Author: OFF

This legislative session has seen a large number of firearms-related bills, both good and bad. But it’s no trick to get bills introduced; the typical session may see 4000 of them. The real challenge is to get any of them to go anywhere.

As of now several bills are scheduled for action in their house of origin, in this case the Oregon House. Keep in mind, this is just one of many steps on the long road to a bill becoming a law.

Three gun bills are scheduled for action on March 8th in the House Judiciary Committee. Two of those bills, HB 2792 and HB 2787, have already received hearings and are scheduled for “work sessions” where bills are amended and adopted. A third bill will receive its first public hearing. That is HB 2797.

To recap, HB 2792 recognizes other states’ concealed handgun licenses.

HB 2787 protects the privacy of concealed handgun license holders.

HB 2797 addresses the problem with Oregon law that forbids anyone to carry a loaded firearm on a snowmobile or ATV (but does not even define what “loaded” means) and also corrects the flaw in Oregon Statute that allows no practical, legal way to transport a handgun on a motorcycle unless the rider has a CHL. This is one of several bills dealing with carry on ATVs but the only one that deals with the motorcycle problem.  OFF requested this bill after a Senate bill in 2009 inadvertently dropped the motorcycle language. We ask that you contact the committee and request that they support all three bills.

Also scheduled for that meeting is HB 3100, a bill which modifies the jurisdiction of the “Psychiatric Security Review Board.”  While this is not a “gun bill”, we are paying close attention to this body since now, thanks to the NRA, it has a lot of control over gun owners and it has shown no interest in protecting gun owners’ rights.

There is a strong likelihood that the three gun bills will pass out of committee, although HB 2797 will not likely be acted on on the 8th. But anything can happen and there is always the potential for damaging amendments or other problems. So we are asking that you contact the committee urging support for all three bills.

That being said it is important to note that committee schedules can change at any time, right up until the very last minute. If you plan to attend the hearing, make sure you double-check that there have been no scheduling changes.

It’s safe to say that the two members of the Judiciary Committee least likely to support gun rights are Carolyn Tomei and Mary Nolan.  But, if the committee does pass any or all of these bills, the measures will then have to pass the full House. If we prevail there, the whole process starts again in the Senate Judiciary Committee whose Chairman, Floyd Prozanski, is not at all friendly to gun rights. We fully expect a battle to get any of these bills heard in his committee.

While we are making progress, we still have a lot of work to do. There are other bills in the House that have NOT been scheduled for a hearing and they only will be if you let the co-chairs of House Judiciary know they are important. These bills should not be seen as controversial, but they could easily become bargaining chips if we don’t make our voices heard. A brief review of them follows:

HB 2791  Removes Department of State Police as designated state point of contact for purposes of National Instant Criminal Background Check System. 

There is a companion bill for this in the Senate, SB 934.

Recently, the OSP has greatly increased the time it takes to conduct a standard background check with dealers often waiting over an hour to get through to the ID unit. You can imagine the strain this puts on business and it’s even worse at gun shows.  Furthermore, a problem we thought we had solved in the past has come back with a vengeance. The incidence of complaints about unjustified delays on approvals has shot back up after having come down significantly. That’s why we want the State Police out of the background check business. That and their stated intention to TRIPLE their fees.  (Slow downs, price increases…coincidence? You decide.)

HB 2793  Modifies definition of public place for purpose of certain city or county ordinances related to possession of loaded firearms.

In 2008 the Oregon Appeals Court turned our “preemption statue” on its ear by concluding that your car must be treated like a “public place.” Thus all the protections gun owners thought they had while traveling from place to place were gone and you could easily find yourself breaking some local code or rule because you drove into a locality with its own gun restrictions. Localities may only restrict guns in “public places” but who thinks their car is one? This important bill would reverse this problem and once again protect traveling gun owners.

HB 2789  Authorizes issuance of concealed handgun license to person convicted or diverted for certain marijuana offenses in another jurisdiction if conviction or diversion is equivalent to conviction or diversion that does not operate as bar to obtaining license under Oregon law.

