Category: OFF Alerts

04.17.13

Senator Arnie Roblan is reportedly moving “closer and closer” to supporting some or all of the anti-gun bill currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

These bills, SB 347, 699, 700 and 796 have, once again, been held over and now are due to be voted on tomorrow, the last day they can move forward without a suspension of the rules.

Although heavily amended, all of these bills are still anti-gun bills which do nothing to address crime and violence.

SB 347, the “no guns in schools” bill has had its language changed but will still ban concealed carry in virtually all schools. No has provided a single example of a crime committed by a CHL holder in a school in Oregon…ever.

SB 699 now requires that CHL holders keep their firearms “concealed from view” while in public buildings. The only apparent explanation for why this should be required is that some people are “offended” by or “distressed” at the sight of a firearm in civilian hands.  Ironically , we don’t require licenses for open carry, only for concealed carry. Now, because some people have phobias and irrational fears, we are forcing people give up their rights so no one’s “feelings are hurt. There are many things that offend many people. Are we going to outlaw everything anyone objects to?

SB 700  still requires that you get police permission before giving a gun to your best friend or many family members. It also requires that you obtain forms from the State Police and keep them for 5 years if you transfer a firearm. The fact is, the background check system is already failing on a regular basis and people are delayed sometimes for months because of its regular errors. Expanding this system is a terrible idea.

Finally, SB 796 has been amended to outlaw online firearms classes. Why? No one seems to know. Ivy League Universities offer online course and college degrees are offered for them. Oregon has a charter school that is completely online. Online education is the wave of the future, it provides a far greater range of instructors than in-person teaching can and there have been exactly zero problems with people who have learned gun safety online. This bill is another idea whose time has clearly not come.

It’s essential that you contact Senator Roblan before tomorrow’s work session and urge him to vote no on all of these bills.

Contact info and a sample message follow. Feel free to modify this message.

Senator Arnie Roblan
503-986-1705
Sen.ArnieRoblan@state.or.us

______________________________________________________

Dear Senator Roblan,

The anti-gun bills you will be voting on tomorrow are no better in their amended form than they were when first drafted.
They solve no problems, address no issues and serve only to harass the law-abiding.
I urge you to continue to stand up for the rights and freedoms of  Oregon’s gun owners and not pass any bill whose only purpose is to make certain people feel good while accomplishing nothing of real value.

Yours

04.16.13

 

Although none of the anti-gun bills scheduled for today actually moved out of committee, we have now seen the latest amendments for the bills.

SB 700, the “universal background check” bill would be amended to add to the list of people you could transfer a firearm to without asking permission of the police.

Previous amendments listed specific people who could receive a firearm and this amendment adds to that list by including step-children and “domestic partners.”

The bill will still prevent you from giving a gun to your favorite niece or a friend you’ve known for 30 years. Of course, this new rule will be completely ignored by all criminals, once again only harassing the law-abiding.

It a moment that can only be described as surreal, Senator Jackie Dingfelder sought to denigrate the idea that you should be allowed to give your son or daughter a firearm by reminding the room that the Connecticut shooter “got the gun from his parents” (sic)  No mention was made that he got it by shooting his mother in the face, something this bill, will not, of course, address.

SB 699, which started life as an attempt to ban concealed carry in the Capitol, has been amended several times.  This latest amendment would only allow concealed carry in a “public building” if the firearm was “concealed from view.”

A previous amendment required the firearm be “completely concealed.”  This new term does little to make the bill any better since in neither case was “concealed” or “completely concealed” defined.

Does the outline of a handgun printing through a jacket mean it’s not concealed? If  a person catches a glimpse of your gun when an outer garment is brushed aside are you now guilty of a felony?

SB 347, the “no guns in schools” bill has been amended once again. The latest version changes the way gun owners will be banned from schools. Instead of writing policies “allowing” CHL holders onto school property, now it requires that the school write a policy to forbid CHL holders it they want to keep them out. Again, it allows schools, if they choose to, to require that you unholster your firearm and place it in a school provided “safe.”  Why any school would encourage people to handle a firearm when it is safely holstered is anyone’s guess.

