Loading policy item
HB 4145
HB 4145 extends the implementation of Ballot Measure 114's permit-to-purchase requirement and large-capacity magazine ban until January 1, 2028. The bill does not alter the substantive rules of the ballot measure but postpones their application to firearm transfers and magazine possession occurring on or after the new date.
Generated explanation · Enrolled · Analyzed 8/21/2026 · Open official Enrolled text
Generated analysis of Enrolled text; it does not establish that the bill applies to you. Read the full decision brief.
No upcoming event is verified in the available records.
Enactment and effective dates are separate. Effective dates have not been verified here; provisions may take effect at different times. Check the official text.
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
This measure became law. Enactment does not establish that every provision is already effective; check each effective date in the official text.
HB 4145 extends the implementation of Ballot Measure 114's permit-to-purchase requirement and large-capacity magazine ban until January 1, 2028. The bill does not alter the substantive rules of the ballot measure but postpones their application to firearm transfers and magazine possession occurring on or after the new date.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
To address uncertainty surrounding Ballot Measure 114's constitutionality and implementation timeline.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The delay to January 2028 may align the implementation timeline with the expected resolution of pending Oregon Supreme Court litigation, allowing the legislature to avoid implementing a program that could be struck down.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Enrolled; Staff Measure Summary B
Exempt from permit-to-purchase requirements and large-capacity magazine prohibitions until January 1, 2028. Transfers and possession occurring before that date remain legal under current law.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Must continue preparation for the permit program despite the delay. The fiscal impact indicates OSP will incur $8 million in General Fund costs and require 11 positions in the 2027-29 biennium to prepare systems and staffing ahead of the 2028 effective date.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
Delayed operational burden for issuing permits, but must prepare for 2028 implementation. Fiscal impact is indeterminate based on application volume.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
The bill explicitly states it does not intend to affect pending proceedings regarding Ballot Measure 114's constitutionality and preserves the court's authority to issue judgment.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Firearm transfers and large-capacity magazine possession will remain unregulated by these specific provisions for an additional two years, extending the period during which the 'Charleston loophole' closure and magazine restrictions do not apply.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
OSP will spend $8 million in the 2027-29 biennium to prepare for implementation, including IT system development and staffing, despite the delayed operative date.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
Local jurisdictions face indeterminate costs for preparing permit issuance programs, dependent on future application volumes.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
State of Oregon
If the Oregon Supreme Court rules Ballot Measure 114 unconstitutional, the delay prevents the state from implementing a voided program and avoids long-term costs associated with a permit system that cannot be enforced.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
Public safety stakeholders
If the Oregon Supreme Court upholds Ballot Measure 114, public safety regulations are delayed two years. During this period, large-capacity magazines remain legal and firearm transfers lack state permits, potentially increasing access to features associated with mass casualty events and unpermitted transfers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
The bill does not authorize evasion; it postpones the law. The risk is that the postponement alters market dynamics in ways that undermine the policy goals of the underlying ballot measure once implemented.
Sources · Enrolled
Postponing implementation protects public funds from being spent on a potentially unconstitutional program but extends the duration during which large-capacity magazines remain legal and firearm transfers lack state-level permitting.
Avoids waste of resources if Ballot Measure 114 is struck down by courts.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
Provides additional time for OSP to develop IT systems and train staff, potentially improving program readiness.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
Extends the period without permit requirements and large-capacity magazine restrictions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Requires $8 million in General Fund spending for preparation despite the delay, increasing near-term costs.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
No material difference between the Enrolled version and the Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed version. Both versions delay the effective date of Ballot Measure 114's permit-to-purchase requirement and large-capacity magazine prohibition from March 15, 2026, to January 1, 2028.
No substantive change identified.
Tradeoff: Postponing implementation protects public funds from being spent on a potentially unconstitutional program but extends the duration during which large-capacity magazines remain legal and firearm transfers lack state-level permitting.
