of violent crime is attributable to mental illness,25 we call for more funding to provide competent assessment and care of our mentally ill citizens and those who are considering suicide. The funding would be generated by a tax on each gun sale and on every box of bullets purchased. This tax would be collected by the states and used to augment direct services for those suffering from mental illness.

To reduce the high number of people killed in mass shootings, the sale and possession of military-style rifles and high-capacity magazines should be banned.26

Finally, Ceasefire Oregon and the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation call on President Obama to appoint a National Director of Gun Violence Prevention Policy. Over 30,000 Americans are killed every year from gunfire. Appointing a National Director to focus solely on gun violence prevention would give the necessary attention needed to reduce these largely preventable deaths.

Ceasefire Oregon, the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation, and the Central Coast Ceasefire Oregon Chapter have been at the forefront of the gun violence prevention movement in Oregon since 1999. After the Sandy Hook, Connecticut massacre, we helped establish the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety (http://www.oregonallianceforgunsafety.org/coalition) that has grown to over 50 organizations.

Ceasefire Oregon collaborated with the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety, Everytown in Oregon, Moms Demand Action Oregon and Gun Owners for Responsible Ownership to pass the 2015 Oregon Firearms Safety Act that closed the private gun sale loophole in Oregon. The Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation (http://coef.ceasefireoregon.org/) has worked since 1994 to reduce gun violence through education programs including ASK: Asking Saves Kids and gun turn-ins.

1. Enough is Enough: A Comprehensive Plan to Improve Gun Safety. 2015. Retrieved from
http://blumenauer.house.gov/images/pdf/enough_is_enough.pdf.

2. Webster DW. “America’s Path to Fewer Gun Deaths.” Retrieved from
http://www.tedmed.com/speakers/show?id=309062.

3. Quinnpac University Poll, Sept. 17-21, 2015  http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm.

4. State Background Check Requirements and Rates of Domestic Violence Homicide.
http://everytownresearch.org/state-background-check-requirements-and-rat....

5. Sorenson SB and Webster DW. “What Works, Policies to Reduce Gun Violence. Gun Violence: Prediction, Prevention and Policy," APA Panel Of Experts Report. American Psychological Association, 2013, pg. 30.  Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/ reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx.

6. Wintemute G. “Broadening Denial Criteria. Updated Evidence and Policy Developments on Reducing Gun Violence in America."  Editors Webster DW, Vernick JS. Baltimore, 2014. pp. 13-17. Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-cente....

7. Seventy percent of gun owners and 76.1% of non-gun owners support a gun policy prohibiting a person convicted of two or more crimes involving alcohol or drugs within a three-year period from having a gun for 10 years. Barry CL, McGinty EE, Vernick JS, Webster DW. “After Newtown — Public Opinion on Gun Policy and Mental Illness." N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1077-1081. March 21, 2013. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1300512. Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300512#t=article.

8. Safe Storage & Gun Locks Policy Summary. Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Retrieved from http://smartgunlaws.org/safe-storage-gun-locks-policy-summary/.

9. Anestis MD, Anestis JC. “Suicide Rates and State Laws Regulating Access and Exposure to Handguns.” American Journal of Public Health. 2015;105:10, 2049-2058. doi:

10.2105/AJPH.2015.302753 Retrieved from http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302753.

10. Forty-four percent of gun owners and 75.3% of non-gun owners support a gun policy requiring by law that a person lock up guns in the home when not in use to prevent handling by children or teenagers without adult supervision.  Barry CL, McGinty EE, Vernick JS, Webster DW. “After Newtown — Public Opinion on Gun Policy and Mental Illness.  N Engl J Med. 2013; 368:1077-1081. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1300512. Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300512#t=article.

11. Policy Statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Firearm-Related Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population.” Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention Executive Committee. Pediatrics. 2012;130:5. e1416 -e1423. (doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-2481). Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1416.full.

12. In Oregon, 82% percent of voters support child access prevention laws requiring safe storage of guns in a locked container for homes where a child is present. Additionally, 71% of gun owners support this law. Benenson Strategy Group, Polling Results, April 2015. Retrieved from http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/files/2015/04/ARS-
Oregon-Child-Access-Prevention-Memo.pdf.

13. “Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from the array of models is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted.” Donohue JJ III, Aneja A, Zhang A. "The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy." May 20, 2010. Retrieved from
http://media.law.stanford.edu/publications/archive/pdf/ssrn-id1632599.pdf.