Oregon law allows a person with ONE conviction or ONE diversion for a small amount of marijuana to apply for a concealed handgun license. But, that conviction or diversion MUST have been in Oregon and MUST have been AFTER 1973. So a person with a minor out-of-state conviction or someone whose incident was almost 40 years old is locked out. We think this is an oversight and not fair. HB 2789 would correct that problem.

There are numerous other gun-related bills in the hopper, but we think these should generate the least controversy and should not be held hostage to the process. But they will only move forward with your help.

We’ve included two sample messages below. One is to the entire House Judiciary Committee asking for speedy action, on the bills being dealt with on March 8th. The second is to the Committee Chairs, asking for hearings on the three important bills described above. Please feel free to modify them to suit your style, and thanks for your continued activism.
__________________________________________________________

Dear Representative,

Your committee will soon be dealing with House Bills 2787, 2792 and 2797. These bills safeguard the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.

They are commonsense bills that deserve your vote. I urge quick passage and your support for them on the House floor.

Thank you,

__________________________

____________________________________________________________

Co-Chair Jeff Barker  rep.jeffbarker@state.or.us
Co-Chair Wayne Krieger  rep.waynekrieger@state.or.us

Dear Mr. Co-Chair.

Thank you for your continued advocacy for gun owners in Oregon. I request that you consider hearings on House Bills 2791, 2793 and 2789. These bills are not controversial and will further protect the rights of firearms owners in the state.

Thank you for your consideration

______________________

_____________________________________________________________

CBS News has produced a segment on the outrageous and deadly actions of the BATFE who have been expediting the transfer of thousands of firearms to Mexican drug cartels.

Those weapons are now being used against US Agents on the border. (More from Gun Owners of America here.)

While we welcome any attention from the establishment media, we think it’s essential that gun owners know who did the work that led to this story finally seeing the light of day.

It’s been a long time coming, but the tireless and courageous efforts of Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars and our friend David Codrea of Gun Rights Examiner are behind this story finally getting some mainstream airtime.

Needless to say, the ATF will use whatever means and methods available to them to cover up the truth and intimidate the whistle blowers. But thanks to David and Mike, the truth is out there.

As expected, if a bit later than expected, the Oregon legislature (well some Oregon legislators who don’t want their names used) have introduced or drafted new anti-rights bills.

If you recall, in 2009, we passed SB 603 which not only defined the term “readily accessible” for the purposes of having a handgun in your car, but also corrected the weird anomaly in Oregon law that allowed a person with a felony conviction to petition to have his rights restored to BUY a gun but was still forbidden from OWNING it.

That bill passed both houses without a single “no” vote (actually passing the Senate twice) and was signed into law by the Governor.  During the 2010 “special” session, the person responsible for SB 603, Senator Floyd Prozanski, decided he’d made a terrible mistake and tried to reverse it. Your activism prevented that from happening. But he promised to be back, and now he is with SB 762.

762 will forbid anyone from seeking firearms rights restoration for 10 years after conviction or completion of sentence, whichever is later. Since 603 passed, some persons with felony convictions have successfully gotten their rights restored, and some have not, proving the new law was working. We have heard of no cases where a person got his rights restored and then committed a crime with a gun. And when you think about it, why would someone with criminal intent go to a court and ask to legally be able to own guns?  We will keep you posted on this bill’s progress.

There are two other new  pieces of anti-gun legislation that only exist as drafts at this point. They will, no doubt, be in bill form shortly.

The are LC 1668 and LC 3368.

1668 is one more attempt at a “lock up your self defense” law.

3368 outlaws the “transfer for consideration” of “large capacity” magazines. Presumably you can still give them away. And of course, the ban would not apply to police. While neither of these drafts have anyone’s name attached to them, we’re willing to go way out on a limb and guess who’s behind them.

We are still working to get hearings on several bills we consider important this session including HB 2789, HB 2791, HB 2793 and HB 2797.

Your continued efforts to get hearings on these bills is greatly appreciated.

 

On Friday, February 18th, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear HB 2999.

The bill “Authorizes persons engaged in lawful activity to stand ground and use force in self-defense”.

