Category: OFF Alerts

HB 2853, the bill that would force Oregon into compliance with the NRA/ Brady Campaign supported, federal law, was NOT heard on Friday and has been postponed until Monday.

As you probably know, the legislative website does not reflect the current status of the bill. It still shows the original language, however, as of Friday, we had received our 7th set of “gut and stuff” amendments.

Aside from the dangers of passing on sensitive records to the gun-hating Obama administration, this bill comes with another giant liability.

OFF has heard for years from people who were unjustifiably denied firearms purchases because of faulty criminal records. OFF has had numerous meetings with the State Police ID unit in an effort to correct this problem and progress has been made. But now we have a whole new problem.

Now the State Police are requesting a list of people who are prohibited from buying a firearm because of a “mental health” issue.

We have attempted to determine exactly what would happen to a person who was denied based on incorrect  “mental health” records.  The answers have not been very reassuring.

In response to our questions, a member of Legislative Counsel, the people who craft the laws, sent this note to Representative Sara Gelser, the only member of the committee to have openly opposed the bill so far:

I’ve taken a quick look at federal law and the remedy appears to be the same in the mental health context as it is in the criminal context. Under federal law, there exists a procedure for a person to correct erroneous information in the federal database. See 18 USC 925A and 28 CFR 25.10. Depending on the circumstances, the person can petition the state “point of contact” (ie. the State Police), the agency that originated the document in question, the FBI or a court to correct the erroneous information.

Given that under the bill, as currently amended, the State Police will only have access to the fact that you have been considered a “mental defective” but they will not have any other information, it seems likely that a person falsely denied because of incorrect mental health records would now find themselves having to go to court or the “Psychiatric Review Board” to start the process to correct the records and be allowed to buy a firearm.  Clearly, a person unjustly denied under these circumstances faces an unreasonable hurdle just because Oregon decided that we had to comply with more NRA sponsored gun control.

There is still time to kill this bill or add protections for people falsely denied.  A sample message follows:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Representative,

The current “Brady background check ” system often prevents legitimate firearms’ purchases because of faulty criminal history records. I believe that adding “mental health” records to the system can only cause more problems, especially since the intent is to keep those records as private as possible, making it difficult or impossible for the State Police to clear a person falsely accused of being a “mental defective.”

HB 2853 has the potential to deny legitimate firearms purchases and has no safeguards for people falsely branded as “mental defectives.”

I would urge you to vote no on this bill, but at the very least ask that you include some safeguards for persons denied as a result  of faulty records.

Yours,
____________________________________

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Today the House Judiciary Committee passed SB 603 out of committee.

They included amendments that make the bill a strong, positive step for gun owners who live in, or visit Oregon.

SB 603 was originally drafted, at our request, to legally define the term “readily accessible” for the purposes of transporting a concealed handgun in a car.

Although Oregon CHL holders may transport a handgun however they please in a vehicle, the same is not true for those without licenses, or visitors to our state.

For those people, handguns must be either not concealed, or “not readily accessible.”  But what does that mean? It is not defined in Oregon law. Where is a handgun “not readily accessible” in a Mini-Cooper?

For that reason we requested that the term be legally defined.

Because of your constant efforts, not only was the bill given a hearing, it was amended to fix problems we attempted to address in other bills, it passed the Senate without a single “no” vote and has now passed the House Committee unanimously. It now goes on to the full House where we expect it to pass.

The bill gives a clear definition of what “readily accessible” means. The new definition is:

If a vehicle has no storage location that is outside the passenger compartment of the vehicle, a handgun is not readily accessible within the meaning of this section if:
A) The handgun is stored in a closed and locked glove compartment, center console or other container and
B) The key is not inserted into the lock, if the glove compartment, center console or other container unlocks with a key.

We believe that having a clear definition of this term is a great benefit to gun owners traveling in Oregon. Please note, this new law does not affect open carry or persons with CHL’s, in any way.

But the amended bill does more.

As we have told you, Oregon law contains some obvious errors that needed to be addressed. We had hope to fix them in other bills, but the solutions were incorporated into this one bill.

In addition to defining “readily accessible” the bill also fixes a mistake in Oregon law that allows a person with a felony conviction to petition the courts to have their rights restored to buy a gun, but does not allow them to own a gun.  Furthermore, it addresses an error in Oregon law that appears to return firearms rights to a person with a single felony conviction,( not involving a homicide or weapons charge,) after 15 years, but in fact still left that person open to a misdemeanor firearm’s possession charge.

This is a good bill and we look forward to its passage.

On another note, HB 2727A, the CHL “privacy” bill, finally passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee today with more amendments.

As you know, the bill, which was intended to insure that CHL holder’s private information was not available to the Oregonian or the Medford Mail Tribune, was completely neutered by House Rep Judy Stiegler. In its current form, it provides virtually no protections for CHL holders at all.

The amendments added today also do nothing for license holders, they simply clarify the procedure for those who want access to these records.  The bill now serves even less of a purpose than it had after Stiegler gutted it.

Interestingly, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which heard the gutted bill today, could have just voted to send it to the Senate floor. But instead they voted to send it to the Senate Rules Committee. One of the  5 members of that committee is Ginny Burdick who has built her entire political career on attacking gun rights.