14. Delaware Weapons Instructions and Forms. Retrieved from http://www.delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c005/sc07/index.shtml#1441.

15. Almost seventy-nine percent of gun owners and 86.4% of non-gun owners support a gun policy allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to temporarily take away a gun dealer’s license if an audit reveals record-keeping violations and the dealer cannot account for 20 or more guns.  Barry CL, McGinty EE, Vernick JS, Webster DW. “After Newtown — Public Opinion on Gun Policy and Mental Illness,  N Engl J Med. 2013; 368:1077-1081. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1300512. Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300512#t=article.

16. “This study provides evidence that restricting handgun purchases to 1 per month is an effective means of disrupting the illegal interstate transfer of firearms.” Weil DS, Knox RC. “Effects of Limiting Handgun Purchases on Interstate Transfer of Firearms.” JAMA. 1996;275(22):1759-1761. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530460063033. Retrieved from http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=403492.

17. An April 13, 2012, Ipsos/Reuters poll found that 69 percent of Americans support limiting the number of guns a person could purchase in a given time frame. Retrieved from http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5586.

18. “Blumenthal, Murphy Move to Keep Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals.” Retrieved from http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-murph....

19. Sixty-seven percent of gun owners and almost 80% of non-gun owners support a gun policy allowing law enforcement up to five business days to complete a background check for gun buyers. (Note: This survey was conducted in January 2013, two and one-half years before the Charleston massacre in which Dylan Roof allegedly shot nine people to death. Reportedly, Roof obtained his firearm because of the Gekas amendment.
http://everytownresearch.org/nics-charleston/)  Barry CL, McGinty EE, Vernick JS, Webster DW. “After Newtown — Public Opinion on Gun Policy and Mental Illness, N Engl J Med 2013;368:1077-1081. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1300512. Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300512#t=article.

20. “Congress should repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the sharing of gun trace data.”  Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities: A report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police 2007 Great Lakes Summit on Gun Violence, pg. 21. Retrieved from http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/ACF1875.pdf.

21. H.R.1449 - Tiahrt Restrictions Repeal Act 114th Congress (2015-2016) Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA-13] (Introduced 03/18/2015) Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1449/text.

22. Lizotte TE, Ohar O. Forensic firearm identification of semiautomatic handguns using laser formed microstamping elements. SPIE Proceedings. 2008;7070:1-15.

23. “From a nationally projectable sample, GAO estimates that 31 percent of accidental deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two safety devices.” Eleanor Chelimsky, Assistant Comptroller General. United States General Accounting Office, Report to Chairman, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Monopolies and Business Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate. Accidental shootings : many deaths and injuries caused by firearms could be prevented: report to the chairman, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Monopolies, and Business Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate. 1991. pg. 2. Retrieved from https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/2090194.

24. Webster DW, Vernick JS, Teret SP. “How Cities Can Combat Illegal Guns and Gun Violence.” Center for Gun Policy and Research. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Baltimore, MD. Updated October 23, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-cente...

25. Appelbaum PS. Violence and mental disorders: data and public policy. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(8):1319–1321.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.8.1319.

26. According to a December 2014 poll by Pew Research Center, 58 percent of Americans support a ban on semi-automatic weapons. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/09/a-public-opinion-trend-t....

A short list of current bills in the U.S. House of Representatives that would reduce gun violence:

  • HR 2216 Protect DV & Stalking Victims;
  • HR 2917 Mental health professional allowed to submit information about dangerous person
  • HR 2612 Increase gun violence prevention research
  • HR 224 Surgeon General reports to Congress about gun violence and gun violence prevention
  • HR 2917 Mental health professional allowed to submit information about dangerous person
  • HR 1449 Repeal Tiahrt Amendments
  • HR 225 Firearms Safety Act
  • HR 1454 Regarding armor piercing bullets
  • HR 752 Ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices
  • HR 1745 $2000 tax credit to surrender assault weapon
  • HR 3497 PLEA protect law enforcement armor act

State Laws

States with higher standards of requirements for gun ownership:
New York: (Currently being updated to reflect 2015 law)
• Has been convicted of a felony or “serious offense,” defined to include:
o Illegally using, carrying or possessing a handgun or other dangerous weapon;
o Making or possessing burglar’s instruments;
o Buying or receiving stolen property;
o Unlawful entry into a building;
o Aiding escape from prison;
o Certain kinds of disorderly conduct;
o Certain drug offenses or crimes involving sodomy or rape;
o Child endangerment;
o Certain crimes permitting or promoting prostitution; or
o Certain kinds of stalking.
http://smartgunlaws.org/prohibited-purchasers-generally-in-new-york/

Return to List of State Laws

Delaware:
• Has been convicted of a felony or “serious offense,” defined to include:
o Illegally using, carrying or possessing a handgun or other dangerous weapon;
o Making or possessing burglar’s instruments;
o Buying or receiving stolen property;
o Unlawful entry into a building;
o Aiding escape from prison;
o Certain kinds of disorderly conduct;
o Certain drug offenses or crimes involving sodomy or rape;
o Child endangerment;
o Certain crimes permitting or promoting prostitution; or
o Certain kinds of stalking.