The new amendment (dash 8) also allows a parent to pick up or drop off a child while in possession of a firearm, but they may not come inside the building. This is absurd.  No one can explain why a licensed, rational, law-abiding parent can be trusted right up to the door, but after stepping across that line becomes a dangerous lunatic. Furthermore, no provision is made for grandparents or any other family member to pick-up or drop off a child. More pointless and unnecessary attacks on your rights.

Finally, we have seen amendments to SB 796.  The “dash 6” amendments once again change the required course of fire for new CHL applicants and now specify that a person may only attempt to qualify 3 times in a year. No mention is made in the bill on how this will be enforced. This may NOT be the amendment the committee will consider since at today’s work session Chairman Prozanski described a different amendment (not yet posted) that would remove the firing requirements and instead outlaw “on-line” training, and require a “live” instructor.  This, of course, would greatly impact people who live in places where firearms instructors are few and far between. We have seen no examples of why this new demand is needed.  As more and more classes and training move to the online environment, this is a great leap backward. Why limit the types of classes available when an online class by a world class instructor could be as good or better than a class with a “live” teacher? This bill provides fewer choices and greater expense. Another solution seeking a problem.

The bills have been held over until tomorrow for action but could very well be pushed back to Thursday or even Thursday night.  In short, there is nothing here that is good for gun owners and we need to keep the heat on.

 

Please contact the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask for a “no” vote on all four bills.

 

https://www.oregonfirearms.org/activist-toolbox/the-home-lobbyist/2013-senate-judiciary-committee

 

 

 

 

 

OFF ALERT 04.15.13

Happy Tax Day.

 

This is the day Bill Clinton urged us to make our “patriotic contributions.”  But tomorrow is the day that Senate Judiciary Chairman Floyd Prozanski will attempt to advance his attacks on gun rights.

 

Tomorrow, “work sessions” are scheduled for Senate Bills 347,699, 700 and 796.  Each of these bills attack  legitimate gun owners while ignoring criminals and madmen. Each is designed to harass the law abiding.

 

Since all of these bills have already received “public hearings” no public testimony will be taken at the “work session.”  Of course, these bills are likely to be changed dramatically at the work session so the “public testimony” previously taken will not reflect what will likely be in these bills. But if these bills are voted on tomorrow, there will be no opportunity for the public to comment on what they have become before a vote in committee. That’s the way it works in Salem.

 

The reason we were told these bills were moved back to tomorrow was to allow time for amendments to be drafted.  As of today, Monday afternoon, those amendments were still not available to the public or presumably to the Republican members of the committee.

 

Should these bills actually be dealt with tomorrow, most of the people voting on them will have had virtually no time to review the amendments. And you the public will have literally no time to review them until after the vote in committee.

 

There is still time to contact the members of the Senate Judiciary and express your opposition to these very bad bills.  They can be reached here.

 

For more info and talking points on these bills, please use this link.

 

Please note, the starting time for this work session has changed from 8AM to 8:30 AM.   This is significant since numerous bills have been added to the schedule and, as of now, the gun bills are scheduled to be dealt with last.  This means that it is entirely possible that they won’t be dealt with tomorrow. There is no way to predict this.

 

Since there is no opportunity for public input, you may want to consider just watching the event online.

 

You can do that at the following link.

 

You’ll want to tune into Room 343.

 

Don’t forget that on Wednesday, the same committee is due to have public hearings on two gun related bills, SB 696 and 713. For more information on changes coming to SB 696 please see this alert.

 

 

We have no idea what they are planning for SB 713 which would extend the places a “firearms training facility” could be located.

 

Stay tuned.

04.12.13

 

Gun rights are being attacked on multiple fronts from the Federal to the County level.

The US Senate took steps yesterday to continue the erosion of gun rights taking a bite here and a bite there. Efforts by staunch pro-gunners like Rand Paul to stop or slow these attacks were defeated when other Republicans did what they are best known for, caving.

Those who  were working to protect your rights have been ridiculed by folks like John Mc Cain, who, you will recall, campaigned in Oregon for Ginny Burdick’s gun control ballot measure in 2000.

Oregon has two of the most militant anti-gun Senators in the country, but they need to hear from you anyway. They are listed at the top of this page.

