Statement on 4 gun bills (SB 429, SB 697, SB 698, HB 3075)

Legislature  hearing on Senate Bill 429, Senate Bill 697, Senate Bill 698, House Bill 3075.
By Rick Coufal, Colonel US Army (Ret),
Oregon Law Enforcement (Ret),
NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action)
Frontlines Activist Leader (FAL) for Oregon,
NRA Firearms Instructor

Comments on Proposed Firearm Legislation for the 2025 Oregon Legislature’s hearing on Senate Bill 429, Senate Bill 697, Senate Bill 698, House Bill 3075.

I am Against or I have concerns and questions concerning those proposed firearm bills listed below.

SB 429 Mandatory 72 Hour waiting period. I am against this bill as it is redundant with Federal Background check requirements here in Oregon.

#1. This bill infringes on the Second Amendment rights of individuals. The bill requires gun dealers to wait 72 hours from the time of requesting a background check before transferring a firearm or unfinished frame or receiver. Unnecessary delay for law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their right to bear arms. Additionally, some might contend that the bill could create logistical challenges for gun dealers and buyers, leading to potential economic impacts on small businesses.

#2. If a buyer has already successfully completed a background check, an additional 72-hour waiting period is redundant. This is an unnecessary obstacle for individuals who have already been vetted and approved to purchase a firearm, infringing on our 2A rights without adding significant benefits to public safety.

SB 697 Prohibits persons under 21 from possessing firearms with exceptions. I am against this bill as it is confusing and does violate current Oregon law.

#1. Currently individuals aged 18-21 can legally purchase AR-15 rifles in Oregon. The state law allows those who are at least 18 years old to buy rifles and shotguns, including semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, and semi-automatic shotguns if they pass a criminal background check. If you are 19 yrs old and own an AR-15, but SB 697 passes and you cannot possess such a firearm, what is the process for exception or is it confiscation of a legally purchased firearm? If so, by who?

#2. In Oregon, currently In Oregon, individuals aged 18-21 can legally own handguns, but they cannot purchase them from federally licensed firearms dealers. Federal law prohibits licensed dealers from selling handguns to individuals under 21. However, those aged 18-21 can legally acquire handguns through private sales, gifts, or transfers from family members, as long as they comply with state and federal laws.

SB 698 Repeals statewide preemption laws, I am against this legislation.

#1. SB 698 is a very complex and confusing bill for the average concealed handgun permit holder in Oregon. governing bodies of certain public entities that own or control public buildings to adopt policies, ordinances, or regulations limiting the affirmative defense for concealed handgun licenses for the crime of possessing a firearm in a public building. Without good clear public notice could entrap a good citizen who carries a firearm with a permit for personal protection who was unaware of the new policy, law or rule.

#2. This bill infringes on the Second Amendment rights of individuals who have legally obtained concealed handgun licenses. This bill restricts an individual’s right to self-defense and potentially increases the risk of a public shooting in gun-free zones.

HB 3075 Modifies provisions of Ballot Measure 114, which is currently prohibited from enactment under constitutional challenge.

I am against Ballot Measure 114 and HB 3075. But I realize it is inevitable and therefore recommend the following change to HB 3075 training requirement.

#1. HB 3075 proposes changes to the gun permit and transfer process, including modifications to the firearm permit provisions of Ballot Measure 114 (2022). As a long time, firearms instructor for the military, Oregon Law Enforcement and the National Rifle Association. HB 3075 is too vague and confusing as to what is required for the live fire demonstration of proficiency. I agree with the waiver for active and retired Law Enforcement, and all DPSST certified security officers as they have demonstrated their forearm proficiency and safety. I would highly recommend that the bill if passed should include specific language authorizing the NRA Basic Pistol Course (10-hour classroom, live fire training and qualification), or other DPSST approved firearm training (Classroom and live fire with qualification) that is currently approved as another training option, but eliminate the online option (classroom), as it must also have a live fire training and qualification requirement spelled out to eliminate confusion.

#2. Currently the NRA Basic Pistol course meets the requirements listed in Ballot Measure 114 and HB 3075. It includes basic firearm identification, safe handling, proper loading, unloading, perhaps more on safe storage and live fire training and 25 round qualification at the end of the course. There are plenty of local NRA instructors in Oregon along with public and private ranges to teach this course without overburdening the local law enforcement agencies in each county that might have a budget, staffing, or training range availability issue.

#3. There is no scientific proof of, only opinion, that high-capacity magazines (over 10 rounds) are a public safety threat. Historically most self-defense shootings result in 1-3 rounds being fired and most mass shooting are 8 plus rounds and would have occurred regardless of whether the shooter had magazines of 10 rounds or less, or 10 plus rounds (standard capacity magazines). The requirement that all 10 plus round magazines purchased after 8 Dec 2022 would be illegal and confiscated is unrealistic and places a burden on law enforcement agencies the public makes no sense. It would be better to ban the purchase only after the law passes, not to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens that own and use standard capacity magazines for sport shooting.

I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to come before the joint committee on Judiciary to discuss these bills or at the very least to meet with the committee members before a vote is undertaken. There is an opportunity here to work together to improve these firearm bills by taking into consideration both sides of the issues.