04.11.13
GUT AND STUFF COMING FOR GUN BILL.
As we predicted, SB 696 is likely to be “gut and stuffed” when it gets heard next week.
SB 696 started life as a bill to increase the value of guns an Oregonian could keep, protected from liens, in the event of a bankruptcy.
It was clear from the moment this bill was scheduled that it was being heard as a vehicle for other things.
The proposed “gut and stuff” amendments include both good and bad and come from the Sheriff’s Association.
Right now a person with a conviction for possession of a small amount of pot can still get an Oregon CHL, but only if that conviction was in Oregon. So someone who had a similar conviction out-of-state is… out-of-luck.
This amendment would fix that and mirrors a bill we requested and which was introduced by House Rep Kim Thatcher.
Another provision of this amendment would change the requirements for military veterans who were applying for CHL’s.
Now, many sheriffs will not accept the military document (the DD 214) which lists the training a Vet received as proof of handgun training, unless that document specifically lists “handguns” as something the Vet was trained with.
This amendment would change the statute to say “firearm” instead of “handgun” where it lists what a person must have been trained with. This is a perfectly fine idea, but probably unneeded since the sheriffs can already accept DD 214’s just listing “firearms” training if they choose too.
The bad parts of the amendment specifically add people with domestic violence misdemeanors to the list of those ineligible for CHL’s.
Currently anyone with a domestic violence misdemeanor loses his gun rights for life, no matter how small or misunderstood the “transgression”. That is Federal law. But we see no reason to enshrine that into Oregon law. As much of a long shot as it is, someday the Federal law may be changed to reflect reality and it makes no sense to have the same bad rules in state law as we have in Federal law.
The amendments also expand the many ways a person can lose their rights to a CHL because they have a “restraining order” against them. The problem with restraining orders is they are not proof of, or even an accusation of, a crime.
People have restraining orders sworn out against them every day who have been proven of doing nothing criminal. This is a dangerous path.
We’ll follow up with more info and what you can do shortly.