Return to List of State Laws

States with purchase limited to one gun per month
http://smartgunlaws.org/multiple-purchases-sales-of-firearms-policy-summ...
California
D.C.
Maryland
New Jersey
http://smartgunlaws.org/multiple-purchases-sales-of-firearms-policy-summ...

States with storage requirements
http://smartgunlaws.org/safe-storage-gun-locks-policy-summary/
Eleven states have laws concerning firearm locking devices. Massachusetts is the only state that generally requires that all firearms be stored with a lock in place; California, Connecticut, and New York impose this requirement in certain situations. Other state laws regarding locking devices are similar to the federal law, in that they require locking devices to accompany certain guns manufactured, sold, or transferred. Five of the eleven states also set standards for the design of locking devices or require them to be approved by a state agency for effectiveness.

Return to List of State Laws

States with high levels of training required for concealed handgun licenses
State laws regarding training vary widely so two states, Texas and Delaware, were chosen as examples of high levels of required training for CHLs.
Texas
An original (first-time) CHL applicant must complete four to six hours of classroom training, pass a written examination and pass a proficiency demonstration (shooting). All classroom and proficiency must be conducted by a CHL instructor certified by DPS. See CHL Qualification Course Requirements (PDF) for the proficiency demonstration requirements. There are four (4) required topics: Use of Force, Non-Violent Dispute Resolution, Handgun Use, and Safe and Proper Storage of Handguns and Ammunition.
Standards held by the state of Delaware:

  • Instruction regarding knowledge and safe handling of firearms;
  • Instruction regarding safe storage of firearms and child safety
  • Instruction regarding knowledge and safe handling of ammunition;
  • Instruction regarding safe storage of ammunition and child safety;
  • Instruction regarding safe firearms shooting fundamentals;
  • Live fire shooting exercises conducted on a range, including the expenditure of a minimum of 100 rounds of ammunition;
  • Identification of ways to develop and maintain firearm shooting skills;
  • Instruction regarding federal and state laws pertaining to the lawful purchase, ownership, transportation, use and possession of firearms;
  • Instruction regarding the laws of this State pertaining to the use of deadly force for self defense;
  • Instruction regarding techniques for avoiding a criminal attack and how to manage a violent confrontation, including conflict resolution.

Return to List of State Laws

States Requiring Waiting Periods for Purchases of All Firearms

  • California (10 days)
  • District of Columbia (10 days)
  • Hawaii (14 days)
  • Illinois (24 hours) (long guns); 72 hours (handguns)
  • Rhode Island (7 days)

States Requiring Waiting Periods for Purchases of Handguns and Assault Weapons

  • Minnesota (7 days)

States Imposing Waiting Periods for Handguns Only

  • Florida (3 days)
  • Iowa (3 days)
  • Maryland (7 days)
  • New Jersey (7 days)

States with microstamping or ballistic imaging
http://smartgunlaws.org/microstamping-ballistic-identification-policy-su...

  • California and the District of Columbia have adopted microstamping requirements for handguns.
  • Maryland has created a statewide ballistics imaging database for new handguns sold in state, and Connecticut operates a statewide firearms evidence databank that stores ballistic information on handguns recovered or used by police.

    States requiring locking devices
    http://smartgunlaws.org/safe-storage-gun-locks-policy-summary/
    Eleven states have laws concerning firearm locking devices. Massachusetts is the only state that generally requires that all firearms be stored with a lock in place; California, Connecticut, and New York impose this requirement in certain situations. Other state laws regarding locking devices are similar to the federal law, in that they require locking devices to accompany certain guns manufactured, sold, or transferred. Five of the eleven states also set standards for the design of locking devices or require them to be approved by a state agency for effectiveness.