Burdick’s star has been shining more and more dimly in the last few years and her inability to pass a single piece of anti-gun legislation has certainly weighed heavily on her. This move may be her last-gasp chance to claim credit for killing a “pro-gun” bill.   The irony is, this bill is anything but “pro-gun” and is nothing more than a political game to allow politicians to take credit for having done …nothing.

House Rep. Kim Thatcher wrote a solid, simple pro-gun bill. That bill was eviscerated by Judy Stiegler (who meddled with and destroyed other good pro-gun bills) and other politicians went along for the ride. If Burdick wants to shoot down HB 2727 A, we welcome her efforts, but if she thinks she has, in any way, set back gun rights, well as  we have said before, “what makes you think we read the bills?”

Mental Health Records, One More Time

HB 2853, the bill being used as a vehicle for turning over mental health records to the FBI
(as mandated by the NRA-sponsored HR 2640) was back in the House Rules Committee yesterday.

(Several other gun bills were not acted on because of time constraints or because legislators were using them as bargaining chips.)

This bill is intended to force Oregon into compliance with a Federal law seeking mental health records in order to deny gun purchases.

The bill has seen many versions come and go and been the subject of many “work groups”  which included gun rights organizations, mental health organizations, the Governor’s office and groups like the ACLU, which want to defend the privacy of everyone EXCEPT gun owners.

As a result, the bill has been continually narrowed to provide less and less info to the Feds.

That by itself is a good thing. We should not be providing more personal data to an administration that has an open animosity towards gun owners. But therein lies the rub.

As the bill has been amended, the changes have been intended to only identify people who have been adjudicated a danger to themselves and others. The last version of the bill did not achieve that, but was close. The problem is, while we’re turning over records of “mental defectives” to the State Police to share with the FBI, we are also greatly restricting the State Police’s access to the records that determine why  someone is “mentally defective.”

Restricting government access to private records is a good thing, and we support it. The problem is the same problem we have with the existing Brady Bill.

OFF hears from people almost every day who have been denied firearms’ purchases because government databases indicate some “criminal “history.

Criminal history should, at least in theory, be pubic record. But the fact is, getting details about criminal histories from other states is often an exercise in frustration.

How much worse will it be if you are mistakenly identified as “mentally defective” and the State Police have an even harder time getting access to records that would clear you?

We are opposed to the Brady check system as a prior restraint on your rights. We oppose any expansion of the system, which HB 2853 would be. But we are very concerned that if enacted, HB 2853 would cause the many problems we have with State Police background checks to increase.

We have heard from people who have waited for months to get an approval for a firearm transfer.

Under this bill we expect a tremendous expansion of the problem.

The bill will be heard again on Friday May 29th. We urge you to contact the House Rules Committee and let them know that we do not need to expand the failed Brady background check system.

Sample message below:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Representative,

Although attempts have been made to improve HB 2853, the problems with the bill remain.

The current “Brady background check ” system often prevents legitimate firearms’ purchases because of faulty criminal history records.   I believe that adding “mental health” records to the system can only cause more problems, especially since the intent is to keep those records as private as possible, making it difficult or impossible for the State Police to clear a person falsely accused of being a “mental defective.”

This bill creates more problems than it solves. Please vote “no” on this bill.

Thank you,

_________________________

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CHL PRIVACY BILL. IT AIN’T DEAD YET.

HB 2727 A was heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee today.

As you know, in its original form, the bill provided extensive protections for CHL holders’ privacy.

But the bill was essentially neutered in the House Judiciary Committee and now provides little more than window dressing.  But even those meager protections were too much for Ginny Burdick, Portland City Commissioner Randy Leonard, the ACLU and the Oregonian newspaper, all of whom came to complain that the bill afforded too much privacy for CHL holders.

Burdick and Leonard have long been vocal opponents of gun rights (although Leonard has had a CHL himself in the past) and the Oregonian makes no secret of their desire to have access to the private records of Oregon gun owners. The ACLU, of course, are big protectors of privacy rights, unless those rights belong to gun owners. The ACLU’s hypocrisy on this issue is both glaring and expected.

Andrea Meyer , the ACLU’s lobbyist, testified that CHL holders records should be open to the public on the same day that she testified that drunk drivers should not be forced to submit to urine analysis.  Protection of people’s rights is a highly selective endeavor at the ACLU.

But pro-gunners opposed the bill for the opposite reason. It simply provides no real safeguards for CHL holders. And that’s why it’s more important than ever that you contact not only the Senate Judiciary Committee members, but your own Senator (if he or she is not on the committee) and urge them to restore the original safeguards that appeared in the unamended bill.

Although the hearing was held today, no action was taken on the bill and the Chairman, Floyd Prozanski, did not rule out restoring the safeguards that were stripped out in the House.

If those are restored, the House will have to concur with the changed bill, but it’s a fight worth having rather than settling for a bill than is little more than smoke and mirrors.

Please let them know that without the original protections, the bill means very little. And be sure to contact your own Senator if he or she is not on the Committee.  They may not have a vote in the Committee, but they can still make their feelings known to the Committee members.