Model self-rating: high. The enrolled bill text clearly delays the effective date. Official fiscal and staff analyses confirm the rationale of uncertainty and the associated costs. The comparison shows no material change between the provided versions. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The text would reduce HB 4145 to a pure effective-date delay, removing all previously proposed permit issuance requirements, fee structures, background check mandates, training exemptions, and large-capacity magazine grace periods. It would extend the operative date of Ballot Measure 114's firearm transfer and large-capacity magazine provisions from March 15, 2026, to January 1, 2028, while declaring an emergency for immediate enactment.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed; Staff Measure Summary B
The Legislative Assembly discussed ongoing litigation and the constitutionality of the provisions as a key issue in adopting this amendment, which explicitly states legislative intent not to affect pending proceedings before the Oregon Supreme Court concerning Ballot Measure 114.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Staff Measure Summary B; Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The legislature may be aligning the statutory timeline with the expected duration of constitutional litigation to avoid enforcing a potentially invalid regulatory scheme, while preserving the option to implement the measure if upheld by the courts.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed; Fiscal Impact Statement B
No permit-to-purchase requirement, fee, or background check would apply until January 1, 2028. Transfers continue under the existing framework established by SB 243 (2025) during the delay period.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Prohibitions on manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale, or transfer are delayed until January 1, 2028. No grace periods or affirmative defenses for existing magazines are enacted in this version.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
OSP would have to continue preparing for implementation, with anticipated costs of $8 million General Fund and 11 FTE positions in the 2027-29 biennium, despite the delay. Fee revenue collection is deferred until January 1, 2028.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
Potential effect if enacted: No new permit application programs, fee collection authorities, or training approval processes are established. Implementation obligations remain deferred.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: The measure explicitly preserves the court's authority to rule on Ballot Measure 114 constitutionality without being rendered moot by this legislative action.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Behavior and obligations remain unchanged for firearm transfers until January 1, 2028; the Charleston loophole closure and SB 243 provisions continue to govern current conduct.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Costs: OSP faces $8 million General Fund expenditure in 2027-29 for database development and staffing, with no fee reimbursement mechanism until after the delay date.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
Enforcement: No new enforcement mechanisms are created; existing SB 243 enforcement would apply during the delay period.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
State and taxpayers
If the Oregon Supreme Court strikes down Ballot Measure 114, the state avoids enforcing a voided regulatory scheme and potentially recovers or would reduce OSP implementation costs by not proceeding with the permit system.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
Gun purchasers and OSP
Potential effect if enacted: If the Oregon Supreme Court upholds Ballot Measure 114, OSP faces a compressed timeline to implement the permit system in late 2027/early 2028, risking processing backlogs, system failures, and confusion for purchasers at the deadline.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
Potential effect if enacted: The measure only delays operative dates; it does not alter definitions or enforcement duties during the delay period.
Sources · Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Delaying implementation avoids premature spending and respects ongoing judicial review, but would extend the period of regulatory uncertainty for gun owners and would require continued state preparation costs without immediate public safety benefits.
Potential effect if enacted: Preserves legislative flexibility to adjust or repeal provisions if constitutional litigation resolves unfavorably.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Prevents potential mootness challenges by explicitly preserving court authority.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Would remove all permit, fee, and background check provisions, eliminating any potential public safety benefits from the regulatory scheme until 2028.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Continued state expenditure of $8 million for implementation preparation without immediate operational deployment.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
Model self-rating: high. The text is a clear amendment replacing the bill with a date delay. Fiscal impacts are explicitly stated in official analysis. Rationale is supported by committee discussion records and legislative intent language. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The amendment delays the effective date of Ballot Measure 114’s permit-to-purchase requirement and large-capacity magazine prohibitions from March 15, 2026, to January 1, 2028. It explicitly states that pending Oregon Supreme Court litigation on the measure’s constitutionality would proceed unaffected. Materially, this would extend the current legal status quo for firearm transfers and magazine possession for approximately two years while state agencies prepare for potential implementation contingent on court rulings.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The legislature may be aligning statutory implementation timelines with the uncertain pace of appellate court review, avoiding premature administrative expenditure or enforcement conflicts if the measure is ultimately invalidated.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
No permit-to-purchase requirement would apply until January 1, 2028.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Possession and use prohibitions remain unenforced until January 1, 2028.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
Would have to continue planning and budgeting for a 2028 rollout; fiscal impact remains $8 million General Fund and 11 FTE in 2027-29 if implemented.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
Potential effect if enacted: Permit application processing obligations are deferred, delaying associated administrative costs and fee collection.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
Potential effect if enacted: Litigation over Ballot Measure 114’s constitutionality proceeds without legislative interference or mootness arguments based on this delay.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
Behavior and access remain unchanged for gun buyers and magazine owners until 2028, preserving current market patterns. OSP and local agencies defer administrative costs tied to the permit program, though General Fund appropriations would still be required in 2027-29 if implementation proceeds. Law enforcement retains current regulatory authority with no new criminal penalties activating until 2028. If implemented, initial costs would be borne by the state before fees potentially offset them, creating a lag between expenditure and revenue collection.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement B; IS_Impact HB 4145 A9
State and regulated public
Potential effect if enacted: The Oregon Supreme Court upholds Ballot Measure 114 in late 2027, allowing OSP to implement a fully funded, tested permit system starting January 1, 2028, with minimal disruption to commerce and clear legal standards.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
State taxpayers
Potential effect if enacted: The court invalidates the measure in 2026 or 2027, rendering the $8 million General Fund appropriation and OSP staffing plans entirely unnecessary, resulting in wasted public funds and delayed policy action.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
The delay is statutory, not substantive; treating it as a repeal violates legislative intent and would create unauthorized regulatory vacuums.
Sources · Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Potential effect if enacted: The amendment trades immediate regulatory implementation for extended legal certainty and administrative preparation time, preserving current firearm access while deferring significant state spending and enforcement costs until after appellate court resolution.