Obviously this is an important piece of legislation and deserves your support. You may contact the House Judiciary Committee members with messages of support.

Please keep in mind, if you plan to attend the hearing, that committee schedules can change at the last minute. It’s always a good idea to check the schedule before you come to the hearing.  You can see committee schedules here.

On the same day another bill is scheduled.  That bill is HB 3100. This bill  “Modifies jurisdiction of Psychiatric Security Review Board”.

While this may not seem like a bill that gun owners should be concerned about, or even watching, we plan to keep a close eye on it.  In 2009, the legislature passed, against our protests, HB 2853.

You can read our alerts about this bill in our alerts archived here.

You can see how the 2009 Oregon House voted here.

We call your attention especially to this alert.

In it we warned  “We are quite sure that this bill, which will put us into compliance with the Federal Bill HR 2640, will cause more people to be denied legitimate firearms transfers. More people will face the inconvenience and burden of trying to prove that they are allowed to exercise a “right.” Some of those people will now be forced to ask for relief from the “psychiatric review board.”

Unfortunately we were 100% right.  The “psychiatric review board.” has now ensnared, as we predicted, Oregonians who are entirely qualified to purchase guns. They have created a byzantine system that all but assures no one who petitions them will have the resources to have their rights returned and put  people who should never have been under their jurisdiction through hell. As such, we plan to pay careful attention to any bill that deals with the powers of this agency.

As of now, we have been unable to impress upon the people who passed this bill, the mess they have created. But we will continue to work on it. You could easily find yourself in this nightmare.

Stay tuned. We hope that our efforts will convince the supporters of this ghastly legislation to work to correct their mistakes. If not, we will count on your efforts to help them  “see the light.”

The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled three more pro-gun bills to be heard Feb 16 at 1 p.m.  Those bills are listed and linked below.

These are public hearings so you are welcome and invited to give testimony, but we would urge you to contact the Judiciary Committee members even if you cannot attend.

Sample cut and paste message at the bottom of this alert. Please feel free to alter it.

HB 3001 FIRST PUBLIC HEARING – Requires Department of State Police to destroy records obtained during criminal records checks within 24 hours of approving certain transfers of firearms.

REMOVED FROM SCHEDULE.

HB 3002 FIRST PUBLIC HEARING – Provides nonresidents who are licensed to carry concealed handgun in another state with protections provided to persons with Oregon concealed handgun license if other state used National Instant Criminal Background Check System prior to issuing person’s handgun license.

We support expanding our recognition to all states. This bill is not as strong as HB 2792, due to be heard on Feb 9, but could be a step in the right direction.

HB 2506 FIRST PUBLIC HEARING – Allows person holding concealed handgun license to operate all-terrain vehicle while carrying loaded handgun.

This bill is a less complete version of HB 2797 which would also fix the current error in Oregon law which does not allow for lawful transport of handguns on motorcycles for those who do not have CHL’s. It also does not address loaded carry on ATV’s and snowmobiles for those without CHL’s. Not a bad bill, but not as effective as HB 2797 which we prefer.

_____________________________________________________________________

Dear Representative,

Oregon Firearms Federation informs me that your committee will be holding hearings on several firearms-related bills on Feb 16. Thank you for considering this important legislation.

HB 3002 would expand our recognition of other states’ concealed handgun licenses. This is an important step forward and would actually benefit Oregon license holders. However, I believe HB 2792, which you will be hearing on Feb 9, does a better and more complete job of achieving this worthwhile goal.

HB 2506 allows persons with concealed handgun licenses to ride ATV’s and snowmobiles with a loaded handgun. While I strongly support this improvement, it does not address the fact that persons without CHL’s are still forbidden from having a loaded firearm on a snowmobile or an ATV even if there is no round in the chamber and there is no chance for an accidental discharge.

I would like to point out that current law does not even make an exception to the “no loaded guns on ATV’s” rule for on-duty police officers. I would urge you to consider HB 2797, which addresses loaded carry on ATV’s and snowmobiles AND corrects the current law, which allows for no lawful way to carry a handgun on a motorcycle if you do not have a CHL.