You can find your State Senator using this link. Your STATE Senator will be the 4th person listed. You can write directly to your legislators using this link.

The bill is scheduled to be acted on next Tuesday. Please contact the Committee and your Senator as soon as possible.

Sample message:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Senator,

Testimony given at the hearing for HB2727 “A”  made it clear that some people want access to the private records of CHL holders. As you know, several counties have already made that information available to private organizations who are using it for fundraising purposes and who could easily sell it to third parties.

CHL holders deserve to have their personal information kept private. These are not  “non-sensitive government  documents.”  These are highly sensitive documents filled with the personal  information, not only of the license holders and applicants, but also of the references they are required  by law to provide.

In its current form, HB 2727 “A”  provides virtually no protections for CHL holders.  I urge you to restore the original protections that HB 2727 contained.

Yours,

________________________________

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HB 2727 A, a vastly watered down “CHL Privacy” bill, is due to be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday May 21st at 8AM.

As you know, this bill passed out of the House recently and now must pass both a Senate Committee and the full Senate before becoming law.

Frankly, the bill as amended provides virtually no protections for CHL holders. After being diluted by members of the House Judiciary Committee, the original strong protections envisioned by its chief sponsor, Representative Kim Thatcher, were stripped from the bill and now it is little more that window dressing.

If you saw our alert dated May 9th, you know that some anti-gun crusaders are already gloating about their continued access to the personal information about CHL holders.

But there is still time to fix the bill. It is essential that you contact the Chair of the Committee, Floyd Prozanski , along with the committee members and urge them to return the original protections to the bill.

Contact information and a sample message follow:

Senator Floyd Prozanski
sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE, S-417, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986 -1704
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Senator Prozanski,

HB 2727 A is due to be heard in your committee shortly.

As an original sponsor of the bill, you know the importance of the safeguards the original bill included.

As you are no doubt aware, The “Newberg Graphic” has already stated that they can still use the amended law to harass certain CHL holders. In a May 7th editorial, they stated “This newspaper and many others, have accessed information on CHL holders in order to report for instance, that teachers with CHL permits are carrying handguns in schools.”

It’s just this kind of reckless misuse of the CHL information that 2727 attempted to curb, but the amended bill will not.

Now that you are planning a hearing for the amended bill, I urge you in the strongest terms to add amendments to make the bill actually do something for license holders. WIthout real safeguards, the bill will solve nothing.

Yours,
___________________________

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HB 2853 SCHEDULED AGAIN.

HB 2853 is scheduled for another hearing and possible work session on May 20th at 3pm in the House Rules Committee.

At least one member of the Rules Committee which heard HB 2853 yesterday, decided it was not worth reading before voicing her support for it.

As you know, HB 2853 was a bill that has been “gut and stuffed” to turn it into a vehicle to give mental health records to the FBI. The bill has been amended to force Oregon into compliance with a Federal law, HR 2640.

HR 2640 was the NRA-promoted, Brady Bill expansion that was passed under George Bush following the killings at Virginia Tech.

Of course, as with so many other gun control bills, there is no reason to believe that had this law been in effect at the time of the VT massacre, it would have made any difference, but lawmakers make laws, whether they make sense or not.

The original bill dealt with an expansion of the list of people who could not own guns to include those who were found guilty “except for insanity” of a “crime.”  Current law says people are prohibited if they were found guilty “except for insanity” of a FELONY.

But that bill, although still listed on the legislative website, has long been amended into a completely different bill that now deals exclusively with the transfer of some peoples’ mental health histories to the Obama-controlled FBI.

The intent is to keep guns out of the hands of what the Feds call “mental defectives.”

The numerous amendments to the bill have been introduced over several weeks, with the last ones being made available at a hearing the bill had in the House Rules Committee, on Wednesday, May 13th.

Because of your efforts and the concerns of many other people, the last set of amendments were the most restrictive so far, greatly limiting the information that would be sent to the Feds.

Unfortunately, they still expanded the records that would be used in the failed Brady background check system and, as such, provided great potential for errors and abuse.

In addition, they classified people who are “mentally retarded” the same way as people who are dangerously mentally ill.

Some members of the committee, specifically Arnie Roblan and Sara Gelser, rightfully pointed out the fact that being mentally retarded does not make a person dangerous. Chair Roblan even discussed a friend of his, whose son is mentally retarded, but a fine and safe hunting companion.

But while some committee members demonstrated a lot of insight, at least one made us ask “What are they smoking in there?”

House Rep Mary Nolan has responded to many gun owners, who wrote to ask her to oppose this bill, with the following e-mail:

Thank you for taking the time to write me about HB 2853. I share your commitment to protecting individuals’ privacy – in matters, especially including health information. Indeed, I have earned a reputation in the legislature as a leader on behalf of privacy and civil rights.

I differ from you in my interpretation of this bill. As I read it, the bill applies only to persons who have committed a crime and are applying for a gun permit. The bill provides an opportunity to request an exception. I will continue to keep your perspective in mind as I consider this bill, but am now inclined to support the bill.
Sincerely,
Mary Nolan
State Representative (SW Portland)
House Majority Leader

Note: Nolan was sending out this response as late as this afternoon, long after the bill had been amended and moved from the Judiciary Committee to the Rules Committee on which she sits and votes. Long after, in fact, her committee had the last set of amendments.

