As you know, the 2011 session of the Oregon Legislature ended on June 30. It was a session with mixed results.
While the Oregon Legislature refused to act on a bill that would have transferred background checks to the NICS system (which has a far better track record than our State Police) we were able to beat back legislation that would have dramatically increased fees for background checks for gun purchases and concealed handgun licenses. While the Oregon State Senate voted (on strict party lines) to allow sensitive, personal information about CHL holders to remain public, bills to outlaw many ammunition magazines and firearms without “loaded chamber indicators,” as well as a bill to force you to lock up your self defense guns, went nowhere. Although several good bills were passed by the evenly divided House, when the Democratically controlled Senate trashed the bills, the House rolled over without much of a fight.
Only one piece of gun legislation passed and it was at best a mixed blessing. Because of the confusion surrounding that bill, I’ll start by telling you the bill’s history and what it does, and after that explain all the things the legislature failed to do.
House Bill 2792 started life as a simple measure to recognize the concealed carry permits of other states. The bill passed through the House Judiciary Committee over the objections of several anti-gun House members who claimed we should not accept licenses from other states that fail to meet our lofty requirements. The full House voted to pass the bill with 40 “yes” votes. Voting “no” were House Reps Barnhart, Beyer, Buckley, Cannon, Dembrow, Doherty, Frederick, Greenlick, Harker, Holvey, Hunt, Kotek, Nathanson, Nolan, Read, Smith J. and Tomei.
The bill was then sent to Floyd Prozanski’s Senate Judiciary Committee. There, Prozanski removed 100% of the language dealing with other states’licenses and replaced it with language that did two unrelated things. First, he inserted language that we had created clarifying how a person can lawfully carry a handgun on a motorcycle, ATV or snowmobile. That was the good news, but many are still confused by what changes actually take place under this law, should it be signed by the Governor.
Currently no one, not even a police officer, can carry a “loaded” firearm on a snowmobile or ATV. The problem is the current law does not define what “loaded” or “unloaded” means. Under the new language in HB 2792 the term “unloaded” now means the following:
If the firearm is a revolver, that there is no live cartridge in the chamber that is aligned with the hammer of the revolver;
If the firearm is a muzzle-loading firearm, that the firearm is not capped or primed;
or if the firearm is other than a revolver or a muzzle-loading firearm, that there is no live cartridge in the chamber.
Under the new law, even these restrictions will not apply to CHL holders, who will be allowed to carry handguns on ATV’s and snowmobiles fully loaded and concealed.
For motorcycle riders without CHLs they now have a definition of how they can transport a handgun on a motorcycle. Since concealed handguns may not be “readily accessible” for those without CHL’s, the bill, for the first time, defines the term “not readily accessible” as it applies to motorcycles (on or off the road) and ATV’s and snowmobiles. The definition of “ not readily accessible” under this bill is:
If the vehicle is a motorcycle, an all-terrain vehicle or a snowmobile, a handgun is not readily accessible within the meaning of this section if:
The handgun is in a locked container within or affixed to the vehicle; or
The handgun is equipped with a trigger lock or other locking mechanism that prevents the discharge of the firearm.
So the short version is, if you have a CHL you can now carry fully loaded handguns on snowmobiles or ATV’s. If you do not have a CHL you may carry on your motorcycle if the gun is locked, or on a snowmobile or ATV if there is no round in the chamber or the handgun is in a locked container or has a trigger lock.
This clarification is the good news. The bad news is that the bill greatly complicated and confused the process for having rights restored if you had a felony conviction. In 2009, Floyd Prozanski drafted a bill (at our request) to clarify how a person with a felony conviction could seek gun rights restoration. That bill, SB 603, passed both Houses without a single “no” vote. It was a simple, straightforward process. You petitioned the court for rights restoration and, if you could demonstrate that you deserved to have your rights restored, the court could do it.
But Prozanski, who apparently cannot even understand the bills he drafts himself, changed his mind after the Governor signed the bill. Now, he became convinced, we would not only be arming “murderers and rapists” but we would be forced to give guns to people who were still in jail.
It does not take a legal scholar to determine that this accusation is absurd but it may be no more absurd than the false and defamatory accusations Prozanski made that the Oregon Firearms Federation was sending out “Photoshopped” pictures of him to “berate” him, a charge that is not only untrue, but borderline paranoid and delusional.
In the 2010 “special session” Prozanski tried and failed to repeal his own bill. Now in 2011, his false charges about “arming murderers and rapists” found a more receptive audience. The very legislators (meaning all of them) who voted for SB 603 in 2009 now started fearing that it would become a “campaign issue.” This is odd, since not only was it never a campaign issue but the Oregon House voted in 2010 to prevent its repeal.