Thank you,
___________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

IT’S SHOWTIME

The first of what may be many hearings on gun related bills has been scheduled.

The following bills have been scheduled to be heard in the House Judiciary Committee on February 9th at 1PM.

These are PUBLIC hearings. If you feel strongly about any of these bills, please come and testify. The bills will be heard in room 343. (Committee schedules are subject to change. You can get the latest schedules here.)

HB 2080 FIRST PUBLIC HEARING – Requires that certain court orders indicate that person subject to order is barred from possessing, receiving, shipping or transporting firearm or firearm ammunition.

Frankly we don’t know just where they are going with this bill, but we will certainly be there watching it.

THIS BILL HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE SCHEDULE.

HB 2415 FIRST PUBLIC HEARING – Directs Department of State Police to adopt rules identifying states that allow holder of Oregon concealed handgun license to carry concealed handgun and have substantially similar eligibility requirements.

This bill allows the state police to recognize other states’ licenses if they, the State Police, consider the other states’ license “worthy.”  While we can always hope, this is an idea that has failed spectacularly in the past. Let’s just recognize everyone. (As in HB 2792 below.)

HB 2787 FIRST PUBLIC HEARING – Prohibits public body from releasing information that identifies holder of or applicant for concealed handgun license.

Simple, straightforward and long overdue, this bill, shot down by extremist Democrats in 2009, would protect license holders from the snooping eyes of anti-gun organizations and agenda-driven media outlets like the Medford Mail Tribune. The Sheriff’s Association actually requested that this bill be listed as “at their request.”  Clearly we are making progress.

HB 2792 FIRST PUBLIC HEARING – Provides nonresidents who are authorized to carry concealed handgun in another state with protections provided to persons with Oregon concealed handgun license.

Commonsense legislation that was torpedoed in 2009 by Democrat Judy Steigler. She has now been returned to private practice thanks to gun owners in Bend. This is a great bill, we encourage your support.

Whether or not you can attend the hearing, we ask that you contact the House Judiciary Committee expressing your support for HB 2787 and 2792.

Contact info and a sample cut and paste message follow. Please feel free to modify it.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Dear Representative,

Your Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear two important bills on February 9th. I am writing to urge your support for House Bills 2787 and 2792.

HB 2787 is long overdue legislation to protect the privacy of concealed handgun license holders. There is no reason this information should be public. These are not records of government activity. This is private information of people who were compelled by law to disclose it in order to exercise a “right.”  This information should no more be public than income tax returns.

HB 2792 simply recognizes concealed handgun licenses from other states, much as we recognize driver’s licences. In 2009, the Oregon Sheriffs came out in strong support of this concept.  I urge you to pass both these bills through your committee.

Yours,

______________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Contact Info for House Judiciary Committee Members

Jeff Barker, Co-Chair  rep.jeffbarker@state.or.us

Wayne Krieger, Co-Chair  rep.waynekrieger@state.or.us

Chris Garrett, Co-Vice Chair  rep.chrisgarrett@state.or.us

Wally Hicks, Co-Vice Chair  rep.wallyhicks@state.or.us

Mary Nolan  rep.marynolan@state.or.us

Andy Olson  rep.andyolson@state.or.us

Mike Schaufler rep.mikeschaufler@state.or.us

Carolyn Tomei  rep.carolyntomei@state.or.us

Matt Wand rep.mattwand@state.or.us

Gene Whisnant    rep.genewhisnant@state.or.us

The most pro-gun sheriff in Oregon could use a little help. As we reported previously. Sheriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County is eager to issue non resident permits to qualified applicants. The Sheriff has even traveled out of state to take applications.

Palmer would like to purchase a digital fingerprint scanner to simplify the process at his office and on the road. Because of the usual bureaucratic nonsense, it appears that the best way to do this is to have our Foundation purchase it for him.

We have received many donations from individuals and the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation has donated $1000.00.  We still need to raise a bit more to get to the total purchase price (around $12,000.)  If you want to contribute with a tax deductible donation, use this link and be sure to note that your donation is to OFEF and for the Sheriff’s fingerprint scanner.