    Return to List of State Laws

    Federal law regarding locking devices
    In October 2005, as part of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Congress passed and the President signed into law legislation making it unlawful for any licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer to sell or transfer any handgun unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device. The law includes various exceptions, including transfers to other federal firearms licensees, law enforcement officers, and federal, state or local agencies. The legislation does not apply to transfers by private sellers, and does not require that transferees use the device.

    The law also immunizes any person who is in lawful possession and control of a handgun and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, from a “qualified civil liability action.” “Qualified civil liability action” is defined as a civil action for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a handgun by a third party if: 1) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the authorization of the lawful possessor; and 2) at the time the handgun was accessed it had been made inoperable by the use of a secure gun storage or safety device.

    There are no current federal standards for locking devices. On January 16, 2013, President Obama signed a series of executive orders to address gun violence and school safety in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut school massacre in December 2012. One of these orders calls for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to review the effectiveness of gun locks and gun safes, including existing voluntary industry standards, and take any steps that may be warranted to improve the standards. As stated by the President: “We also need to make sure that gun locks and gun safes work as intended. Several gun locks have been subject to recall due to their failure to function properly; that is not acceptable.”

    18 U.S.C. § 922(z)(1). A “secure gun storage or safety device” is defined under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(34) as: (A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating the device; (B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm that is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by anyone not having access to the device; or (C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, or other similar means.
    18 U.S.C. § 922(z)(2).
    18 U.S.C. § 922(z)(3)(A).
    18 U.S.C. § 922(z)(3)(C).
    The federal Consumer Product Safety Act, which imposes health and safety standards on consumer products, exempts firearms and ammunition from its requirements. 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(5)(E), referencing 26 U.S.C. § 4181 et seq. Therefore, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has no authority to mandate that firearms include locking devices. Locking devices themselves, however, are not exempt, and therefore the CPSC has the authority to adopt national safety standards for locking devices.
    The White House, Now is the Time: The President’s Plan to Protect Our Children and Our Communities by Reducing Gun Violence 10, Jan. 16, 2013, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_fu....

    Return to List of State Laws

    States requiring a magazine disconnect mechanism or chamber loaded indicator
    http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-design-safety-standards-policy-summary/
    Specific Safety Features Required: California, Massachusetts and New York also define as “unsafe handguns” those lacking certain specified safety features that protect users against unintended discharge. Such safety features include safeties to prevent accidental firing, chamber load indicators, and magazine disconnect mechanisms. A “chamber load indicator” is a device that plainly indicates that a cartridge is in the firing chamber. A “magazine disconnect mechanism” is a mechanism that prevents a semiautomatic pistol that has a detachable magazine from operating to strike the primer of ammunition in the firing chamber when a detachable magazine is not inserted in the pistol.

    In California, as of January 1, 2006, an “unsafe handgun” includes any pistol that does not have either a chamber load indicator or a magazine disconnect mechanism. As of January 1, 2007, handguns in California are required to have both a chamber load indicator and, if they have a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism. California is the only state that requires both a chamber load indicator and a magazine safety disconnect. As of January 1, 2010, California requires that all new semiautomatic pistols be equipped with microstamping technology in order to be sold in California. Detailed information on microstamping technology is contained in our summary on Microstamping & Ballistic Identification.

    Massachusetts requires that all handguns be equipped with a safety device designed to allow use only by the owner or authorized user of the firearm. Massachusetts also requires all handguns with a mechanism to load cartridges via a magazine to have a chamber load indicator or magazine disconnect mechanism.
    New York requires that all handguns be equipped with a safety device to prevent unintended firing.

    See Cal. Penal Code § 16900.
    Pistols must have a “positive, manual or automatically operated safety device to prevent firing.” Double-action revolvers must have a “safety feature, that when the trigger is in its most forward position, automatically allows the firing pin to retract to where it does not connect the primer of a cartridge.” N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9, § 482.5(f).

    Return to List of State Laws

    States that ban assault weapons
    California, Connecticut, New York and the District of Columbia have the most comprehensive approaches to defining assault weapons. California law bans roughly 75 assault weapon types, models and series by name and provides a one-feature generic test for rifles and pistols.37 Connecticut bans roughly 70 assault weapon types, models, and series by name and uses a one-feature generic test for rifles and pistols. The District of Columbia includes a list of assault weapon types, models and series by name that closely follows the California list, and provides a one-feature generic test for rifles, pistols and shotguns. The District also allows its Chief of Police to designate a firearm as an assault weapon based on a determination that the firearm would pose the same or similar danger to the residents of the District as other assault weapons. New York has adopted a one-feature test for assault pistols, shotguns, and rifles.

