http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2005/03/06/news/opinion/edit01.txt

Is the possession of firearms a burning problem in Oregon that needs to be outlawed even if the Constitution allows it? The answer, of course, is no. Oregon has plenty of issues, the widespread misuse of illegal meth among them. But the ownership of firearms by law-abiding people is no problem at all.

So why did the Oregon Senate's Judiciary Committee introduce a bill that would make owning any of a long list of specific firearms a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine?

This ill-considered legislation is Senate Bill 927, sponsored by the committee and awaiting action there.

The bill says it is aimed at "assault weapons," but that is not a definition. Any weapon, even a rock, can be an assault weapon if used to assault somebody.

In effect, the bill would prohibit people from buying or selling any on a long list of semiautomatic firearms, many of which are used for sporting purposes such as shooting competitions. People who own such weapons now could keep them, but they would have to register them with the county and pay for a permit.

There is absolutely no justification for such a ban. The people who own such weapons by and large are not criminals. And criminals who use firearms generally carry weapons they can hide, not AK 47s, one of the many types that would be banned.

It is strange that some people keep thinking it's a good idea or necessary to disarm law-abiding citizens.

The Senate committee, headed by Ginny Burdick of Portland, expects to hold hearings on that and other gun-control bills toward the end of March or early April, according to the committee staff. A loud protest is what the committee should expect to hear.

Another couple of pending bills would restrict where people carrying firearms — those with permits to carry them concealed — could go. One would bar them from schools. Another would allow cities and counties to make their own rules where permit holders could carry their weapons. Imagine being one of those people traveling around the state and never knowing if he's breaking some local law when he crosses the city limit or the county line.

These measures, too, are directed not at criminals but at the opposite end of the population spectrum — people who have gone through the requirements to get a permit from the local sheriff, which usually includes a criminal history check.

The gun control debate has been going on for decades, and it is easy to fall into debating cliches. But we also have actual history.

We know from experience that people with gun permits are the last ones to shoot anybody, regardless of where they are. And firearms with pistol grips or large magazines — the so-called assault weapons — have caused no trouble either.

These proposed restrictions do no one any good.