Potential effect if enacted: Avoids premature General Fund expenditure if appellate courts invalidate the measure.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
Would provide OSP and local agencies additional time to develop IT systems, train staff, and establish fee-collection infrastructure before enforcement begins.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement B
Would extend the period of legal uncertainty for gun owners, dealers, and law enforcement regarding long-term regulatory compliance.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
Defers public safety policy implementation regardless of whether the measure would be ultimately upheld, potentially delaying intended harm-reduction outcomes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. The amendment text explicitly states the operative date change and legislative intent regarding pending litigation. Fiscal projections are drawn directly from official Legislative Fiscal Office analysis. Inferences regarding administrative preparation and litigation alignment are bounded by the supplied text and standard legislative drafting practices. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The measure delays the permit-to-purchase requirement for firearms until January 1, 2028, and would effectively extend the large-capacity magazine prohibition through January 1, 2027 (or until a court lifts an injunction). It modifies proof-of-training exemptions, would clarify affirmative defenses for existing magazine owners, would remove retired peace officer exemptions from certain permit and magazine provisions, would restrict legal challenges to Marion County Circuit Court, and declares an emergency effective upon passage. Material consequence: Gun dealers and private transferors face no new state permit requirements until 2028; Oregon State Police prepares future implementation infrastructure at a projected $8 million cost in the 2027-29 biennium; current large-capacity magazine owners retain possession longer under expanded defenses.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
Aligns regulatory implementation timelines with ongoing constitutional litigation to avoid enforcing provisions that may be invalidated, while preserving administrative infrastructure for future use.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
Retain large-capacity magazines through 2027 under clarified affirmative defenses; firearm transfers proceed without state would permit until 2028.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: No permit verification required until 2028; background check obligations remain but operative dates shift; fees for facilitation may apply.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Would have to develop IT systems and hire 11 staff positions for the future permit program; bears $8 million General Fund cost in 2027-29.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Lose specific permit and large-capacity magazine exemptions previously granted; would have to now meet standard permit requirements or rely on other statutory exemptions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Would eventually administer would permit, collect increased fees ($150 initial, $110 renewal), and conduct background checks starting in 2028; fiscal impact is indeterminate.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Potential effect if enacted: Behavior and access to firearms and large-capacity magazines remain largely unchanged through 2026-2027 due to delayed operative dates and extended affirmative defenses.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Obligations shift toward future OSP infrastructure development and local agency administrative setup; permit fees are increased but may not fully cover costs until the 2029-31 biennium.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Eligibility for would permit would tighten regarding training proof (retired peace officer certifications replaced by federal QRLEO or corrections certification) and adds a four-year disqualification for misdemeanor violence convictions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Enforcement and access are shaped by delayed implementation, venue restrictions for legal challenges (Marion County), and explicit legislative intent not to interfere with pending Oregon Supreme Court proceedings.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Long-term large-capacity magazine owner
Potential effect if enacted: A collector legally retains a 30-round magazine indefinitely under the extended affirmative defense, avoiding confiscation or prosecution while constitutional litigation resolves, and later transfers it to an estate beneficiary without penalty.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Active peace officer purchasing off-duty
An officer buying a firearm for personal use would have to navigate the full permit process, background check delays, and training requirements previously waived, creating administrative friction and potential access delays for an exempted class.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The distinction between lawful exemption and unlawful circumvention hinges on accurate classification of employment status and inheritance proceedings, which are not independently audited by the measure.
Sources · House Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Delays regulatory implementation to accommodate ongoing litigation while preserving future enforcement capacity, trading immediate public safety regulation for administrative continuity and legal risk mitigation.
Would reduce immediate compliance costs and legal exposure for gun owners, dealers, and state agencies during uncertain constitutional proceedings.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
Potential effect if enacted: Preserves OSP infrastructure planning and fee structures for future use, avoiding wasted implementation efforts if provisions are invalidated.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Would extend large-capacity magazine availability and defers universal background checks/permit requirements, potentially delaying intended gun violence reduction outcomes.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Indeterminate fiscal impacts for local agencies, courts, and public defense suggest potential unanticipated costs that may strain resources once the 2028 operative date arrives.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the provided House Amendments to Introduced text, official fiscal/revenue impact statements, and staff measure summaries. No external speculation or unverified claims are included. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
If adopted, this amendment would repeal the permit-to-purchase framework established by Ballot Measure 114 and would replace it with a direct criminal history record check system for gun dealers and private transfers. It would eliminate the requirement to obtain a five-year permit before purchasing a firearm, would establish strict response timelines for Oregon State Police (OSP), would create a default-approval mechanism if OSP fails to respond by the close of the next business day, would expand family transfer exemptions, and declares an emergency effective upon passage.