    New Jersey bans roughly 65 assault weapon types, models and series and copies of those weapons by name and uses a one-feature generic test for shotguns.38 Connecticut and New Jersey also ban parts that may be readily assembled into an assault weapon.

    The generic feature tests in other bans, including the expired federal ban, are two-feature tests. Massachusetts use the definition of “assault weapon” from the expired federal law, including both the two-feature test and the federal law’s list of banned weapons. Hawaii only bans assault pistols, but not assault rifles or shotguns, and uses the two-feature definition from the federal law, but does not include a list of named weapons. Maryland uses its own two-feature test and list of named weapons.

    California law lists certain firearms that have been deemed assault weapons, including all AK series and Colt AR-15 series.6 California’s Attorney General is required to promulgate a list specifying all such firearms.7 However, a firearm that meets any of the following descriptions is also an “assault weapon”:8
    A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: 1) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; 2) a thumbhole stock; 3) a folding or telescoping stock; 4) a grenade or flare launcher; 5) a flash suppressor; or 6) a forward pistol grip;
    A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds;
    A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches;
    A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: 1) a threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; 2) a second handgrip; 3) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel allowing the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel; or 4) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip;
    A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds;
    A semiautomatic shotgun that has both a folding or telescoping stock, and a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip;
    A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
    A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

    California, Connecticut, New York and the District of Columbia have the most comprehensive approaches to defining assault weapons. California law bans roughly 75 assault weapon types, models and series by name and provides a one-feature generic test for rifles and pistols.37 Connecticut bans roughly 70 assault weapon types, models, and series by name and uses a one-feature generic test for rifles and pistols. The District of Columbia includes a list of assault weapon types, models and series by name that closely follows the California list, and provides a one-feature generic test for rifles, pistols and shotguns. The District also allows its Chief of Police to designate a firearm as an assault weapon based on a determination that the firearm would pose the same or similar danger to the residents of the District as other assault weapons. New York has adopted a one-feature test for assault pistols, shotguns, and rifles.

    New Jersey bans roughly 65 assault weapon types, models and series and copies of those weapons by name and uses a one-feature generic test for shotguns.38 Connecticut and New Jersey also ban parts that may be readily assembled into an assault weapon.

    The generic feature tests in other bans, including the expired federal ban, are two-feature tests. Massachusetts use the definition of “assault weapon” from the expired federal law, including both the two-feature test and the federal law’s list of banned weapons. Hawaii only bans assault pistols, but not assault rifles or shotguns, and uses the two-feature definition from the federal law, but does not include a list of named weapons. Maryland uses its own two-feature test and list of named weapons.

    Return to List of State Laws

    NO on HB 3093A: Why would Oregon legislators allow non-Oregonians to carry hidden, loaded guns in our cities, parks and Capitol?

    HB 3093A addresses concealed handgun license (CHL) reciprocity. That means that people licensed to carry concealed guns in one state (like Colorado) can carry in another state (like Oregon) as long as both states recognize each others' CHLs.

    The consequence of the bill is that poorly trained, non-resident CHL holders can carry loaded, hidden guns into Oregon putting an unnecessary strain on law enforcement and placing Oregonians at increased risk of gunshot injury and death.

    Why Ceasefire Oregon opposes HB 3093A

    Oregon’s lax CHL training requirements would allow poorly trained, out-of-state CHL holders to carry loaded, hidden guns in Oregon.

    • Seven states, including Texas, require shooting competency. Oregon does not. (1, 7)
    • An Oregon CHL applicant is not even required to touch a gun to receive an Oregon CHL.
    • Delaware and Texas requires instruction on proper handling and storage of guns and ammunition. (2, 7) Oregon does not.
    • Some states require CHL training to include instruction in techniques for avoiding a criminal attack or how to manage a violent confrontation. (2, 7) Oregon does not.

    Concealed handgun licenses are NOT like a driver’s license.
    • Driver’s licenses ensure a uniform standard of knowledge throughout all states. However, different states have different standards for CHL requirements and training.
    • Some states do not require any training or testing to obtain a CHL while driver’s licenses require training and testing in all states.

    A CHL is not a guarantee of lawful behavior.
    • Since 2007, seven hundred and forty-three people have been shot to death by someone legally permitted to carry a concealed gun.(3)
    • In the same time, twenty-nine mass shootings have been committed by CHL holders.(3)
    • Also, seventeen law enforcement officers have been killed by CHL holders.(3)

    Some states have issued CHLs to felons.