After Prozanski “gut and stuffed” HB 2792, it passed the Judiciary Committee with the support of the only two Republicans on the committee, Jeff Kruse and Doug Whitsett. It then passed on the full Senate floor (with only Senator Larry George stepping up to vote “no,”) and was sent back to the House where the House could choose to concur with the changes or refuse to. The House voted not to concur, a seemingly positive sign. Because the House refused to concur, a “conference committee” was formed. There in the conference committee, the House members of the committee voted to accept virtually the same bill they had voted not to concur with on the floor. The only difference was a totally meaningless and minor change that had no effect on what the bill would do. It was a pointless sideshow.
When the bill came back to the House floor, the bill’s own sponsor, Kim Thatcher, refused to support this now mangled bill. She was joined in her “no” vote by House Republicans Bentz, Conger, Huffman, Sprenger, Thompson, Weidner and Whisnant. The final bill passed the House with 45 votes and the Senate with 24 votes.
HB 2791 was a bill to remove the Oregon State Police as the “point of contact” for gun purchase background checks. Recently, the State Police, who sought to almost triple their fees for background checks, have seen a large spike in complaints because of poor service and delays. The bill would have turned background checks over to the NICS system, which has (surprisingly perhaps) a very good record of speedy approvals. In addition, NICS does not charge a fee and does not keep records of the serial number of the purchased gun. This was another bill sponsored by pro-gun heroine Kim Thatcher. (A similar bill was introduced in the Senate by Larry George.)
The bill passed out of the House Judiciary Committee. It was predictably opposed by anti-gun zealots Mary Nolan and Carolyn Tomie who were joined (much to our surprise) by normally pro-gun Andy Olson. The bill would have failed there except for a courtesy vote by Chris Garrett. Garrett is not in any way a consistent supporter of gun rights, but because the one more pro-gun vote we needed, Gene Whisnant, was out of the room, Garrett cast his vote in favor of the bill as a courtesy to Whisnant. We don’t know if Garrett would have voted in favor of the bill had it made it to the floor, but his vote in committee was something we appreciated. As it turns out, it never made it to the floor. The bill was sent to the Ways and Means Committee. There, after testimony from a handful of public employee union representatives, the bill was never acted on. Their testimony was that if a few public employees who worked at the Oregon State Police ID unit lost their jobs, the Oregon economy would collapse. Their alarmist assertions had the desired effect. More fearful of the public employee unions than the voters, the legislators allowed the bill to die. As a result we will continue to pay for a background check that more and more frequently leaves qualified buyers waiting weeks or months for an approval.
HB 2797 was another bill by pro-gun champion Kim Thatcher. This was the bill that was originally designed to clarify motorcycle, ATV, and snowmobile language. A simple and understandable bill, it passed the House without a single “no” vote. Then it was sent to Prozanski’s gun bill graveyard. With the support of Senate President Peter Courtney, the bill’s original language was stripped out and replaced with language confusing the process for gun rights restoration, and banning concealed carry by license holders on school property, including college campuses. This provision has been the obsession of the militant anti-gunners for many years. This became the worst bill to be considered in the 2011 session. Every Democrat on the committee voted in favor of this now very dangerous bill. The Democrats voting to ban self defense on school property were Prozanski, Bonamici and Dingfelder. Frankly we were eager to have this bill go to the Senate floor for a vote. Had that happened, we would have had a recorded vote on a really bad bill. Senate President Peter Courtney, while not particularly ethical, had the political savvy to keep this bill away from a vote and thus accountability for his caucus. The bill died in the Rules Committee where Courtney sent it to prevent a vote.
There were a number of bills designed to protect the private information of concealed handgun license holders.
HB 2787, another Kim Thatcher bill, passed the House Judiciary Committee on a 7-3 vote. Voting against CHL privacy were Reps Garrett, Nolan and Tomei.
The bill then passed the full House with wide bipartisan support. There were 42 “yes” votes. Voting against CHL privacy were House Reps Bailey, Barnhart, Berger, Buckley, Cannon, Cowan, Dembrow, Doherty, Frederick, Garrett, Gelser, Greenlick, Harker, Holvey, Kotek, Nolan, Read, and Tomei. Vicki Berger was the only Republican to vote against privacy.
HB 2787 suffered the same fate as the other pro-gun bills. After passing with a wide majority in the House, it went to Prozanski’s committee where he refused to take any action on it. It died there in his Judiciary Committee.