As we told you yesterday, SB 696 ,which was supposed to be a bill increasing the value of firearms immune from liens in the event of a bankruptcy, is likely to be amended into a completely different bill. While some of the changes are good, some are not. See here for more info.  While making the CHL statute more uniform in some regards, it seeks to expand the list of people prohibited from getting them. These include even more people with restraining orders against them.

The problem with this is that a restraining order is not even an accusation of crime, let alone proof. We know of police officers who lost their gun rights and their jobs as the result of  restraining orders with no evidence ever provided of wrongdoing.

A person who is abusive should be arrested and charged, but losing your rights simply because someone wants to take them away from you is not acceptable. Please contact the Senate Judiciary Committee and urge them to vote against any provision that expands the list of  people denied CHL’s unless they have actually been convicted of  crime.

As you know, the four major anti-gun bill which were supposed to be worked this past Wednesday, are now scheduled for next Tuesday. We are told they will be amended, but we don’t know what with. There is no reason to think they will be improved. You can still use our automailer to express your disapproval.

On another note, HB 3216, the bill that would have given tax credits for gun safes has been removed from the agenda.

Finally, now Multnomah County  has gun rights in their sights. We told you about this on March 26.

The Multnomah County Commissioners are planning to expand Portland’s anti-gun policies county wide. They would implement mandatory lock-up-your-guns rules, outlaw open, loaded carry for those without CHL’s, outlaw discharge of firearms and punish you if your firearm is stolen.

This is one more, incremental chip in your rights and will not stop here. You can see the proposed ordinance here .

The ordinance is due for discussion and possible adoption on April 18th at 9:30 AM. Location and contact info for the Multnomah County Commissioners can be found here.

If you plan to attend the meeting and testify you will need to fill out and submit this form to the Board Clerk.

The Board members phones and emails are available here.

A sample email  to the Board follows:

____________________________________________________________

Members of the Board,

I strongly object to proposed Ordinance 4-18-13. Once again, politicians are using the behavior of criminals as an excuse to attack the rights of the law-abiding.  As a responsible gun owner, I object to the County dictating to me how to store my firearms. Open carry of firearms hurts no one. (Why do you suppose you need a license to carry concealed but not openly?) None of the firearms related proposals in this ordinance will stop a single crime. They are clearly designed to harass the law-abiding. I urge you to defeat this needless and counterproductive attack on my rights.

Yours,

_______________

___________________________________________________________

 

04.11.13

GUT AND STUFF COMING FOR GUN BILL.

As we predicted,  SB 696 is likely to be “gut and stuffed” when it gets heard next week.

SB 696 started life as a bill to increase the value of guns an Oregonian could keep, protected from liens, in the event of a bankruptcy.

It was clear from the moment this bill was scheduled that it was being heard as a vehicle for other things.

The proposed “gut and stuff” amendments include both good and bad and come from the Sheriff’s Association.

Right now a person with a conviction for possession of a small amount of pot can still get an Oregon CHL, but only if that conviction was in Oregon. So someone who had a similar conviction out-of-state is… out-of-luck.

This amendment would fix that and mirrors a bill we requested and which was introduced by House Rep Kim Thatcher.

Another provision of this amendment would change the requirements for military veterans who were applying for CHL’s.

Now, many sheriffs will not accept the military document (the DD 214) which lists the training a Vet received as proof of handgun training, unless that document specifically  lists “handguns” as something the Vet was trained with.

This amendment would change the statute to say “firearm” instead of “handgun” where it lists what a person must have been trained with.  This is a perfectly fine idea, but probably unneeded since the sheriffs can already accept DD 214’s just listing “firearms” training if they choose too.

The bad parts of the amendment specifically add people with domestic violence misdemeanors to the list of those ineligible for CHL’s.

Currently anyone with a domestic violence misdemeanor loses his gun rights for life, no matter how small or misunderstood the “transgression”. That is Federal law.  But we see no reason to enshrine that into Oregon law. As much of a long shot as it is, someday the Federal law may be changed to reflect reality and it makes no sense to have the same bad rules in state law as we have in Federal law.