    • Florida issued 1,400 concealed carry permits to felons in 2007 alone.(4)
    • Between 2007 and 2011, North Carolina issue 2,400 concealed carry permits to people convicted of misdemeanor crimes or felonies.(5)
    • Reciprocity would pose serious challenges to law enforcement.

      • The increased number of individuals carrying concealed weapons in public places would pose substantial complications for Oregon law enforcement agencies.
      • In addition to confronting potentially large numbers of travelers packing heat with little or no training or knowledge of the relevant state firearms laws, law enforcement would be further challenged by the difficulty of verifying that any individual bearing an out-of-state CHL is legally allowed to carry a gun in public.
      • Some state permit cards do not contain the permit holder’s photograph, looking more like library cards than official documents authorizing the carrying of a hidden, loaded firearm.
      • In order to confirm that an individual’s CHL is authentic, law enforcement would have to contact the issuing agency in the permit holder’s state, because there is no nationwide database for CHL holders.
      • Not every state has a statewide database of permit holders. Colorado law, for example, prohibits the creation of a statewide database, while Maine does not require locally-issued permits to be reported to its state system.(6)

        HB 3093 will not help most Oregonians.

        • California does not have reciprocity, so Oregonians cannot carry concealed in our most populous neighboring state.
        • Washington is not eligible because it does not require CHL training.
        • Residents of states bordering Oregon can already obtain a CHL from an Oregon sheriff.
        • How does Oregon benefit from allowing more hidden, loaded guns in our state? It doesn’t. The bill’s sole “benefit”—saving some paperwork and perhaps a few dollars in CHL fees, for those few people—is far outweighed by the risk of having poorly trained CHL holders from other states carrying loaded, concealed handguns on our streets, in our parks and even into our Capitol building which has a chilling effect on Oregonians’ right to free speech.

          HB 3093A places a great deal of risk on Oregonians simply to extend a courtesy to a few.

          1. States requiring live firing as part of the firearm training component of the law are Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas. http://smartgunlaws.org/concealed-weapons-permitting-policy-summary/
          2. http://www.delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c005/sc07/index.shtml#1441
          3. http://concealedcarrykillers.org/
          4. Megan O’Matz and John Maines, “License to Carry: Florida’s Flawed Concealed Weapon Law,” Sun Sentinel, January 28, 2007, available at http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2007-01-28/news/0701270316_1_gun-licens...
          5. Michael Luo, “Guns in Public, and Out of Sight,” The New York Times, December 26, 2011, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us/more-concealed-guns-and-some-are-in...
          6. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-12-206(3)(b)(I); Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 25, § 2006.
          7. http://dps.texas.gov/RSD/CHL/faqs/

          Concealed handgun license training required by some other states but not Oregon:

          • Live-fire training and proficiency
          • Training in conflict management and reduction
          • Training in avoidance of a criminal attack
          • instruction on proper handling and storage of guns and ammunition, including the storage and handling of guns and ammunition around children,
          • Requiring a person to be of good character (Delaware requirement)

          • In addition, some states allow sheriffs “may issue” rather than “shall issue” discretion when issuing a CHL. That discretion helps keep guns away from people who are known to local sheriffs as having potential problems with mental health or domestic violence. Oregon changed its CHL laws from “may issue” to “shall issue” in 1989, therefore, Oregon sheriffs no longer have that discretion.

            Congratulations and thank you!! SB 941, Expanded Background Checks, was signed into law today, May 11, by Governor Kate Brown.

            SB 941, also known as the “Oregon Firearms Safety Act,” would exempt specific transfers or sales including transfers or sales:
            -between spouses or domestic partners; or
            -between immediate relatives including siblings, parents, children, step children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, first cousins of the transferor; or
            -for certain temporary transfers; or
            -involving a gun turn-in or buy-back program.

            SB 941 also requires the Oregon State Police to notify local law enforcement when a person prohibited from buying a gun tries to do so and fails the background check.

            Additionally, SB 941 would help to reduce gun violence by authorizing judges to rule if people ordered to undergo outpatient treatment for mental health illnesses should be prohibited from purchasing or possessing guns during treatment.

            Information Sheet: Background Checks to Close the Private Gun Sale Loophole

            87% of Oregonians support background checks, including 83% of Oregon gun owners.1

            In Oregon, background checks for gun sales are only required from a federally licensed firearms dealer or at a gun show. Oregon voters closed the gun show loophole in 2000, but an estimated 40,000 to 75,000 guns are still sold annually in Oregon without a background check through private sellers.