One day before the end of the session, the Senate Republicans made one last ditch effort to protect the privacy of CHL holders. Senate Bill 582 was a CHL privacy bill sponsored by Senator Doug Whitsett. Floyd Prozanski would not allow that bill to move either. Republican Senator Ted Ferrioli made a motion on the Senate floor to withdraw the bill from Prozanski’s committee and send it directly to the floor for a vote. Make no mistake, while characterized as a “procedural vote” by the Senate Democrats who voted “no,” this was a straight vote on the privacy of CHL holders. The motion failed on a party line vote. Voting against the privacy of CHL holders were Senators Bates, Beyer, Bonamici, Burdick, Devlin, Dingfelder, Edwards, Hass, Johnson, Monnes Anderson, Monroe, Prozanski, Rosenbaum, Shields, Verger, and President Courtney.
One thing is clear from the outcome of this legislative session. Far too many legislators care more for their “leadership” and caucuses than the people they were hired to represent. Far too few are willing to stand up for what is right rather than for what they think will sell well at election time. While a small minority like House Rep Kim Thatcher, work for the good of Oregon gun owners, too many make decisions based on what they expect to be tag lines in campaign material.
Although good legislation was passed out of an evenly divided House, the Senate repeatedly trashed that legislation to please the hardcore anti-gunners in their midst. Floyd Prozanski was allowed to ruin every pro-gun bill at the urging of the militants like Senators Dingfelder, Bonamici and Burdick. Of course, Senate President Peter Courtney gave his blessings to the entire sorry spectacle. While regularly giving soaring speeches about the grand accomplishments of his beloved Senate, Courtney gave his approval to defamatory and delusional lies that Prozanski was spreading about OFF and its members. When the Senate mangled good legislation passed by the House, the House was all too eager to roll over and accept the damage done leaving gun owners largely twisting in the wind.
In much of the country, state legislatures are strengthening protections for gun owners. In Oregon, our legislature is working to restrict our rights. While other states are implementing legislation to protect gun owners on college campuses, our legislature is trying to make our college students more vulnerable. Even as the Federal Government is helping to move guns to Mexican drug cartels, our own Oregon State Police are approving massive buys of firearms by obvious “straw purchasers” and delaying the sale of a single gun to people who are entirely qualified to buy. Gun owners in Oregon are facing efforts at major new restrictions while most of the rest of the country is moving towards more liberty for gun owners.
There is no question that we have our work cut out for us. The one way to counter the efforts of the gun grabbers in the Oregon Legislature is to make sure they are more concerned about the voters than they are about the bureaucrats. We’ve done a pretty good job for over 10 years. Most efforts at restricting gun rights have failed in the time you, as OFF members, have been making your voices heard. But it’s clear that we are still facing some powerful opposition.
The only reason we don’t have privacy for CHL holders, and a welcoming policy for gun owners from other states is because our elected “representatives” are more concerned about their committee assignments and their relations with their legislative bosses than they are about your rights. But it does not have to be that way.
Ever since our first legislative session as a voice for gun owners 12 years ago, the members of OFF have been a force to be reckoned with. Time after time we have defied the conventional wisdom that said the only way to accomplish anything in the political arena was to “make deals” and compromise our rights. From our victory over the 1999 gun-show restrictions to our defeats of gun and magazine bans and our success killing “no self defense in school” laws, OFF has been the most successful and feared gun lobby in Oregon history, but let’s face it, we have lots more to do.
You have accomplished much in a state controlled by a small geographic area with a large population of freedom haters. You have prevailed against amazing odds. That’s why I am so proud to count you as an ally in this battle. Together, I am convinced we can do more.
The Oregon Legislature now meets every year. That’s not necessarily a good thing, but we can make it an opportunity. With your help, OFF can be bigger, stronger and more effective. I hope I can count on your continued support.
As we end this session and prepare for another in February, I hope you will consider the most generous ution you can afford to make sure OFF remains the only “no-compromise” voice for gun owners in Oregon.
Your gift of $100.00, $50.00 or even $25.00 will make an important difference in our ability to keep you the most informed and active gun owners in the state. No organization provides the accurate and timely information that OFF members get through our email alerts and website. No state or national organization comes close to the rapid and thorough analysis you get from OFF. No one provides the means for easy rapid response to legislative threats.
Because of your efforts, the most dangerous threats to our liberties were, once again, stopped in their tracks, but I know that like me, you want to move forward.
I am pleased that we were able to be the most vocal pro-gun organization in the state once again. I would very much like to put the anti-freedom militants on the defensive. I hope I can count on your help.
Yours in liberty,
Kevin Starrett
Executive Director
P.S. In spite of the lies spread by Senator Floyd Prozanski we have not used our regular legislative alerts this session to ask for utions. Now, as we close out this session we do need to ask for your help. With a new session coming in February, we can only stay in this fight with your assistance. Please consider uting whatever you can to make sure we are there in the fight for your rights.