Basis: Stakeholder claim · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment may aim to streamline firearm acquisition by removing the multi-step permit application and training requirements while retaining background checks, potentially reducing administrative bottlenecks for dealers and buyers if state systems can handle real-time verification.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Would have to conduct direct criminal history checks via OSP instead of verifying would permit; gain civil liability immunity when facilitating checks; may charge reasonable fees for the service.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
No longer need a permit to purchase; would have to still complete background checks through OSP or a dealer; benefit from expanded family transfer exemptions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Bears direct operational responsibility for real-time criminal history verification, database maintenance, and annual reporting; faces strict response deadlines with legal consequences for delays.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Potential effect if enacted: Repealed sections remove their role as permit-issuing agents; costs and administrative duties shift to OSP.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Subject to mandatory reporting of attempted transfers to supervising officers, district attorneys, courts, or the Psychiatric Security Review Board within 24 hours.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Behavior and Obligations: Dealers and private sellers would have to initiate OSP background checks before completing any transfer. The permit application, training course, and five-year validity periods are eliminated for most transactions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Costs: OSP faces an estimated $8 million General Fund cost and 11 new FTE positions in the 2027-29 biennium to manage increased background check volume and database development. Local agencies avoid permit-processing costs but may face indirect enforcement burdens.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Potential effect if enacted: Eligibility and Access: Lawful buyers gain faster access without waiting for permit issuance or training completion, provided OSP responds promptly. The 30-minute response window and next-business-day default approval create a de facto fast-track system.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Enforcement and Risk: OSP would have to maintain a dedicated phone line (8 a.m.–10 p.m., seven days/week) and real-time verification capacity. Failure to respond triggers automatic transfer authorization, shifting risk from buyer compliance to state system reliability.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Gun Dealers and Lawful Buyers
Potential effect if enacted: A rural gun dealer processes a high volume of transfers without permit delays; a purchaser with a complex but legally clear record completes a transaction within minutes because OSP’s automated system clears them before the 30-minute window closes, and the next-business-day rule prevents administrative gridlock.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Public Safety and Law Enforcement
OSP experiences a technical outage or staffing shortage during a high-volume period; thousands of transfers proceed automatically under the next-business-day default approval clause, including to individuals with pending but unflagged disqualifying records, creating a systemic safety gap before manual review could occur.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: inference
Sources · Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Accelerates lawful firearm access and would reduce administrative friction by replacing permit requirements with direct background checks, but shifts systemic safety risk to state response capacity and would create automatic approval pathways that may bypass intended disqualifications if OSP systems or staffing lag. Upsides include faster transactions, reduced dealer compliance costs, and streamlined private transfers; downsides include potential for unchecked prohibited purchases during system delays, increased OSP operational burden, and reliance on real-time database accuracy over human permit review.
Would eliminate multi-week permit processing delays and mandatory training course requirements for most buyers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Would reduce administrative costs and staffing burdens on county sheriffs and municipal police departments by repealing their permit-issuing roles.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Would provide civil liability immunity for gun dealers and public employees acting in good faith during background check facilitation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Would create a high-risk default-approval mechanism that could authorize transfers to prohibited individuals if state systems fail or lag.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Would impose significant new operational costs ($8 million General Fund and 11 FTE) on OSP for database development, real-time verification staffing, and annual reporting.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Would expand private transfer exemptions to extended family members, potentially complicating law enforcement tracking of firearm movement and straw-purchase investigations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded in the explicit statutory text of the proposed amendment, official fiscal impact statements, and staff measure summaries. No speculation beyond operational mechanics and documented legislative intent clauses. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
If adopted, this amendment would delay the operative date for both the firearm permit-to-purchase requirement and the large-capacity magazine prohibition under Ballot Measure 114 from March 15, 2026, to January 1, 2028. The immediate consequence is that no new state permitting or magazine restrictions would take effect until 2028, while the measure declares an emergency to bypass standard legislative timelines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to align the implementation timeline with ongoing judicial review of Ballot Measure 114, allowing courts time to rule on constitutionality before enforcement begins.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
No state permit requirement or background check mandate would apply until January 1, 2028.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Possession, use, and sale remain legal under state law until January 1, 2028.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Administrative burden and fee collection for permit processing are deferred.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Potential effect if enacted: Implementation costs and staffing needs for background checks and database management are delayed, though pre-implementation preparation remains necessary.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Potential effect if enacted: Continued ability to sell firearms without verifying a state permit until 2028, though federal rules still apply.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Individuals could legally purchase firearms and possess large-capacity magazines without state would permit or magazine restrictions for nearly two additional years. Local agencies defer permit program setup.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Permit fees ($150 initial, $110 renewal) and background check processes are postponed. OSP's estimated $8 million General Fund cost in 2027-29 remains necessary for pre-implementation preparation, but full program costs shift later.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Potential effect if enacted: State enforcement of BM 114's core provisions is suspended until 2028. Access to firearms and magazines remains unrestricted by this state measure during the delay period.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
State government and taxpayers
Potential effect if enacted: A constitutional injunction against BM 114 is upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court before 2028, rendering the permit and magazine provisions permanently unenforceable; the delay prevents wasted implementation costs and administrative disruption.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Oregon State Police and local agencies
Potential effect if enacted: The Oregon Supreme Court upholds BM 114's constitutionality in late 2027, forcing OSP and local agencies to rapidly build out a complex permitting system, hire staff, and update IT infrastructure on a compressed timeline to meet the January 2028 deadline, causing processing backlogs and public confusion.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
The gap between state and federal enforcement timelines would create an opportunity for transactional recharacterization that could circumvent federal documentation mandates.