“Republican ” Gun Control On the Horizon?

In spite of the hand wringing from the freedom haters in the gun ban movement, it would be a mistake to assume that more gun control on a national level is a dead issue.

Numerous sources are reporting that  Obama will “address the issue” of tightening gun control laws, almost certainly by ratcheting up already failed laws like the Brady Bill and the NRA endorsed “NICS Improvement Act. “ No doubt magazine bans and a re-introduction of the semi-auto ban will be in the mix.

There is reason to believe  that the Republicans may be on board.

The “improvements” in the NICS Improvement  Act appear to be, as we predicted, more denials and delays for qualified gun owners and no increased obstacles for nut-cases like the shooter in Tucson.

Here in Oregon, as a result of HB 2853, a bill which forced us into compliance with the ill-conceived NRA/Brady Bill supported  HR 2640, we are already seeing the predicted failure of the bill and faulty records are costing people their rights and more.

Oregon has 7 members of Congress. Two Senators and 5 House Members. It’s safe to say that 6 of them (including NRA endorsed Kurt Schrader) will support any demented scheme Obama proposes. With our own legislature returning on Feb. 1st we expect to see a plenty of anti-gun legislation introduced. It is still our intention to play offense, but it’s essential that you be prepared to respond immediately to any threat. We’ll keep you informed.

As we told you one January 11th, the Oregon State Police held a public hearing on an administrative rule change.

Basically, what this change would do, if enacted, would require police departments to get a court order before getting access to information about lawful firearms purchases.

For those who are familiar with the outrages perpetrated against David Pyles, the need for this change is obvious.

At the hearing today, four people testified to put information on the record; one Salem cop, one Portland cop, one member of Oregon Firearms Federation and OFF’s Director, Kevin Starrett.

Both police officers opposed the rule change because they wanted to have access to the gun purchase records without requiring a court’s permission.

OFF’s Director  went on record supporting the change in rules, which we believe were the result of a demand by the Attorney General in the wake of the David Pyles’ debacle. We know David submitted testimony as well by mail.

The individual who was responsible for running the hearing would not allow questions and would not provide clarifications of the rule.

No other “pro-gun” organizations were present.

A saga that started almost two years ago is about to come to some kind of resolution.

As many of you know, in January of 2009, Marine Corp Veteran Jeffery Maxwell was arrested on the campus of Western Oregon University and charged with possession of a firearm in a public building.

Jeffery contacted OFF and with the intercession of our legal counsel, the DA dropped the charges, claiming it was “in the interest of justice.”  In fact, it was in the interest of the law, since the DA had no case. As a CHL holder, Jeffery was exempt from the prohibition on possession in public buildings.

While the charges were dropped, the school  suspended Jeffery and otherwise made his life a living hell.

The Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation filed a lawsuit against the Oregon University System to challenge their policy of forbidding ANYONE to have a firearm on their campuses. After endless delays, a date has been set for the Oregon Appeals Court to hear our lawsuit.

The case will be heard on March 29th at 9 AM at Salem Courthouse, 1163 State Street, Salem, Oregon 97301-2563.

We thank everyone who has generously uted to the case. If you would like to make a tax deductible ution to the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation so that we can continue to defend gun owners, you can do so safely online here.

Be sure to choose “Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation” from the drop-down menu to ensure that you receive the proper receipt for your tax deduction.

If you prefer to donate by check you can ute to OFEF at PO Box 556, Canby OR, 97013.

Changes Coming To Background Checks

In the wake of the shootings in Arizona and the inevitable efforts by the vultures to capitalize on the victims, things have been busy in the world of gun rights. Buckle up, this is going to be an uncomfortable ride.  That being said we do want to pass along some potential good news.

The Oregon State Police are holding public hearings and taking public comment on an administrative rule change they are considering.

In the wake of the massive debacle that took place after they revealed (against their own rules) the lawful purchase of firearms by David Pyles, the OSP ID unit  is attempting to institute a new rule to prohibit the sharing of any of their background check data with police departments unless the police have a court order.

