|
|
 |
 06.07.11
A Response To Floyd Prozanski's Email. If You Are Taking Flak, You
Must Be Over The Target. |
As you can see here,
Senator Floyd Prozanski has sent a mass email defending his
record on gun rights and attacking OFF and me, Kevin Starrett,
OFF's director. Here is my response.
Floyd starts by defending the gut and stuff he did to HB 2797,
a bill intended to clarify lawful carry of firearms on motorcycles,
ATVs and snowmobiles.
We should point out that early in the session we were warned
that Prozanski planned to insert poison pills in any pro-gun
legislation that came to his committee. In this case, he took
a bill that was intended to do no more than fix a previous mistake
(the dropping of the motorcycle language in SB 603 from 2009)
and added Ginny Burdick's favorite fantasy, disarming law-abiding
Oregonians in schools, including on college campuses.
Now it's interesting to note that while Prozanski claimed I
used "scare tactics" to oppose this bill and that
I am more interested in "drumming up contributions"
he neglected to provide a single example of why disarming the
innocent while doing nothing to stop criminals makes the slightest
sense. Nor did he provide an explanation for why he thinks CHL
holders suddenly become irresponsible or crazy when they step
onto school property.
As for "drumming up contributions", as far as I can
tell, not one alert dealing with Prozanski's gutting of bills
asked for a dime.
It's not uncommon for those who hate gun owners and liberty
to claim that OFF's motive is to get rich. But many of you know
me, and for those who see what I drive to the Capitol to interface
with people like Floyd, it should be obvious that getting rich
is not my motivation.
Prozanski states that I have "testified that I believe
all felons including murderers and rapists should be able to
petition the court to restore their gun rights."
Actually Floyd, the truth is, I think murderers and rapists
should never be released from prison. Maybe people should take
a close look at your
positions
on how we treat criminals.
It was a nice try, much like when he angrily asked Representative
Kim Thatcher if she wanted to arm murderers, but it was so blatantly
a "have you stopped beating your wife" type question
that it hardly deserved a response.
And by the way, do you wonder why Floyd is so outraged that
a person with a felony conviction (something you can get in
Oregon for a driving infraction, no expungement allowed) can
ask (just ask, not get) to get his rights restored, when it
was Floyd who crafted the legislation that allows this? Floyd
is a lawyer and a prosecutor, he is a veteran legislator. The
bill passed out of his committee with his support and no opposition.
It passed the full Senate, with no opposition, passed the full
House with no opposition, and was returned to the Senate after
minor changes were made in the House where Floyd again
voted for it.
It is deeply troubling to think that a person with Floyd's experience
has so little understanding of a bill he himself was responsible
for, that he only "noticed" something was terribly
"wrong" with the bill after it had gone through that
much of the process.
Prozanski told me in a meeting, where other stake holders were
present, that he knew something was "wrong" with the
bill before the Governor signed it. Yet he did nothing.
In fact, there was nothing wrong with the bill. It did no more
than allow a person who had made a mistake to seek redemption.
Nothing in the bill gave rights back to felons, and if Prozanski
thinks our courts will give gun rights back to murderers, he
should ask himself why those people are out of prison to begin
with, and why he trusts those crazy courts in the first place.
Prozanski goes on to say "Kevin also believes that
a CHL holder should be able to carry a firearm into any public
building including schools."
Yes, I do. I am sure that the thousands upon thousands of law-abiding
gun owners with children in the government schools agree. As
I said, Prozanski has provided not one single syllable to justify
his desire to disarm the good people, except for the paranoid
and delusional ravings of a handful of dishonest anti-gun zealots.
Prozanski says in his email "I have spoken to numerous
OFF and NRA members who agree with me that certain felons should
be prohibited from restoring their gun rights."
I have no idea which NRA members Prozanski has spoken to, but
not a single OFF member, not one, has ever contacted us to say
that they opposed what we did when we changed the law to simply
make sense. Prozanski has made this comment in the past, but
I have yet to see any evidence that there is any truth to it.
I think it would be difficult for OFF to continue our endless
efforts to soak our supporters for donations if we took positions
that they disagreed with.
I believe it is a horrible tragedy that Prozanski's sister was
killed. But Prozanski's focus on the weapon used, while ignoring
the fact that a person was responsible, is simply more evidence
of how out of touch those who would disarm you are. The gun
that was used in the killing of Prozanzki's sister was not self-animated.
Those who have lost loved ones in vehicular homicides have not
demanded that parents not drive on school grounds.
Prozanzki tries to make that case that he is not "anti-gun"
by making note of the fact that the bill he mangled includes
language to keep CHL info private. This is interesting since
he refused to even hear a Senate Bill that would do the same
thing, because in his own words, "my caucus does not
support it." But given the opportunity to strip good
people of their rights to protect themselves, Prozanski was
willing to insert that language in order to create a facade
while viciously attacking the most law-abiding. It's unlikely
that he will convince too many people, but it certainly
proves that our information on his "poison pill" plans
was accurate.
Prozanski also takes a swipe at Senator Jeff Kruse saying: "Some
of you may have also received an e-newsletter from Senator Jeff
Kruse making inaccurate claims about the bill, the committee
process, and my intentions and position on these gun bills.
It is unfortunate, because misinformation does a service to
no one. Even though Jeff claims that I am "anti-gun"
(I am not) he in fact voted with me and the three other committee
members to amend another firearms bill, HB 2792, to pass it
to the Senate floor with a "do pass" recommendation."
In fact, Kruse's newsletter was not at all inaccurate. Prozanski
is clearly and undeniably anti-gun and no amount of protestation
otherwise can change his record. But he is right about one thing.
Kruse did go along with Prozanski when he gut and stuffed HB
2792, for reasons that still escape me. Kruse has always been
a solid pro-gun vote, so this capitulation is inexplicable,
but Prozanski's attack should serve as a reminder that trying
to get along with the anti-gun extremists is a losing proposition.
Obviously we have touched a nerve with Senator Prozanski, but
I stand by each and every word that has been sent to OFF supporters
about his actions and his record.
Prozanski accuses me of spreading "misinformation"
but, as always, provides not one word of evidence for his false
accusation.
Some of these bills are still "in play" so we still
need to be vigilant and monitor the process. This session is
not over by a long shot. If you received Prozanski's email it
is because you stepped up to confront the tactics of the freedom
haters. For that I thank you. Your perseverance and activism
continue to make a difference that cannot be measured.
Best regards,
Kevin Starrett
ADDED JUNE 8. Despite what Prozanski
said in his email, we have not posted "photo shopped"
pictures, or any pictures of him in any of our alerts this year.
We do not even own Photo Shop. Please keep that in mind as you
assess the accuracy of his other claims.
ADDED JUNE 18. Correction. We did
in fact use a photo of Prozanski on a page discussing the bills
that were sent to his committee. We forgot about that one. However,
it was taken directly from the legislative website and was not
"photo shopped." The only change to the photo was
that it was reproduced in black and white.
|
 Send this Page to a Friend
|
 |
Copyright
© 2000 - 2011, Oregon Firearms Federation. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
|