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The measure trades immediate public safety implementation for extended judicial review and administrative preparation time. Upsides include avoiding premature enforcement costs if provisions are struck down and allowing courts time to resolve constitutional questions. Downsides include delaying background check mandates and magazine restrictions, potentially prolonging access to unpermitted firearms and high-capacity ammunition.
Potential effect if enacted: Avoids premature implementation costs and administrative disruption if BM 114 is ultimately ruled unconstitutional.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Would provide OSP and local agencies additional time to design, fund, and test the permitting infrastructure before mandatory rollout.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Potential effect if enacted: Delays background check mandates and magazine restrictions, potentially prolonging access to unpermitted firearms and high-capacity ammunition.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Compressed implementation timeline if courts rule in late 2027 could strain OSP resources and create public processing backlogs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Model self-rating: high. The amendment text explicitly states the date change and emergency declaration. Fiscal and procedural context is directly supported by official Legislative Fiscal Office and Revenue Office analyses. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The amendment would delay the permit-to-purchase requirement to January 1, 2028, replace broad law enforcement training exemptions with specific federal and state certifications, clarify large-capacity magazine (LCM) possession rules for active and retired officers, establish new affirmative defenses tied to a January 1, 2027 deadline or court injunctions, and explicitly state legislative intent not to interfere with pending Oregon Supreme Court litigation over Ballot Measure 114. Potential effects could include shifted permit eligibility criteria, altered compliance timelines for firearm dealers and LCM owners during ongoing litigation, and new administrative and database costs for the Oregon State Police (OSP) once the permitting program activates.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Staff Measure Summary A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to align Oregon's permit training exemptions with federal qualified retired law enforcement officer standards and clarify LCM possession rules for verified officers while litigation over Ballot Measure 114 remains pending, thereby reducing statutory ambiguity and potential enforcement conflicts during the court stay.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Would have to meet updated training proof requirements (federal QRLPO ID or Oregon corrections officer certification); face delayed permit mandates until January 1, 2028; subject to new affirmative defense deadlines for LCM possession.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Gain clarified exemptions for possessing/using LCMs regardless of duty status; lose broad "qualified retired law enforcement officer" permit/LCM exceptions unless they hold specific federal or state certifications.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Would have to comply with stamped LCM requirements for military/LE sales; face Class A misdemeanor penalties for unpermitted transfers post-2028; benefit from 180-day grace periods if injunctions lift.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Bears implementation costs for the permit database and background checks ($8 million General Fund, 11 FTE in 2027-29); would have to promulgate rules for LCM stamping and manage permit applications.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Potential effect if enacted: Counties and cities act as permit agents with indeterminate staffing costs; circuit courts handle permit denial petitions and potential new misdemeanor charges.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Applicants would have to secure specific training credentials before January 1, 2028. LCM owners would have to track possession dates relative to the January 1, 2027 cutoff or any lifted injunction. Dealers and manufacturers would have to implement engraving/stamping protocols for military/LE magazines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: OSP faces $8 million General Fund and 11 FTE for 2027-29. Local agencies face indeterminate costs for permit processing. Applicants pay increased fees ($150 initial, $110 renewal).
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Potential effect if enacted: Permit eligibility narrows slightly by replacing broad law enforcement certifications with specific federal/state credentials. LCM access remains restricted but clarified for officers and pre-2027 owners.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Class A misdemeanor would apply to LCM violations. Affirmative defenses shift burden of proof to defendants. Litigation uncertainty would create compliance risk until Oregon Supreme Court rules.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Retired officers and industry stakeholders
Potential effect if enacted: A retired officer with a federal QRLPO ID legally possesses an LCM off-duty without prosecution, while a gun dealer successfully uses the 180-day grace period to liquidate inventory after an injunction lifts, avoiding criminal liability and financial loss.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Estate administrators and applicants
An estate administrator inadvertently sells an inherited LCM to a non-beneficiary during probate, triggering a Class A misdemeanor charge because the affirmative defense would explicitly prohibit sales to beneficiaries only. Alternatively, OSP database delays cause permit denials past the 60-day window, forcing applicants into costly circuit court petitions and delaying lawful firearm acquisitions statewide.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The amendment incorporates a federal definition (18 U.S.C. 926C) but operates strictly as an Oregon statutory change governing state permit and LCM exemptions. Verification relies on state-issued IDs or certifications, creating potential for fraudulent credential presentation if audit mechanisms are not established.
Sources · Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The measure balances expanded clarity and temporary legal protection for law enforcement personnel and pre-existing LCM owners against delayed public safety permitting requirements and increased administrative burdens on state and local agencies. Upsides include reduced statutory ambiguity during litigation, streamlined exemptions for verified officers, and a structured grace period for industry compliance. Downsides include postponed universal background checks/permitting, potential loopholes in estate or certification transfers, and significant upfront costs and staffing demands for OSP and local governments.