Nolan (below) may have a reputation as a “leader on behalf of privacy” but she won’t win any prizes for reading comprehension.

Even in its original form (now long dead), it would be hard to come to the conclusion that the focus of the bill was people who had “committed a crime and were applying for a gun permit” (whatever that is) but in its amended form, (even the early amendments) it clearly had nothing to do with that and now was all about mental health records and the feds.

This bill is nothing more than an expansion of Brady, and Brady has not achieved anything except to slow or stop many legitimate gun purchases. It greatly expands the potential for mistakes, mischief, and abuse and opens the door to far greater record keeping by an administration that is openly hostile to gun owners.  We think it’s essential that Nolan, who may be voting on the bill, at least exhibit a clue about what’s in it.

There are three gun related bills that have had action you should be aware of.

Yesterday, the Senate passed a bill we requested (SB 603) to define the term “readily accessible” for the purposes of having a handgun in your car. As you know, if a person does not have a concealed handgun license, there are restrictions on how they may transport a handgun in a vehicle.  In most (but not all) places, a loaded handgun can be carried in a vehicle if it is either not concealed, or “not readily accessible.”

The problem is, Oregon does not define what that term means.

We requested and wrote a bill to answer that question. The bill was amended heavily from our original language. Some of the changes were quite good and incorporated language that we had requested in other bills. Those changes would address conflicts in existing law.

Unfortunately, the re-written definition for “readily accessible” created new ambiguities.

We are working to correct those problems when the bill gets to the House.  We believe it will go to the House Judiciary Committee, but because of the late date, it is possible that the bill will go to another committee. Wherever it goes, we will let you know and tell you who you need to contact to request that the language be corrected to eliminate the uncertainties created by the amendments.  The bill passed the Senate with 29 “aye” votes and one Senator excused.

HB 2853 was heard in the House Rules Committee late today. This bill was amended once again and the amendments were only available at the very last minute at the hearing. They are not yet available on line.  The purpose of the bill as amended, is to make Oregon comply with the Federal bill HR 2640, the gun control bill promoted by the Brady Campaign and the NRA after the Virginia Tech killings.

The bill would create a system whereby the Oregon State Police would share mental health records of Oregonians with the FBI and the NICS system.

OFF has opposed this legislation from the beginning and we continue to. We believe that the background check system is already not only a prior restraint on your rights, but so riddled with errors that unwarranted delays and denials are commonplace. We oppose dumping a whole new batch of records into a failed system. Beyond that, the bill places enormous power in Oregon’s “Psychiatric Security Review Board” to decide if you are “mentally defective” ( to use the Fed’s term) and they testified today that they currently would not likely have the resources or manpower to handle the new responsibility. Beyond that, we are not convinced they are necessarily qualified. Keep in mind, the shooter  at Virginia Tech had long exhibited signs of mental illness and aberrant behavior, all of which was ignored by the “mental health professionals” who will be given so much power under this bill.

The committee members expressed reservations with the bill as amended, so your communications have been having an affect. Please don’t stop now.  This bill is far from dead, but your efforts have created doubt about the wisdom of expanding the failed Brady Check system.The bill DID NOT move out of committee today. Please contact the Rules Committee and express your opposition to HB 2853.

For more info please see our previous alert.

Finally, HB 2727, which in its original form protected the privacy of concealed handgun licensees, has gone to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The amended bill provides virtually NO protections for license holders. So we are hoping to have those protections put back in while the bill is in the Senate Committee. For more information see this alert.

CHL PRIVACY BILL GETS SECOND CHANCE

As you know, HB 2727, a bill to protect the privacy of CHL holders, was eviscerated in the House Judiciary Committee by Judy Steigler and passed the full House in its severely amended and almost useless form.

The bill Kim Thatcher worked so hard to pass in order to provide real protections, now provides virtually none. The new bill is so bad that the “Newberg Graphic” calls it “a step in the right direction.”

To get an idea why the Newberg Graphic would applaud this now worthless bill, look at what else they had to say in a recent editorial.  “This newspaper, and many others, have accessed information on CHL holders in order to report, for instance, that teachers with CHL permits are carrying handguns in schools.”

Of course it is absurd to conclude that simply because a person has a permit they are “carrying in school” (although they have every right to do so) but this is the exact kind of abuse we need to address.  The Graphic goes on to say  “That’s information that parents of students should have access to in order to decide if that particular school district needs to change its policies in order to protect its students.” Here, the Graphic displays astonishing ignorance about how Oregon gun laws are enforced, but more so reveals that some organizations clearly want access to this information simply to harass gun owners.

The position that the paper takes, that they need access to these private records to determine if the government is working in the “public’s best interest,” is an obvious sham and a demonstration of why we must do all we can to keep these records private.

CHL holders are not government agencies that require public oversight. CHL holders get licenses because the state demands that they request permission to exercise a right, something not required of residents of states like Alaska and Vermont. As such, the information on your license and application should be as private as your medical records and your tax returns.