The amendments also expand the many ways a person can lose their rights to a CHL because they have a “restraining order” against them.  The problem with restraining orders is they are not proof of, or even an accusation of, a crime.

People have restraining orders sworn out against them every day who have been proven of  doing nothing criminal.  This is a dangerous path.

We’ll follow up with more info and what you can do shortly.

04.10.13

The four gun bills scheduled to be amended and voted on today have been pushed back until Tuesday.

Although at the hearing, Floyd Prozanski noted they would be heard on Monday, we have heard from the Committee Administrator it will be Tuesday and that is how it is currently scheduled on the legislative website.

Prozanski stated that the delay was due to numerous amendments that are being drafted as a result of the testimony last Friday. At this point we have no idea what they will be.

(SB 281, the bill that would extend medical marijuana use to persons with PTSD passed out of committee with no amendments warning users that using medical marijuana prohibits them from owning firearms.)

Keep in mind that these schedules can change minute by minute, so while it’s always best to keep an eye on the committee schedule on the legislature’s website, what’s posted there is no guarantee of what will happen when the hearing or work session actually starts.  This is important for people who travel or take time off from work.

Also remember that at “work sessions” there is no public testimony taken, so all public input has to happen before a work session.

Of course at a “work session” bills can be amended into completely different animals than the original bill which received public testimony.  When that happens, there is no opportunity for the public to comment on the final bill in a “public hearing.”  A bill you may have strongly supported can turn into an anti-gun bill with you on the record as being in favor of it.

This is why we are concerned with the two bills scheduled for the following day, April 17th.

One is a bill to allow for firing ranges to be built on farmland. The other is a bill that increases the value of firearms not subject to a lien in a bankruptcy.  The second bill is so obscure that it would be very odd for it to get a hearing at all, except for one thing.  The “relating clause” in the bill.

The “relating clause” dictates what amendments can be made to the bill. So a very specific relating clause (“Relating to permission of retired police to carry firearms in public buildings” for example) would allow far fewer amendments than a relating clause like “Relating to firearms” which is exactly what this bill’s relating clause is.

We are quite certain that this bill will be used as a vehicle for issues unrelated to what it proposes now.

We’ll be watching.

Thanks for your support and activism.

04.09.13

Tomorrow, as you know, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be voting on 4 anti-gun bills.

These are Senate Bills 347, 699, 700 and 796. All of these bills do nothing more than attack law-abiding gun owners. None serve a single positive purpose.  For an analysis of these dreadful bills, please use this link. To make your feelings known (one last time) to the committee members, use this link.

Added to tomorrow’s schedule is SB 281. This bill allows persons with post traumatic stress to use medical marijuana. We told you about our concerns with this bill here.

And now some additional bills have been added for hearings.

On April 16, the House Judiciary Committee will be hearing HB 3261.

This bill allows a tax credit for the purchase of an “approved” gun safe. This bill has, as its cosponsors, some committed friends of gun owners, it also has some of our avowed enemies.

We have heard concerns from numerous supporters that this could be a potential tool to identify gun owners. In fact, it’s not at all clear with whom this information will be shared. We think that’s a valid concern.  Of course, as the bill is written, you would not be required to take the tax credit. However, a more pressing concern is what this bill might become in the future, maybe the near future.

For years, anti-gun legislators have been trying to require that you keep your firearms locked up and unavailable. It’s not hard to imagine that this bill could be a stepping stone to that kind of policy. And of course, if this bill clears the House, it would most likely be sent to Senate Judiciary where anti-gun Chair Floyd Prozanski can turn it into virtually anything.   Whatever your feelings on this bill, please let the House Judiciary Committee know them. Their contact info can be found here.

On April 17, the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up two more gun related bills.

These are SB 696 and SB 713.

696 increases the value of firearms that a person may keep in the event of bankruptcy or liens against their property. Simple enough, but the relating clause is “Relating to Firearms.”  This bill can be amended into almost anything. It will need to be watched.

The second bill, SB 713, expands the number of places where “Firearms Training Facilities” can be located.

Neither of these bills seem like a good fit for the Judiciary Committee. There are other committees that typically deal with land use and revenue. Both of these bill are good in their current form but bear watching carefully.