None of this will undo the damage that was done to David, but if enacted it will be a step forward.

We have also been informed that the State Police will now start destroying most records after 10 days instead of 5 years.  We have no way of knowing if they will actually follow through, but this appears to be a move they made voluntarily.

If you are interested in making your feelings known about the rule change to protect transfer information, you can learn more here. (If you are having trouble reading the PDF, the address for the public hearing is 4190 Aumsville HWY SE Room, Hall of Heros Salem 97317 Jan. 25th 10 am.)

The proposed rule change itself is here.

It’s the time for giving and once again gun owners across the state are receiving requests for cash from an organization that claims to support gun rights, while working overtime for gun control.

Oregonians who have concealed handgun licenses are getting this letter from “Oregon Gun Owners Political Action Committee”
A Holiday Warning.

In 1999 “Oregon Gun Owners” worked with former legislator, and perennial candidate, Kevin Mannix, to forge legislation that would outlaw private transfers of firearms at gun shows. They failed. They then attempted a ballot measure to do the same thing. They failed again. (Their sister-in-arms, Ginny Burdick, armed with millions in out-of-state money succeeded.)

Now “Oregon Gun Owners” is asking real Oregon gun owners to send them cash. What do they do with it? Well in 2010 alone the sent over $8000.00 to anti-gun politicians in Salem. They endorsed Floyd Prozanski and Peter Courtney, two of the most anti-gun politicians in the state, and they sent their lobbyist, Paul Phillips to testify in FAVOR of more gun control in the February “special” session.

Their letter says that the cost of printing their fundraising letter was paid for “by another gun rights organization.”   Oddly they don’t say who that was. We think it’s most likely that the other “gun rights” organization was… Oregon Gun Owners.

At this special time of year, when money is tight and scams are uptrending, we at OFF think it’s important to know who you are giving to.

Have a merry and scam-free Christmas.

PORTLAND ENACTS NEW RULES TO STOP “GUN MURDERS”

It was actually almost comical. Sam Adams, Portland’s disgraced and deceitful Mayor, along with the rest of the Portland City Council, voted today to enact new ordinances to deal with the fact that Portland’s gang members shoot each other.

Council member Nick Fish commented that the new regulations would not solve the problem, and then voted for them. The new ordinances can be viewed here.

They create a new crime of allowing a minor to have access to a firearm  (unless you give him permission) and a new crime of failing to report a stolen gun, with a $200 fee if you cannot provide the serial number. (Unless you “don’t know” the gun is missing.)

Needless to say, these measures are pointless political posturing by a mayor who has no idea how to deal with threats to the city he runs.

Adams said that the problem is that African American men were  “being murdered by guns” never acknowledging that, in fact, African American men are being killed, in large part, by African American men.

Proving that Adams has only the most distant connection with reality, he promoted his stolen- gun-reporting law by using Washington DC as an example of a place where few handguns are “illegally exported.”  This is, according to Adams, because D.C. has a mandatory stolen gun reporting requirement.  The fact that it is almost impossible to steal a lawfully owned gun in a city that does not allow anyone to HAVE a lawfully owned gun never seems to have dawned on the mayor, who also had no idea that someone was planning to detonate a truck full of explosives in the city’s “living room.” Sam also made no mention of Washington’s astronomical murder rate.

Video of the Council meeting will be posted here.

News story here.

 

Portland Hears New Gun Ordinances.

Last night, Portland held a hearing on Mayor Sam Adams’s proposed ordinances to fight “gun violence.” No vote was held but one is scheduled for December 1st. Video available here.

The proposal includes new curfews for juveniles who have been convicted of  “gun related” offenses and are still on parole, and the designating of “hotspots” where persons convicted of “gun-related” crimes may not go while they are on parole or probation. Adams said the “hotspots” had been the center of gun violence for 2 decades but failed to explain why the city just didn’t send more cops there.