            Felons, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill can avoid the background check system by going to private sellers, no questions asked.

            Exempt family members include parents, children, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews.

            Background checks would not be required for temporary transfer. (For example, if a gun were lent for hunting for a short time.)

            The private gun sale loophole is one reason why Oregon is one of 14 states where gun deaths now outnumber car fatalities.2

            Taking the responsible step of requiring background checks for private gun sales is the most effective way to reduce gun violence.

            In states that require comprehensive background checks:
            -48% fewer on-duty police officers are shot and killed, and
            -46% fewer women are shot and killed by their intimate partners.3

            Background checks are simple and effective. During 2013 alone, Oregon's background check system prevented 2,215 prohibited persons from purchasing guns from licensed dealers and at gun shows (Oregon State Police data).

            Background checks save lives. Let's close the private sale loophole now.

            1.Americans for Responsible Solutions
            2. Violence Policy Center
            3. Everytown for Gun Safety


            Information Sheet: Child Access Prevention

            The proposed Oregon Child Access Prevention bill will will make it a crime to endanger a child by allowing access to an unlocked or unsecured firearm without consent of the child's parent or guardian.

            The law would require gun dealers to post these responsibilities where firearms are sold.

            An estimated 26,000 Oregon children under 18 live in a home with an unlocked firearm.1 Many more children visit and play in homes with unsecured firearms.

            Child Access Prevention legislation makes it clear that preventing child access to these firearms is the gun owner's responsibility.
            Families who enroll their children in gun safety classes or take their children hunting or target shooting will still be able to do so.

            Every gun that injures a child first passes through the hands of an adult.

            In 12 states where child access prevention laws had been in effect for at least one year, unintentional deaths fell by 23% from 1990-94 among children under 15 years of age.2

            Keeping firearms locked and unloaded and storing ammunition in a locked location separate from firearms serve as protective measures that reduce youth suicide and unintentional injury in homes with children and teenagers where guns are stored.3



            The Truth About Kids & Guns, Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, Oct. 2014.
            2. Peter Cummings et al., State Gun Safe Storage Laws and Child Mortality Due to Firearms, 278 JAMA 1084, 1084 (Oct. 1997).
            3. David C. Grossman et al., Gun Storage Practices and Risk of Youth Suicide and Unintentional Firearm Injuries, 293 JAMA 707, 711-13 (Feb. 2005).

            SB 945, sponsored by Senators Steiner Hayward and Burdick with Representatives Smith Warner, Evans, Frederick, Greenlick, Helm and Keny-Guyer would create a crime of endangering a minor by allowing a child access to an unsecured firearm. The minor may access the firearm with permission from a parent or guardian or for defense of self or others.

            SB 945 Child Access Prevention Information Sheet


            • The proposed Oregon Child Access Prevention bill would make it a crime to endanger a child by allowing access to an unlocked or unsecured firearm without consent of the child's parent or guardian.
            • In addition, the bill would require gun dealers to post notice concerning obligation to prevent minors from accessing firearm without consent of firearm owner or minor’s parent or guardian.
            • Families who enroll their children in gun safety classes or take their children hunting or target shooting will still be able to do so.
            • Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have already enacted Child Access Prevention laws.1
            • An estimated 26,000 Oregon children under 18 live in a home with an unlocked firearm.2 Many more children visit and play in homes with unsecured firearms.
            • These children are at a greater risk of unintentional gun violence. U.S. children aged 5 to 14 are eleven times more likely to be killed unintentionally with a gun than similarly aged children in other developed countries.3
            • Guns poorly stored increase the risk of unintentional gun deaths.4
            • Case studies of unintentional shootings document a high rate of accessible and loaded firearms in homes where the shootings occurred.5
            • In nearly half of cases, the shootings occurred in the home of the victim.6
            • More than 90% of the time there was no adult present..7
            • Guns properly stored reduce unintentional deaths. Recent studies find that keeping firearms locked and unloaded, and keeping ammunition stored in a locked location separate from firearms, reduced unintentional injury in homes with children and teens.8
            • CAP laws have been associated with lower rates of unintentional gun deaths among children.9
            • Studies have found these laws to be effective in reducing accidental shootings of children by as much as 23 percent.10
            • Among states with the highest levels of child gun deaths, 7 of 10 do not have CAP laws. Among states with low levels of child gun deaths, 7 of 10 do have CAP laws.11
            • Alaska and Louisiana--states ranked highest in the level of gun violence, with weak gun laws and no CAP laws--had the highest number of children killed by guns from 2001 through 2010: 4 to 5 deaths for every 100,000 children.
            • By contrast, 26 states with CAP laws had rates of less than 2 child firearm deaths for every 100,000 children over this same period.12
            • In 12 states where child access prevention laws had been in effect for at least one year, unintentional deaths fell by 23% from 1990-94 among children under 15 years of age.13
            • Keeping firearms locked and unloaded and storing ammunition in a locked location separate from firearms serve as protective measures that reduce youth suicide and unintentional injury in homes with children and teenagers where guns are stored.14