Would reduce statutory ambiguity during ongoing litigation by aligning state exemptions with federal QRLPO standards and clarifying officer LCM possession rules.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Would provide industry stakeholders a predictable 180-day compliance window if court injunctions lift, reducing financial disruption.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Delays universal permit-to-purchase and background check requirements until January 1, 2028, extending the current regulatory gap.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Would impose $8 million General Fund and 11 FTE costs on OSP for database development and background check processing, with indeterminate financial impacts on counties, cities, and courts.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded in the provided proposed amendment text, official fiscal/revenue impact statements, and staff measure summaries. Litigation context is drawn from published committee documents. No speculation beyond statutory text and official analysis. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
45 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
AI-assessed adopted replacement
The adopted A-to-B transition deletes nearly the entire firearms regulatory rewrite and substitutes a narrow implementation-date provision. This changes the operative purpose from reform to delay.
AI assessment dated 2026-09-29. This classification is separate from enactment and legal effect.
Evidence snapshot: 2026-09-29. Later legislative records are not automatically reassessed.
Policy purpose: substantially changed.
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_a · 2026-09-29
AI-assessed adopted replacement
The adopted A-to-B transition deletes nearly the entire firearms regulatory rewrite and substitutes a narrow implementation-date provision. This changes the operative purpose from reform to delay.
Policy purpose: substantially changed.
“SECTION 1. Section 1, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023 (Ballot Measure 114 (2022)), is re- 10 pealed. 11 SECTION 1a. Section 10, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023, as amended by section 6, chapter 594, 12 Oregon Laws 2025, is amended to read: 13 Sec. 10. [ORS 166.503, 166.505 and 166.508 and] The amendments to”
A-Engrossed
“SECTION 1. Section 10, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023, as amended by section 6, chapter 594, 6 Oregon Laws 2025, is amended to read: 7 Sec. 10. ORS 166.503, 166.505 and 166.508 and the amendments to ORS 166.412, 166.435, 166.436 8 and 166.438 by sections 6 to 9, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023, apply to”
B-Engrossed
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_b · 2026-09-29
AI-assessed adopted replacement
The adopted A9 amendment strips the comprehensive firearm regulatory rewrite and substitutes a short effective-date change. The replacement occurs at the A-to-B mainline transition.
Policy purpose: substantially changed.
“SECTION 1. Section 1, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023 (Ballot Measure 114 (2022)), is re- 10 pealed. 11 SECTION 1a. Section 10, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023, as amended by section 6, chapter 594, 12 Oregon Laws 2025, is amended to read: 13 Sec. 10. [ORS 166.503, 166.505 and 166.508 and] The amendments to”
A-Engrossed
“SECTION 1. Section 10, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023, as amended by section 6, chapter 594, 6 Oregon Laws 2025, is amended to read: 7 Sec. 10. ORS 166.503, 166.505 and 166.508 and the amendments to ORS 166.412, 166.435, 166.436 8 and 166.438 by sections 6 to 9, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023, apply to”
B-Engrossed
“Gut and stuff” research tracks substantial replacements of a bill’s substantive text. Policy change is assessed separately: a rewrite can retain the same purpose. A proposed amendment is counted as adopted only when the official evidence supports adoption.
Two subscription subagents independently examine the same official evidence without seeing each other’s answers. An additional subagent can adjudicate disagreements against the sources. Unsupported conclusions, missing evidence, and unresolved disagreements remain uncertain. Agreement is not a guarantee of accuracy.
Session totals count each HB or SB once, including bills that did not become law. Resolutions and memorials are excluded. Counts describe the research inventory, independent of your search, interests, following, and status filters. Missing or unassessed bills are not negative findings.
The replacement watch is a rule, not an AI assessment: a bill whose introduced text is a short study bill (a study word, at most three sections, under 400 words) or a blank form (a run of blanks, 300 words or fewer) is listed once a proposed amendment is posted for it. In the 2021 to 2026 training sessions, 271 of 374 such bills were later replaced; the rate is historical and says nothing about a particular bill’s intent.
Assessments are published research snapshots. Opening this page reads saved research and does not run an AI review. Refreshes require another evidence export, independent assessment, and validated import; reports do not continuously refresh. Each bill’s evidence and reviewer provenance are available on its detail page.
Follow the official text for HB 4145 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available.
Click a card to isolate its connected lines; use View summary to jump to its details. Horizontal position shows first posting time in Pacific Time. Drag or use the arrow keys to pan. Pinch with two fingers on mobile, or zoom with the controls, +/− keys, or Control/Command + scroll; press 0 to reset. Dashed branches remained proposals.
Selected document summary
Substantial replacement
What the document says to change
delete lines 37 through 39 and insert:
Official records (1)
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
The text changed substantially while keeping measure number HB 4145.
Chief sponsors: Representative Dacia Grayber
Regular sponsors: Representative April Dobson, Representative Lisa Fragala, Senator Floyd Prozanski, Representative Sarah McDonald, Representative Jason Kropf, Senator Lisa Reynolds, Senator James Manning Jr.