But now, thanks to House Democrats, and several Republican Committee members who capitulated on the amendment vote, HB 2727 has morphed into 2727A, a useless piece of window dressing which fixes nothing.

But the story is not over. Before the bill can become law, it must pass the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate. The Chairman of the Senate Committee is Floyd Prozanski.

As chairman he has tremendous control over how this bill proceeds. His committee has the power to amend the bill to return the safeguards that the original bill provided. Prozanski was also a cosponsor of the original bill.

As a cosponsor of the clean bill, Prozanzki knows the importance of real protections for CHL holders, something the amended bill simply does NOT provide.

Because your private, personal information is at stake and available to gun hating organizations like the Newberg Graphic and the Medford Mail Tribune, it is essential that we do all we can to make sure a bill is passed that actually provides the protections that the original bill included.

Please contact Senator Prozanski by e-mail and phone and urge him not to waste time with HB2727 A in its current form. Please consider sending a copy of your e-mail to the entire committee.

Please tell him that the bill provides nothing but window dressing when what we need is real privacy. Sample message follows:

Senator Floyd Prozanski
sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE, S-417, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986 -1704

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Senator Prozanski,

As an original sponsor of HB 2727, you clearly understand the importance of the protections provided under that bill to holders of concealed handgun licenses.  As an attorney and prosecutor, you also understand how little the amended bill provides in terms of these protections.

HB 2727 A is a pointless exercise in political posturing. Without real safeguards license holders will have been sold a bill of goods by the legislature.  Even now, newspapers like the Newberg Graphic are celebrating the bill as passed because it will allow them to expose the identity of teachers with CHL’s. (See their May 7th editorial.)

When HB 2727 A arrives in your committee, I urge you in the strongest terms to seek and allow, amendments to make the bill actually do something for license holders. WIthout real safeguards, the bill is not worth your time to hear.

Yours,

__________________________

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

House Bill 2853 is now scheduled for a hearing in the House Rules Committee.The hearing is scheduled for May 13th at 3PM.

This bill, which we have warned you about before was moved to the Rules Committee to allow it to stay alive after deadlines in other committees would have killed it.

The bill would vastly expand the failed Brady Law and send thousands of “mental health” records to the radically anti-gun Obama administration.

The current Brady checks routinely deny law abiding Oregonians legitimate gun purchases, and now the state is planning to dump thousands of very personal records into a failed system. The State Police have requested this because the Governor demanded that they comply with the NRA sponsored, “HR 2640,” a gun control bill created by an anti-gun New York Congresswoman.

The bill was dead until it was revived by the NRA. Upon its passage, both the NRA and the Brady Campaign sent out victory messages. Now it’s here in Oregon.

In addition to the obvious privacy issues, there is so much potential for abuse that this bill must be stopped.

We have not included a link to the bill because the legislative website does not have current information posted. The bill posted on the website is NOT the bill that has been scheduled for a hearing.

Please contact the House Rules Committee and urge them NOT to turn over personal records to the Obama administration, the FBI, and the BATF. Please tell them that background checks are conducted by our State Police, and the FBI does not need access to the personal records of Oregonians.

If this bill passes, you can rest assured that the records being transferred to the Federal government will be used by Obama and his radically anti-gun Attorney General to deny gun  rights to thousands more Oregonians.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Representative,

HB 2853 represents one of the greatest invasions of the privacy of Oregonians in recent memory.

Turning over the personal mental health records of Oregonians to the federal government is a page right out of “1984.”

I urge you to use your power to protect the privacy of Oregonians, not to invade it because of outrageous demands from Washington DC.

Yours,

___________________

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CHL “Privacy” Bill Passes House Today

A dramatically weakened CHL “privacy bill” passed the House today with vote of 54 to 4 with two members excused.

The amended bill, 2727 A eliminates the strong protections in the original bill and substitutes language that is more window dressing than substance.

The bill as passed still allows Sheriffs and other government agencies to release private information about license holders at the agency’s discretion.

Representative Larry Galizo was one of four members who voted against the bill. Galizio’s floor speech was riddled with errors and misunderstandings about why gun owners wanted the protections contained in the original bill.

Two other Democrats joined Galizo in voting “no” for even these minimal protections. They were Mitch Greenlick and Mary Nolan. These three would prefer if NO gun owners received any protection from abusive agencies. One Republican voted no as well, but for very different reasons.  Representative Jim Thompson , himself a CHL holder, explained that the bill simply did not go far enough and was “not ready for prime time.” Obviously, we agree.

Other House Reps made it clear that while they would vote for the bill, they understood how little it accomplished. Compelling floor speeches were made by the original bill’s chief sponsor, Kim Thatcher, and Representative Bill Garrard.

We appreciate all the hard work Representative Thatcher and her staff did to craft a strong bill. In the end, the members of the Judiciary Committee chose to water the bill down. While not hurting gun owners it does little to protect them.

The bill now moves to the Senate where OFF will work with pro-gun legislators to try to salvage as much of the original bill as possible.

House Bill 2463 was driven one step closer to official death today.

This long overdue legislation did nothing more than recognize other states’ concealed handgun licenses. (You know, like we recognize other states’ drivers’ licenses.)