            1. Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Child Access Prevention Summary, http://smartgunlaws.org/child-access-prevention-policy-summary/, 28 states and D.C. have CAP laws: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.
            2. The Truth About Kids & Guns, Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, p. 20, Oct. 2014. http://www.bradycampaign.org/the-truth-about-kids-guns
            3. Richardson EG, Hemenway D. Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional firearm fatality: Comparing the United States with Other High-Income Countries, 2003, p. 13, table 2, J Trauma, 2011 Jan;70(1):238-43. doi 10.1097/TA. 0b013e3181dbaddf.
            4. Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearms and Violent Death in the United States, Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis, Webster DW, Vernick JS, ed. 2013, p. 13
            5. Wintemute, GJ, Teret SP et al, When Children Shoot Children: 88 Unintended Deaths in California, JAMA 1987; 2573107-3109
            6. Grossman DC, Reay DT, Baker SA. Self-inflicted and unintentional firearm injuries among children and adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999; 153(8); 875-878
            7. Ibid
            8. Grossman, D C. et al, Gun Storage Practices and Risk of Youth Suicide and Unintentional Firearm Injuries, 293 JAMA 707, 711-13 (2005)
            9. Regulating Guns in America (see above) p. 233
            10. Hepburn L, Azrael D et al. The Effects of Child Access Prevention Laws on Unintentional Child Firearm fatalities, 1979-2000. Trauma 2006; 61:423-8; See also The Case for Gun Policy Reforms in America, Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, 2012, p. 8.
            11. States with highest level of child gun violence are Louisiana, Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, Georgia. Mississippi, Missouri and Georgia have CAP laws. States with the lowest level of violence are Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Iowa, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Maine, Nebraska. Only New York, Maine, and Nebraska do not have CAP laws. See interactive map at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/news/2013/04/02/5..., Center for American Progress.
            12. Gerney A, Parsons C, Posner C, America Under the Gun: A 50 State Analysis of Gun Violence and Its Link to Weak State Laws, Center for American Progress, April 2013, pp. 16-17
            13. Peter Cummings et al., State Gun Safe Storage Laws and Child Mortality Due to Firearms, 278 JAMA 1084, 1084 (Oct. 1997).
            14. David C. Grossman et al., Gun Storage Practices and Risk of Youth Suicide and Unintentional Firearm Injuries, 293 JAMA 707, 711-13 (Feb. 2005).

            Thanks to New Yorkers Against Gun Violence for help in compiling this data.

            Make Your Voice Heard

            When a bill that would endanger the safety of Oregonians comes before a legislative committee or to the House or Senate floor, your legislators need to hear from you. They hear frequently from the gun lobby and its followers. Your calls and messages urging your legislators to vote against dangerous bills are essential. Our legislators need to understand that we want them to stand up to the NRA and other elements of the gun lobby. We want them to vote against bills that would make guns too easily available to people who should not have them.

            If you share our concerns, please send us your email address, so we can contact you about gun bills that are being considered by the Oregon legislature and the U.S. Congress. We will contact you only when necessary; we promise not to inundate you with email. Click here to send us your email address, and we will let you know when your representatives need to hear from you. Make your voice heard when it counts!

            Visit the Oregon legislature's website to find out who your representatives are and to obtain information on other House and Senate lawmakers. Email your representatives to let them know that their constituency wants them to vote for a safer Oregon.

            For information on current Oregon laws, please see our summary of Oregon laws concerning gun violence. You may print the PDF on both sides of an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, and then fold the paper twice to create a three-panel brochure. You are welcome to print and distribute the brochures.

            To help with our work, please contact us at ceasefireoregon@gmail.com or 503.220.1669.

            Work in the Oregon Legislature

            Ceasefire Oregon has worked very hard for many years to defeat dangerous bills introduced by the gun lobby in the Oregon legislature. Many thanks to all our friends and supporters who have helped defeat those terrible bills.

            Thank you for your help.