House carrier
Representative Sarah McDonald
Third Reading Of House Bills · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Lisa Reynolds
Third Reading Of House Measures · Version B
House carrier
Representative Jason Kropf
Possible Consideration Of Senate Amendments · Version B
A carrier presents the measure or report but is not necessarily its sponsor or author.
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
45 events
Full timeline
45 entries shown.
Chapter 120, (2026 Laws): Effective date April 7, 2026.
Governor signed.
President signed.
Speaker signed.
Vote explanation(s) filed by Diehl.
House concurred in Senate amendments and repassed bill.
Ayes, 50; Nays, 3--Gamba, Grayber, Walters; Excused, 5--Hartman, Javadi, Levy B, Owens, Valderrama; Excused for Business of the House, 2--Nelson, Wright.
Rules suspended. Third reading. Carried by Reynolds. Passed.
Ayes, 30.
Second reading.
Senate Amendments to A-Engrossed bill text posted
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments to the A-Eng. bill. (Printed B-Eng.)
Work Session held.
IS_Impact HB 4145 A9
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -A9 adopted
Public Hearing held.
IS_Impact HB 4145 A
Revenue Impact Statement
Referred to Rules.
First reading. Referred to President's desk.
Vote explanation(s) filed by Chaichi.
Passed.
Ayes, 33; Nays, 19--Boice, Breese-Iverson, Bunch, Cate, Chaichi, Diehl, Edwards, Evans, Helfrich, Levy B, Lewis, Mannix, McIntire, Osborne, Owens, Reschke, Skarlatos, Wallan, Wright; Absent, 2--Smith G, Yunker; Excused, 4--Boshart Davis, Hartman, Scharf, Valderrama; Excused for Business of the House, 2--Elmer, Harbick.
Motion to re-refer to Judiciary failed.
Ayes, 19; Nays, 32--Andersen, Bowman, Chaichi, Chotzen, Dobson, Evans, Fragala, Gamba, Gomberg, Grayber, Helm, Hudson, Isadore, Javadi, Kropf, Levy E, Lively, Marsh, McDonald, McLain, Munoz, Nelson, Nguyen D, Nosse, Pham H, Rieke Smith, Sanchez, Tran, Walters, Watanabe, Wise, Speaker Fahey; Absent, 1--Smith G; Excused, 3--Hartman, Scharf, Valderrama; Excused for Business of the House, 5--Elmer, Nathanson, Owens, Ruiz, Sosa.
Third reading. Carried by McDonald.
Rules suspended. Carried over to February 25, 2026 Calendar.
Carried over to February 24, 2026 Calendar by virtue of adjournment.
Rules suspended. Carried over to February 23, 2026 Calendar.
Second reading.
House Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments and be printed A-Engrossed.
Work Session held.
Amendment -4 proposed
IS_Impact HB 4145 3
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -2 proposed
Amendment -3 adopted
Public Hearing held.
Referred to Judiciary.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
easures to modify and codify provisions of Ballot Measure 114: Senate Bill 243, House Bill 3075 A (not enacted), and House Bill 3076 B (not enacted). SB 243 expands the author
capacity magazine restrictions—to actions occurring on or after March 15, 2026. HB 3075 A sought to amend Oregon statutes necessary to implement the procedural require
easures to modify and codify provisions of Ballot Measure 114: Senate Bill 243, House Bill 3075 A (not enacted), and House Bill 3076 B (not enacted). SB 243 expands the author
capacity magazine restrictions—to actions occurring on or after March 15, 2026. HB 3075 A sought to amend Oregon statutes necessary to implement the procedural require
ns of Ballot Measure 114: Senate Bill 243, House Bill 3075 A (not enacted), and House Bill 3076 B (not enacted). SB 243 expands the authority of governing bodies to regulate t
tices, increasing fees, and shielding background check data from public access. HB 3076 B would have initiated a state-level licensing regime for firearm dealers, requ
ns of Ballot Measure 114: Senate Bill 243, House Bill 3075 A (not enacted), and House Bill 3076 B (not enacted). SB 243 expands the authority of governing bodies to regulate t
tices, increasing fees, and shielding background check data from public access. HB 3076 B would have initiated a state-level licensing regime for firearm dealers, requ
SECTION 1. Section 10, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023, as amended by 6 section 6, chapter 594, Oregon Laws 2025, is amended to read: 7 “ Sec. 10. ORS 166.503, 166.505 and 166.508 and the ame
SECTION 1. Section 10, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023, as amended by 6 section 6, chapter 594, Oregon Laws 2025, is amended to read: 7 “ Sec. 10. ORS 166.503, 166.505 and 166.508 and the ame
SECTION 1. Section 10, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023, as amended by section 6, chapter 594, Oregon Laws 2025, is amended to read: Sec. 10. ORS 166.503, 166.505 and 166.508 and the amendme
SECTION 2. Section 13, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023, as amended by 12 section 7, chapter 594, Oregon Laws 2025, is amended to read: 13 “ Sec. 13. The provisions of ORS 166.355 apply to the m
SECTION 2. Section 13, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023, as amended by 12 section 7, chapter 594, Oregon Laws 2025, is amended to read: 13 “ Sec. 13. The provisions of ORS 166.355 apply to the m
. SECTION 2. Section 13, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023, as amended by section 7, chapter 594, Oregon Laws 2025, is amended to read: Sec. 13. The provisions of ORS 166.355 apply to the manuf