It was a simple bill, and to our amazement, it was supported by the Oregon State Sheriffs who have opposed it for as long as it’s been proposed.

Had it passed, Oregonians with CHL’s would have been allowed to carry in a number of other states that currently do not allow it. Visitors to Oregon would have been allowed to protect themselves without breaking the law. Seemed like a win-win.

Then the lawyers got involved.

Four members of the House Judiciary Committee decided to “fix” the bill.  Reps Jefferson Smith. Chris Garrett, Brent Barton and Judy Stiegler drafted amendments to gut the bill and essentially neuter it. They succeeded.

A bill which would have done nothing more that allow other Americans to visit our state and feel safe, turned into the Bride of Frankenstein. This was not a surprise.  What was a bit of a surprise was that there was no opposition.

The entire committee voted to turn this good and needed bill into a  colossal waste of time,guaranteed to die.

The entire committee, Republicans and Democrats, agreed to the amendments which eviscerated this bill. Not a single Republican objected to the poison pill amendments demanded by the Democrat members.

The bill has been moved to the Ways and Means Committee where it is expected to die of neglect. As it should.

At least there was no partisan bickering

House Bill 2853, which we warned you about in this alert has been shipped off to the Rules Committee. Please contact them with and urge them to oppose it.  A suggested message is in the previous alert. House Bill 2463 was driven one step closer to official death today.

This long overdue legislation did nothing more than recognize other states’ concealed handgun licenses. (You know, like we recognize other states’ drivers’ licenses.)

It was a simple bill, and to our amazement, it was supported by the Oregon State Sheriffs who have opposed it for as long as it’s been proposed.

Had it passed, Oregonians with CHL’s would have been allowed to carry in a number of other states that currently do not allow it. Visitors to Oregon would have been allowed to protect themselves without breaking the law. Seemed like a win-win.

Then the lawyers got involved.

Four members of the House Judiciary Committee decided to “fix” the bill.  Reps Jefferson Smith. Chris Garrett, Brent Barton and Judy Stiegler drafted amendments to gut the bill and essentially neuter it. They succeeded.

A bill which would have done nothing more that allow other Americans to visit our state and feel safe, turned into the Bride of Frankenstein. This was not a surprise.  What was a bit of a surprise was that there was no opposition.

The entire committee voted to turn this good and needed bill into a  colossal waste of time,guaranteed to die.

The entire committee, Republicans and Democrats, agreed to the amendments which eviscerated this bill. Not a single Republican objected to the poison pill amendments demanded by the Democrat members.

The bill has been moved to the Ways and Means Committee where it is expected to die of neglect. As it should.

At least there was no partisan bickering

House Bill 2853, which we warned you about in this alert has been shipped off to the Rules Committee. Please contact them with and urge them to oppose it.  A suggested message is in the previous alert.

A bill requested by OFF and pushed for by OFF supporters passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee today.

The bill was intended to define the term “not readily accessible” for the purpose of having a handgun in your car.

Current law allows a person (without a concealed handgun license) to have a loaded handgun in his car under two circumstances:

A) The handgun must either be carried openly, or

B) it must be “not readily accessible.”

(Keep in mind, as a result of a recent court decision, non-licensees can be further restricted if they are in a location like Portland or Oregon City that has prohibitions against open carry.)

The problem with existing law, as you know, is that the statute does not define what “not readily accessible” means.

For example, where would “not readily accessible” be in a Mini Cooper, a pickup truck, or a “smart car” which has no location not within reach of the passengers?

Because the law left gun owners at the mercy of any court that wanted to create their own definition, we requested that a firm and understandable definition be written into the law.

Because of your activism, we not only have a definition, but the bill also contains corrections in Oregon law that we have been seeking and you have been demanding.

As passed out of committee, not only does SB 603 provide a clear definition of the term “readily accessible” it also corrects Oregon law in two important areas that were clearly legislative mistakes. And none of this would have happened without your continued efforts. (If you are looking up the bill online, please keep in mind that the original posted on the legislative website is NOT the bill passed out of committee today.)

Current Oregon law says that a person with a felony conviction can ask the court to have his rights restored to BUY a firearm, but he may not OWN it! SB 603 corrects this error.

Current Oregon law says that a person with only one felony conviction, not involving a homicide or a weapons charge, automatically gets his firearms rights restored after 15 years. But ONLY to be free from being charged with “felon in possession.”  That person still faces the possibility of being charged with MISDEMEANOR unlawful possession. SB 603 corrects this error as well.

The bill now goes to the full  Senate. We suggest you contact your own State Senator and urge him to vote in favor of SB 603.  The bill will then have to go to the  House Judiciary Committee and the full House for a vote. We will keep you appraised of its progress. If you need to find your State Senator, please use this link. Your STATE senator will be the 4th name listed.

That is the good news.

The bad news is that HB 2463 a bill which would have recognized other states’ concealed handgun licenses has been twisted by some committee Democrats into an unrecognizable shadow of its original intent.  As modified by members of the committee, the bill would be useless window dressing. We believe the bill is almost certainly dead, guaranteeing that we will NOT have the benefits of more states recognizing our CHL’s that we would have under the original bill. We believe the Chairman of the Committee, Representative Jeff Barker made a good faith effort to move this bill, but was thwarted by other members of his party.

