HOW WE MOVE AHEAD.
As you know, three pro-gun bills requested by OFF have passed the Oregon House by wide margins.
HB 2797, our motorcycle/ATV bill, passed without a single “no” vote on Thursday. This bill is so simple and uncontroversial that it is hard to imagine anyone except Ginny Burdick opposing it.
The two other bills, however, HB 2787 and HB 2792, face major hurdles in the Senate. Both of these bills have been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
HB 2787 is the bill that would protect the privacy of CHL holders. While it’s difficult to imagine why anyone would want to force public disclosure of this information, a few Senate Democrats are demanding just that. In an email Senator Ginny Burdick offered this bizarre justification for her efforts to kill this legislation:
“Throughout my time as a State Senator I have fought to strengthen our public records and transparency statutes. I support protecting our existing public records legislation.
If HB 2787 is passed, victims of domestic violence will be unable to check if their attackers carry a concealed weapon. In addition, there will be no way to monitor whether Sheriffs are administering the concealed handgun license requirements correctly.
Thank you for contacting my office. Please feel free to call or email with any further questions or concerns.“
This is patently and obviously absurd. Victims of domestic violence are unable to tell if their attackers are carrying concealed weapons now. Persons guilty of domestic violence are not allowed to own guns, let alone get CHLs. Furthermore, the real danger to domestic violence victims is when THEIR personal information is revealed by exposing these records. The fact is that Burdick is a bigot who simply hates gun owners, even those who have jumped through significant government hoops to exercise a “right.” But at the moment, Burdick is pulling the strings.
(It might be interesting to see how many legislators who voted against CHL privacy are willing to post their home addresses, telephone numbers and drug use history.)
The Chairman of the Senate Committee, to which HB 2787 has been assigned, has informed us that “his caucus” is opposed to the bill. However, he himself was a co-sponsor of very similar legislation in 2009 and other Democrats have publicly stated they support the bill.Ther is every indication that it is simply the hysterical ravings of Ginny Burdick that have cowed Chairman Prozanski into backing off this bill.
A Senate Bill with the same language has already been heard in his committee and Prozanski scheduled a work session to adopt a few short amendments that would have made the Senate Bill identical to the passed House Bill. It was this Senate Bill that Prozanski told us he had to pull from the schedule because of opposition from his “caucus.”
Now the House Bill has been assigned to his committee and it is going to be up to us to get it heard and passed. It is simply outrageous that one zealot in the Senate is holding up this important legislation for no other reason than her hatred for gun owners and her anger about being unable to pass any anti-gun legislation for all the years she has been in the legislature.
We can still do this. We just have to turn up the heat.
As those of you who take action may have learned, some legislators have taken to writing back to activists saying things like “we have forwarded your concerns to your own legislator.” This is their way of informing you that they know you are not from their district. (Although more and more they are forwarding your concerns to the wrong legislator.) Should you care? No.
First of all, whether a legislator is “yours” or not, they still cast votes that affect your freedom. They are still responsible for what they do. Second, while it’s true that you may not be able to cast a vote against them at election time, you still can very much ute to their defeat. You can make a ution to whoever runs against them, or ute to PACs like ours, which can work to defeat them.
Not everyone who supports OFF and OFFPAC lives in Judy Stiegler’s old district, but many of you uted to her defeat. So never be put off by a legislator who claims to be indifferent to your concerns because you don’t live in his district.
Right now, the House is split exactly in half. The Senate is 16/14 in favor of Democrats. While we have plenty of Democrats voting correctly, it is still mostly Democrats voting against gun rights. (And one Republican, Vicki Berger.) That means that a single seat change in either House could vastly change the outlook for gun rights. Democrats know this and know that you can ute to ANY race. So disregard any implication that your concerns don’t matter.
That being said, it’s time to redouble our efforts to protect the privacy of CHL holders. The man standing in the way of a hearing on HB 2787 is still Floyd Prozanski. As a co-sponsor of similar legislation in the past, and someone who has already held hearings on CHL privacy, we think it’s safe to say that Prozanski supports the concept of privacy for Oregon’s most law-abiding gun owners. But he’s being pushed around by a handful of bigoted militants. It’s time, once again, to let Prozanski know how important this bill is to people who believe in liberty and privacy. Please make your voice heard.
Contact info and a sample message follow.
Senator Floyd Prozanski
Party: D District: 4
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1704
District Phone: 541-342-2447
Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, S-417, Salem, OR, 97301
District Office Address: PO Box 11511, Eugene, OR, 97440
Email: sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us
Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/prozanski
__________________________________________________
Dear Senator Prozanski,
I am aware that you have chosen to kill Senate Bill 582. Now, its companion bill, HB 2787, has been assigned to your committee.
As you know, HB 2787 passed overwhelmingly in the House with support from both parties and all Oregon Sheriffs. As you also know, CHL holders come from both parties and one thing they all agree on is that their personal, private information should not be made available to anyone looking for a mailing list, or any media outlet with an ax to grind against gun owners. This is a nonpartisan issue in a closely divided legislature. No matter what district a voter is in, this is the kind of issue that makes people ute to the opponents of those who seek to invade their privacy.
I strongly urge you to look past the few militants who oppose anything they view as “pro-gun” and stand up for the rights and privacy of gun owners as you did when you co-sponsored similar legislation in 2009.
Yours,
_________________
____________________________________________________