The usual cast of characters were on hand including Ginny Burdick, who told the panel that most gun owners “agreed with her” and that in spite of all that love,through her long battle she had received many death threats. Sam Adams thanked her for her years of service and noted that by introducing these ordinances, he was “standing on her shoulders.” If that’s not a weird enough mental image for you, he also thanked Multnomah County Commissioner Judy Shiprack for “mentoring” him. Given Sam’s definition of “mentoring” we really don’t want to go there. Shiprack testified that the County would be looking at similar proposals in January.

Former House member and anti-gun extremist Joanne Bowman testified that she was fine with the gun restrictions but opposed exclusionary zones because they would mostly affect young black men. She testified that since the new ordinance was targeted at only 20 to 30 people the city should just get them all together for a “community meeting.”  As relieved as we are that she no longer has a vote in Salem, we do kind of miss the comic relief.

The new ordinances also impose a more stringent curfew on minors convicted of “gun crimes” but make exceptions for “church activities.” Council member Amanda Fritz  was quick to clarify that this definition would include “mosques.”  That actually made sense except that she also wanted to make sure it included synagogues, apparently so that the many Jewish gang bangers in Portland would not be inconvenienced. (Some of those bar mitzvahs have gotten out of hand.) Fitz also wanted to know if guns had serial numbers.

An exchange near the end of the hearing demonstrated that no one there had a clue what the laws are concerning open carry.

The city presented some interesting statistics. They said that while “persons of color” made up 25% of the city’s population, they were over 50% of the victims of homicide. At no time was any mention made of the race of the perpetrators of these homicides. The Portland Mercury quotes Adams as saying “People being murdered by guns are Portlanders of color.”  People are being murdered by guns?  Not other people, guns? They’re self-animated now? The Mayor did not mention what color the guns who were murdering people were.

The city also stated of the homicides from 2007 to 2010, firearms were used in 42%. That leaves 58% of killings totally unaffected by Adam’s proposals.

There are two provisions of special interest to gun owners.

The first is a new offense if a gun owner does not keep his firearms locked up.  If a child gains access to a firearm, the gun owner faces 10 days in jail and a $500.00 fine. If a child gains access to a firearm and leaves the premises, the punishment is 20 days in jail and a fine of $750.00. If the child gains access and takes the gun to a school or school related event, the gun owner faces 30 days and a $2500.00 fine.

The exceptions are if the “child” broke into your home or your guns were locked up or you had a trigger lock on your gun. The ordinance also states that it does not apply if you gave your child “permission” to have the gun. This is an interesting exception. Both sections 1 and 2 of the lock up ordinance state that the “child” had to gain access without your permission. Section 1 describes a “child” gaining access to a firearm, and section 2 describes a “child” getting access and leaving the premises. So, if you are a gun owner with a young gang banger residing with you, and you decide to leave your guns lying around and your micro-thug takes one down to the local gang recreational area, you have not committed an offense if you gave him permission.(Makes sense to us.)

Oregon’s state preemption law addresses this pretty clearly:

166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.
(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

Emphasis added.

So how can Portland regulate the storage of firearms?  Well according to their lawyer, David Woboril, they were not regulating “storage”, they were regulating “access management.”

The second new ordinance of interest to gun owners is a proposal to make it a crime if you fail to report a lost or stolen gun. If you fail to provide a serial number for the stolen gun, the city will charge you $200.00 as an “administration fee.” You’re robbed once by a burglar and once by the city. No word on what they are administering.

We’re still trying to determine what legitimate gun owner would NOT report a stolen gun. But oddly, there is a built in defense if you simply say you didn’t know it was missing. (OK, we get it.)

The ordinance states that this provision “enables police to respond more rapidly to a report that a gun was stolen and possibly return it to its owners or track down the thieves.” (Which means the police can respond more quickly to a report of a stolen gun, if there is a report of a stolen gun.)

That’s on page 3. On page 2, the ordinance states the following: “Over 150,000 firearms were reported lost or stolen in 2008. 85% of these guns were never recovered and tens of thousands more were likely never even reported.” So we can certainly see the value of this idea. Of course we’re not sure how they conclude that “tens of thousands” were likely never even reported, because, well…they weren’t reported.

Adams’s proposals are pathetic. We’ll keep an eye on this and keep you informed.