In the unlikely event that this bill moves, it will almost certainly serve no purpose for gun owners.

In addition, House Bill 2853 is scheduled for another “work session” tomorrow. This bill has also been altered so dramatically that the original language is completely gone. As amended, this horrible bill would force Oregon to comply with the NRA-sponsored federal bill HR 2640, that requires that the medical  mental health records of thousands of Oregonians be turned over to the anti-gun, Obama administration run, “National Instant Check System”  a vast federal database that regularly denies gun purchases to people with no disqualifying incidents. This is a very dangerous bill.  We think this will be moved to another committee and if it is we will ask that you contact that committee and urge that it be voted down.

Stay tuned. We’ll keep you informed.

House Bill 2463, a bill that would have recognized the concealed handgun licenses of other states, is in serious trouble.

As originally crafted, the bill would have allowed persons with concealed handgun licenses from any other state to carry firearms in Oregon. To our surprise and pleasure, the Oregon Sheriffs approved of the bill and it passed out of committee with an amendment to also allow persons who could lawfully carry in their home states WITHOUT LICENSES, to carry here.

The bill passed out of committee, but, as you know, House Democrats attacked it and it was returned to committee. That bill was due to have a “work session” today where it would have been voted on again.

However, amendments demanded by Democrats would now require that we would only accept licenses from states that accept ours or states which have “substantially similar” requirements to ours.

Because the State Police would be required to determine which other  states had “substantially similar requirements” they would have to be funded to do the research. In the current environment anything that has a cost will be far more difficult to pass, especially since so much of the State Police budget is on the chopping block. (Staffers at the State Police ID unit have been contacting gun dealers to warn them that the ID unit may be closed, turning background checks over to the Feds.)  As a result of the fiscal impact the new bill would have, and because the committee did not yet have the fiscal impact reports, the bill was pulled from the schedule today.

In addition to the obvious financial roadblocks created by the proposed amendments, it should be noted that when the CHL law was first changed in 1989, it had very similar language. At that time, Oregon could recognize any state’s license that was “substantially similar.” Guess how many the State Police approved of.  If you guessed zero, you would be right.

The State Police concluded that not a single state had provisions for a license that were good enough for Oregon. Not even New York City’s license was good enough.

Subsequently, as a result of the complete capitulation on the part of people claiming to represent gun owners in the 90’s, even the possibility of accepting other states’ licenses was removed from law.  The position of some gun groups at the time was, “well they won’t accept other licenses so we may as well let them take it out of the law.” And so, here we are again.

There is no question that the amendments were intended as a poison pill for this legislation. Not only will the fiscal impact almost certainly doom it, but history has shown that the State Police will not be inclined to accept a single other state’s license.

The Oregon Sheriffs have taken the position that they supported the original bill as the easiest, fairest way to deal with non-resident licenses. The Judiciary Committee could have simply allowed gun owners from any other state the option of applying for an Oregon CHL. Then, not only would it not have COST the  Police money, it could have MADE them money. Instead, they chose to write an amendment which will torpedo the intent of the bill, even in the unlikely event the fiscal impact does not doom it.

This is political game playing at its worst. Please contact the  House Judiciary Committee and urge them to vote on the original bill with no  “poison pill” amendments.

A sample message follows:

___________________________________________________________________

Dear Representative,

The proposed “dash 2” amendments to HB 2463 are little more than a disguised attempt to kill the bill.

At a time when the State Police budget is so in jeopardy that the ID unit itself may be forced to close, it’s highly unlikely that they will be able to fund the necessary research to determine which other states have requirements for CHL’s that are “substantially similar” to ours.

But even if money were not an issue, you should know that, in the past, Oregon law allowed us to recognize other states’ permits. At that time, it was the State Police who were to decide which licenses to accept. They refused to accept a single one.

I believe that the “dash 2” amendments are simply an effort to kill the bill. I urge you to vote “no” on the amendments and “yes” on the bill.

Yours,

_________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

On another note, for those of you who may have subjected yourself to the preposterous ABC anti-gun screed “If I Only Had A  Gun” you may want to have a look at some of the reprehensible methods ABC used to create their fantasy anti-gun piece.

It was an eventful week for gun rights, not only in Oregon, but nationally.

A bill to protect the privacy of concealed handgun license holders passed out of the House Judiciary Committee, although heavily watered down from its original language.

President Obama went to Mexico where he blamed their orgy of violence on the US and pledged to ratify a gun control treaty.

Obama, as expected, replayed the totally discredited lie that the murderous drug gangs in Mexico get “90%” of their guns from the United States.

While absurd, it plays well into the Obama administration’s efforts to impose draconian regulations on Americans. Obama did not mention that vast quantities of firearms made in the USA wind up in the hands of Mexican thugs when their police and military defect and join the drug gangs, bringing their US made weapons with them.  It should be noted that Obama has also pledged Blackhawk helicopters to the Mexican government.  It should not be long before we see those showing up in the hands of the drug cartels.