As always you can communicate with the Senate Judiciary Committee using this link.

Remember, these schedules can change at any time. Check this link for last minute changes.

You can watch hearings live on line using this link. Tomorrow’s gun bill hearings will be at 8:30 in room  343.

Thanks for your continued activism.

04.08.13

Today the Oregon House Higher Ed Committee heard two bills dealing with concealed carry on college campuses

HB 3009, would specifically direct Oregon public colleges and Universities to obey the clear law of Oregon and not prohibit licensed concealed carry on their property.

HB 3114 would do the exact opposite. It would effectively ban license holders from protecting themselves and others while on college property.  This strategy, a proven failure, would leave anyone on those grounds defenseless to rapists and glory killers so that people who have no understanding of firearms could “feel” safe instead of be safe. It’s also an unmistakable attempt to whittle down Oregon’s “pre-emption” law by adding one more place where your rights are denied.

The committee is heavily weighted with radical anti-rights politicians including the Chairman, Michael Dembrow and Mitch Greenlick, both of whom sponsored a bill to ban virtually all modern firearms and send many law-abiding gun owners to prison for the rest of their lives if they did not turn in their guns. The bill, HB 3200, would also allow the police to invade your home with no warrant to make sure you did not own guns. (And these people call us extremists.)

We heard the usual testimony about how college students are drunks and likely to shoot up the dorms when they break up with their girlfriends.  No explanation for why these same drug addled psychopaths are not doing that now, even though it’s been legal to have guns on campus for about 40 years.

The committee heard testimony from Jeff Maxwell, the Marine Corp Vet who was arrested at Western Oregon University for having a totally legal firearm. He explained that he opposed the bill that would ban concealed carry on campus just so others would not be subjected to the outrageous abuse he suffered because of the paranoia of the anti-gun zealots.

One interesting comment was made by Penny Okamoto of Ceasefire Oregon. She said that most women who are attacked on college campuses are freshman or sophomores. Her point, apparently, was that these younger women are too young to have CHL’s so they would not be protected by allowing guns on campus.  Putting aside the fact that they would also not be allowed to be protected by other responsible people on campus, the obvious reality is, (if she is right) they are attacked because they can’t protect themselves.  The supporters of this bill would like to extend that vulnerability to everyone!
In regards to HB 3009, the bill that would protect self-defense firearms on campus, House Rep Chris Gorsek has been sending (in a display of amazing arrogance and ignorance)  this message:

“As a former police officer and a current criminal justice instructor at Mt. Hood Community College, I believe that only trained professionals should be allowed to be armed on campus for two reasons.

First, professionals will be trained in the proper response to live shooter incidents and in the proper rules of engagement.

Second, I believe that additional people carrying weapons would increase the likelihood of innocent lives being lost, whether through errant crossfire or police responding in a high danger situation and not being able to differentiate quickly enough between the original shooter and those who happen to be carrying and may have drawn their weapons in response to a threat.”

You would think he could come up with new cliché’s. In fact, while we hear these tired old lies over and over, the anti-rights zealots never provide a single example of this kind of problem actually happening.

As of now, HB 3009 and HB 3114 have not been scheduled for a “work session.” That’s when the actual vote, and any amending, takes place. However, the anti-gun bills heard last Friday are scheduled to be voted on Wednesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In addition to the anti-gun bills (SB 347,699,700 and 796) the schedule now includes SB 281.

SB 281 would allow persons suffering from post traumatic stress disorder to use medical marijuana.  The danger of this bill of course, is that veterans who took advantage of it would be at risk of losing their gun rights under Federal law. The sponsor of the bill, Senator Brian Boquist (a supporter of gun rights and veterans) offered an amendment that would let medical marijuana users know of this danger. We don’t know if this amendment will be considered. The proponents of the bill mistakenly thought this was an effort to prevent vets from taking advantage of the medical marijuana program. It was not.

There is still time to make your voice heard on these bills.

Please consider contacting the Senate Judiciary Committee members and urging them to vote against  SB 347, 699, 700 and 796.  Please also mention the unintended dangers in the medical marijuana bill, SB 281.