iption The measure modifies the operative date Ballot Measure 114 as amended by SB 243 (2025) from March 16, 2026, to January 1, 2028, for firearm transfers and the m
d. 20 “(2) Section 10, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023, as amended by section 21 6, chapter 594, Oregon Laws 2025, is repealed. 1 “(3) Section 13, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023, as amended by s
. 1 “(3) Section 13, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023, as amended by section 2 7, chapter 594, Oregon Laws 2025, is repealed. 3 “SECTION 2. ORS 166.412 is amended to read: 4 “166.412. (1) A
ositions (0.91 FTE) for initial implementation of Ballot Measure 114 (2022) and SB 243. Given the uncertainty surrounding BM 114 and any potential implementation time
PROPOSED LEGISLATION Measure: HB 4145 - B Under Ballot Measure 114 (2022) and SB 243, OSP resourcing from the 2025-27 biennium will need to continue into the 2027-2
roduced several measures to modify and codify provisions of Ballot Measure 114: Senate Bill 243, House Bill 3075 A (not enacted), and House Bill 3076 B (not enacted). SB 243 e
ing the amendments to section 10, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 17 2023, by section 6, chapter 594, Oregon Laws 2025, a permit to purchase a firearm is not re- 18 quired for firearm transfers occu
Bill 243, House Bill 3075 A (not enacted), and House Bill 3076 B (not enacted). SB 243 expands the authority of governing bodies to regulate the possession of firearm
ing the amendments to section 10, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 3 2023, by section 6, chapter 594, Oregon Laws 2025, a permit to purchase a firearm is not re- 4 quired for firearm transfers occu
ositions (0.91 FTE) for initial implementation of Ballot Measure 114 (2022) and SB 243. Given the uncertainty surrounding BM 114 and any potential implementation time
114, should that be ruled constitutional. Under Ballot Measure 114 (2022) and SB 243, OSP resourcing from the 2025-27 biennium will need to continue into the 2027-2
roduced several measures to modify and codify provisions of Ballot Measure 114: Senate Bill 243, House Bill 3075 A (not enacted), and House Bill 3076 B (not enacted). SB 243 e
Bill 243, House Bill 3075 A (not enacted), and House Bill 3076 B (not enacted). SB 243 expands the authority of governing bodies to regulate the possession of firearm
Source title: Provides that the provisions of Ballot Measure 114 (2022) apply to firearm transfers conducted, and large-capacity magazine manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale or transfer occurring, on or after January 1, 2028.This source title may describe an earlier version. Read the current brief and version history above.
“Digest: The Act changes when Ballot Measure 114 applies. The Act goes into effect when the Governor signs it. (Flesch Readability Score: 66.1). [ Digest: The Act makes changes to the gun permit and transfer process and to the LCM prohibition. The Act goes into effect when the Governor signs it. (Flesch Readability Score: 73.2). ] [ Modifies the firearm permit provisions of Ballot Measure 114 (2022). Specifies where a person may apply for a permit to purchase a firearm and adds an eligibility requirement. Provides that information obtained during the application process and during the criminal background check and maintained within the database of permit holders is exempt from disclosure as a public record. Extends the time, from 30 to 60 days from receipt of the application, by which a permit agent must issue a permit to a qualified applicant or mail reasons for a denial in writing to the applicant. Increases the maximum fee that may be charged for an initial application for and renewal of a permit. Specifies the portion of the fee payable to the Department of State Police for conducting a criminal background check. Establishes alternatives to a firearms training course or class that may be used to satisfy the requirement of proof of completion of a firearm safety course for the permit. Provides that permits are not required for firearm transfers until January 1, 2028. Establishes an exception to the permit requirement for certain active law enforcement officers. ] [ Modifies the affirmative defense language for the large-capacity magazine provisions of Ballot Measure 114 (2022). Provides that a person may not be prosecuted for prohibited conduct occurring while enforcement of the provisions is enjoined by a court. Provides that gun dealers and manufacturers have 180 days after entry of an appellate judgment reversing or vacating the injunction to take certain actions concerning large-capacity magazines. ] [ Provides that a challenge to the legality of the Act must be commenced in the Circuit Court for Marion County. ] [ Provides that the Legislative Assembly does not intend the Act to affect current court proceedings concerning Ballot Measure 114 (2022). ] Provides that the provisions of Ballot Measure 114 (2022) apply to firearm transfers conducted, and large-capacity magazine manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale or transfer occurring, on or after January 1, 2028. Declares an emergency, effective on passage.”
Oregon updates this record in place. This page uses the latest text; an exact original snapshot is unavailable.
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.