At the same time, the new head of the Department of “Homeland Security” issued a report stating that gun owners, pro-lifers, people who believed in secure borders and returning veterans, were prone to be dangerous “right wing extremists.”

The report coincided with a bill in the Oregon House to turn over thousands of private mental health records to the Obama administration with the express purpose of using them to prevent gun purchases.

The bill in question, HB 2853, said nothing about mental health records when it was written, but amendments were drafted (and more are coming) to “gut and stuff” the bill with extremely dangerous language to force Oregon into compliance with the NRA backed Brady expansion bill passed by the US Congress in 2007.

We have been able to delay action on this bill, but it is still scheduled to be heard, so it is essential that you contact the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee with the  simple message, “DO NOT HEAR HB 2853. Our private records should not be turned over to an administration that has pledged to eliminate gun rights.”

The bill to require Oregon to recognize other states’ concealed handgun licenses (which actually passed out of committee only to be withdrawn when committee Democrats objected) has been delayed numerous times and, although is now scheduled for a work session, may not survive. If it does, it’s safe to say it will be amended into something far from its original intention. This is extremely unfortunate, since even the sheriffs, who for years fought this concept, are now on board. Once again, committee Democrats are attempting, behind the scenes, to dilute this bill. We will not know what their intentions are until the proposed amendments are available, which may not be until the day the bill is voted on in committee.

On the Senate side, SB 603, a bill we requested to define the term “not readily accessible” for purposes of carrying a handgun in your car, was scheduled for Monday but now has been rescheduled for Thursday the 23d of April. Legislative schedules are changing on an hourly basis, so we cannot tell you with any certainty if this bill will be heard on that date or changed once again.

The Chairman of the committee slated to hear that bill, Senator Floyd Prozanski had led us to believe he would also hear SB 573. This was an incredibly simple bill that did nothing more than fix a previous legislative screw-up.

Currently Oregon law says that a person with a felony conviction can ask the court to have her rights restored to buy a firearm. So, someone who made a mistake, or violated one of the thousands and thousands of rules that can make you a felon, could go to a court, demonstrate that they had turned their life around, and ask for permission to have their rights restored.

Keep in mind, they could only “ask.” There is not a guarantee their request would be granted.

But here’s the problem. While that person could request permission to BUY a firearm, current Oregon law still forbids them from OWNING it.  It’s clearly an error, But in spite of numerous e-mails, phone calls and personal meetings with Prozanski (at his request), we could never get him to understand that the law simply makes no sense.

Prozanski is an attorney and a prosecutor, but he continued to mix up this section of the law, with a completely different section of the law that is supposed to return gun rights after 15 years to a person with only one felony.

That section of the law also contains errors. In that section, a person with only one felony (which did not involve a homicide or a weapon) AUTOMATICALLY, gets their gun rights back after 15 years. But only to no longer face “felony in possession” charges. They can still be charged with “misdemeanor unlawful possession.”

Multiple attempts to address THAT mistake have gone nowhere with this legislature.

Frankly, we are baffled by Prozanski’s refusal to address what is clearly an error in the law.

The deadline for scheduling bills was today at 5 PM. Prozanski has chosen to ignore this simple but important bill.

While it is still possible for the bill to move ahead if extraordinary steps are taken, right now it’s almost certain that the bill is dead.

No matter what your position on gun ownership is, it is hard to explain why a legislator would prefer to protect a law that simply makes no sense.

Finally, a bill that would have allowed CHL holders to bypass background checks has been delayed and rescheduled, as have many. We cannot predict which bills will be heard or when. The fact that they appear on a schedule is no guarantee that they will be acted on. But, should any action take place, we will let you know.

CHL PRIVACY BILL MOVES OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH MASSIVE AMENDMENTS.

Happy tax day.

Today, thousands of Oregonians gathered on the steps of the Capitol and demanded a return to rational government.  Despite what some mainstream media outlets have reported, the crowd was tremendous and enthusiastic.  Inside, a bill of great importance to many Oregon gun owners was being rendered unrecognizable.

House Bill 2727, a bill OFF has been working on since before the current session began, passed out of the House Judiciary Committee today.

The bill in no way resembles the original, clean and simple bill that Representative Kim Thatcher worked so hard and long to produce.

The bill is now a much longer, more complicated measure with far fewer protections for gun owners. While we believe that the bill as amended won’t hurt gun owners, in many respects it was simply a great leap…sideways.

The bill is no longer a “gun owners” bill. Now it simply empowers sheriffs to withhold license holders’ personal information if they want to, and release it if they want to.

The amendments, written by Democrat Judy Stielger, leave far to many options for abuse.

The amendments were adopted by the entire committee with the exception of Representative Kevin Cameron who supported the original bill and took a principled stand and voted NO on the amendments. We applaud Representative Cameron for standing up for gun rights and we want to thank Representative Kim Thatcher for months of hard work. She tried her best to pass the best bill she could. In the end, politics won out over policy.

The bill now moves to the full House.

Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a work session on HB 2991, a bill which would exempt CHL holders from background checks for firearms purchases. Based on how this session has unfolded, that bill could easily be pulled from the schedule. We will let you know.