Thanks for your efforts and activism. You can watch these hearings live on line at this link: http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/

The Senate Judiciary usually meets in Room 343. Their work session Wednesday is scheduled for 8:30 am. Schedules change, so be sure to use this link to keep track of schedules:  http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/agenda/webagendas.htm

 

04.04.13

In a move that has surprised many, the House Committee On Higher Education and Workforce Development has scheduled a hearing on HB 3009.

This bill, sponsored by House Rep Sal Esquivel, specifically protects CHL holders on the property of colleges and universities. The bill is scheduled to be heard on April 8th at 8:30 am in Hearing Room D at the Capitol.

Given the toxic anti-gun environment  in Salem, it’s odd that a bill of this type would receive the courtesy of a hearing. The new House Speaker, Tina Kotek, has not been known to be friendly to bills sponsored by Republicans.

The problem is, the committee that is hearing the bill is chaired by Michael Dembrow who is a co-sponosor of the notorious HB 3200, a bill that would have outlawed virtually all modern firearms and allowed for warrantless searches of your home.

The sponsor of HB 3200, Mitch Greenlick is also on this committee. So it is not likely this bill will be allowed out of committee in its original form.  They can either hear it and take no action on it, or they can strip every word out of it and turn it into an extreme anti-gun bill unless you act.

If you can be at this hearing to testify in favor of the bill, please consider doing so. If not, please contact the members of the committee and urge them to pass the bill with NO anti-gun amendments.The pro-gun members are marked with an *

Michael Dembrow, Chair 503-986-1445 rep.michaeldembrow@state.or.us

Chris Harker, Vice-Chair  503-986-1434  rep.chrisharker@state.or.us

*John Huffman, Vice-Chair 503-986-1459  rep.johnhuffman@state.or.us

Joe Gallegos 503-986-1430 rep.joegallegos@state.or.us

*Vic Gilliam 503-986-1418 rep.vicgilliam@state.or.us

Chris Gorsek 503-986-1449  rep.chrisgorsek@state.or.us

Mitch Greenlick 503-986-1433  rep.mitchgreenlick@state.or.us

*Mark Johnson 503-986-1452 rep.markjohnson@state.or.us

*Gene Whisnant 503-986-1453  rep.genewhisnant@state.or.us

And remember, tomorrow is the hearing on 4 anti-gun bills in Senate Judiciary.

We have just been informed that people who are allowed to testify will be limited to 3 minutes. Not all will be allowed.

While those bills will be “heard”, no action will be taken on them until April 10. That means there is still plenty of time to make your voice heard. The swing vote on that committee is Senator Arnie Roblan who is a reliable pro-gun vote, but who is being pummeled by his Democrat colleagues to vote for more gun restrictions.  A note to him could make all the difference in this battle.

Sen.ArnieRoblan@state.or.us
503-986-1705

 

04.01.13

This is not an April Fool’s joke.

The following bills are scheduled to be heard, on Friday April 5 at a public hearing at the State Capitol.

We encourage you to attend if you can, and if not make your feelings known to the members of the committee that will be hearing the bills.

Contact info for the committee can be accessed here.

SB 347

This bill would ban licensed concealed carry on school property. This means school buildings and the grounds adjacent to school buildings.  It would “allow” a school district to adopt a policy permitting licensed carry or allow persons with CHL’s to store their guns in a safe or vault that the school controls.

(There are 175,000 CHL holders in this state. The anti-gunners cannot point to a single example of a CHL holder misusing a firearm in a school. This bill is nothing more than harassment of gun owners.)

Even the rabidly anti-gun Oregonian Editorial Board asks “what, exactly, makes license holders more dangerous in schools than in libraries, playgrounds or on crowded sidewalks?

A few points about this:

1. In the very unlikely event that a school provided gun safes, a person would be required to handle a gun that would otherwise not be touched at all.
2. CHL holders carry firearms as defensive tools. Having the school lock them up renders them pointless.
3. The anti-gun extremists are pushing for a ban on firearms in the Capitol because some legislators claim they were “intimidated” by the sight of guns. Prozanksi wants to amend the “no-guns-in-the Capitol” bill to allow carry, if no one ever sees the gun, yet in this bill, he is trying to create a situation where a person coming into a school would be forced to display a firearm if  he’s allowed to have it at all. In the (virtually all) schools that will NOT allow firearms, a parent would not even be allowed to pick a sick child up from school unless the child was forced to meet the parent off the school property.

 As always it “declares an emergency.”

SB 699

As drafted, this would ban those with CHL’s from the Capitol Building if in possession of a firearm. (It’s interesting to note that groups like the “Brady Campaign” have long decried the legality of “hidden handguns.” Now the attack is on open carry.)

This scheme long predates the recent rallies but seeks to exploit them. The fact is when rally goers went into “their” building they were perfectly well behaved. The police reported “no incidents.”  Once again, for years licensed carry was allowed in the Capitol. There have been no problems.   The anti-gunners claim the were intimidated by the sight of people openly carrying rifles  so they respond by outlawing the concealed carry of pistols! This is another bill that looks for a problem where there isn’t one.

 If the current amendments are adopted, the ban would not apply to retired cops and corrections officers. There has been no explanation for that proposed change. But another amendment would allow concealed carry “provided that the firearm is completely concealed from view.” It would also extend these new restrictions to all public buildings.

Since this has historically been how CHL holders (including many legislators) have carried their firearms this is an entirely unneeded change. But it’s also a problem.  If a license holder’s firearm became  visible at any point, that person  could be charged with a FELONY.  There is simply no need for this legislation and it puts gun owners at great risk. What does “completely concealed from view” even mean? Does this mean if a handgun prints through an outer garment, you become a felon?

Of course, it declares “an emergency.”

 
SB 700

 This bill outlaws most private transfers. The original bill exempts “immediate family” without defining the term. The “gut and stuff” amended version allows transfers between:

 “(A) The person’s spouse;

“(B) The person’s parent;

“(C) The person’s child;

“(D) The person’s sibling;

“(E) The person’s grandparent;

“(F) The person’s grandchild; or

“(G) The spouse of a person specified in subparagraphs (B) to (F)

of this paragraph.

 The amended version defines transfer as  “the sale, gift or lease of a firearm.”

So you can give a gun to your son, but not your step-daughter. You may give a gun to your wife, but not your girlfriend. You may sell a gun to your son-in-law but not your nephew.  However you may give a gun to your wife, who may give it to her sister, who may give it to her husband who can give it to his son. (Your nephew.) You may not give a gun to your domestic partner.

While the law says that if you purchase from a gun dealer and you are “delayed” you may take possession of the firearm without state approval after three days have elapsed. There are no similar protections for non-dealer transfers. The State Police can delay a private transfer forever.

As you may know, the Oregon State Police ID unit routinely fails to complete background checks for dealers in a timely fashion. Gun buyers are left waiting sometimes months to complete a transfer. This bill would force the failed system on virtually all transfers. And when the “system” is down, you are simply out of luck. Sellers would be required to have state issued forms before a transfer could take place. Oh yeah, it creates a state wide gun registry too.

Of course, it declares “an emergency.”

 SB 796

 Range Requirements

This bill creates a baffling collection of shooting requirements to get a CHL. It changes the requirements for legal resident aliens to apply for a CHL. The shooting requirements are totally arbitrary and bear no resemblance to any real life situation.  Here are some of the demands:

(A) 20 rounds fired from a distance of three yards, with:

(i) Five rounds fired one at a time with two seconds allowed for each shot;

(ii) 10 rounds fired two at a time with three seconds allowed for each two shots; and

(iii) Five rounds fired with 10 seconds allowed for all five shots;

(B) 20 rounds fired from a distance of seven yards, with:

(i) Five rounds fired with 10 seconds allowed for all five shots;

(ii) Five rounds fired with four seconds allowed for the first two shots and six seconds

allowed for the remaining three shots;

(iii) Five rounds fired one at a time with three seconds allowed for each shot; and

(iv) Five rounds fired with 15 seconds allowed for all five shots; and

(C) 10 rounds fired from a distance of 15 yards, with:

(i) Five rounds fired with six seconds allowed for the first two shots and nine seconds

allowed for the remaining three shots; and

1. Five shots fired with 15 seconds allowed for all five shots;

The shooting requirements would be necessary for every renewal.

The bill has two amendments. One would make it only apply to new license applicants. The other amendment  changes the required course of fire by a few seconds and makes some changes in the order and sequence of the shooting, proving the original bill makes demands that are totally arbitrary and spawned from the fantasy of someone who never picked up a firearm.

The bill makes no allowances for the different rates of fire of semi-auto pistols vs revolvers. It makes no distinction between calibers.

It requires the availability of shooting range and range officers. It has no method for enforcement and does not specify who is supposed to test students or how their grades must be recorded or proven.

April 1 2:40 PM. This has been changed again. Now proof of meeting the test will be required. See this amendment. They have removed the time requirements. So, once again, making it up as they go.

It will vastly increase the cost and complexity of getting and keeping a CHL. As with the other four bills, there has been no reason shown for why this bill is needed as its supporters have been unable to provide any examples that  would demonstrate that current license holders have been any kind of problem. It would not apply to people who just chose to carry openly.
Of course, it declares “an emergency.”

 

03.28.13

Anti-gun Senator Floyd Prozanski has scheduled hearings for four bills designed to attack your rights and make you and your family less safe. The bills are scheduled to be heard on April 5th at 8:30 am at the Capitol.

The bills are scheduled to follow the day after an anti-gun rally is planned for Salem.

The four bills are SB 347, SB 699, SB 700 and SB 796.

In SB 347 Prozanski wants to follow the lead of states like Connecticut and banish defensive firearms from school property. This was the very policy that doomed 20 children and 6 adults in the Newtown massacre.  Instead of learning from this horrific event, Prozanski and his anti-rights cohorts intend to make this deadly policy law in Oregon.

SB 699 would ban CHL holders from carrying their defensive firearms at the Capitol. After complaining that gun owners had the nerve to visit the State Capitol and “intimidate” others, the anti-rights crowd said the Capitol was “everyone’s” building, and that’s why we should be forbidden from being there. (You’re right. It makes no sense.)

SB 700 outlaws most private transfers of firearms. Even to someone you have known your entire life.

SB 796 is designed to greatly complicate the the CHL process by mandating an arbitrary “firing range” test even for those who have no gun ranges available to them.  This is another bill that has no purpose except to harass those who want to defend themselves by creating shooting requirements that Prozanski, who has no knowledge of firearms, has more or less made up.  Keep in mind, there will still be NO requirements or mandates for those who choose to carry openly, once again proving their intentions have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with creating roadblocks to self defense. They have provided NO evidence that our current system is not working and they have not explained who will enforce this new mandate. Will we now have a cop at every gun class?

Multiple amendments have been introduced for these bills.

These amendments do nothing more than make these bills more confusing. For example, the “dash three” amendments to the “no guns in the Capitol” bill allow CHL holders to carry “provided the firearm is completely concealed from view.”  This is language that can be so easily misinterpreted that it simply opens CHL holders up to endless abuse. The amendments extend the restrictions to all public buildings  The fact is, there simply has never been a problem with CHL holders in public buildings and we don’t need solutions to problems that don’t exist.

Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and let them know these bills are neither needed nor useful.

You can also use our automailer to contact some or all Oregon legislators.

The bills were clearly scheduled to dovetail with the anti-rights rally planned for the day before. You can rest assured the people who want to disarm you will be out in force. They may even bring in a few “celebrities” to twist arms.

This is a public hearing. You are entitled to have your voice heard. If you can be at the hearing, come early. The rooms will fill up fast. There are sign-up sheets on the table in the hearing room. There will possibly be “overflow” rooms. If the hearing room (room 50) is full, go in anyway and put your name on the list.

Prozanski and the other anti-right zealots are well known for giving almost unlimited time to the people on their side and then shutting down debate when our side wants to speak. It does not matter. If you are there, the point will be made.

03.26.13

Multnomah County Commissioner Deborah Kafoury has proposed numerous new gun restrictions.

You can read her draft proposals here.

Largely these rules would copy Portland’s and require mandatory gun storage and an end to open loaded carry county wide.

As of today these proposals have not been acted on. Please contact the County Commissioners and tell them you oppose the new ordinances. They can be reached here.