Category: OFF Alerts

APPEALS  COURT SAYS RIFLES AND MAGAZINES MAY BE BANNED.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled that semi-automatic firearms and “large capacity” magazines may be banned.

In their ruling, the Court makes this bizarre assertion in reference to common semi-automatic rifles:

“Nevertheless, based upon the record as it stands, we cannot be certain whether these weapons are commonly used or are useful specifically for self-defense or hunting and therefore whether the prohibitions of certain semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds meaningfully affect the right to keep and bear arms.”

The ruling is not a very big surprise in light what the Courts concluded in “Heller” but are a serious blow to gun rights non the less.Given the clear language of the Second Amendment, and the finding in the Miller case which concluded that only military weapons are protected, this is a strange and dangerous decision. But perhaps no stranger than others.

You can read the decision here.

Today, after several years of legal maneuvering, the Oregon Appeals Court decided that the rules the Oregon University System has had in place to ban lawful carry of firearms on their property are invalid.

The opinion reaffirmed what we have always held to be true. The law is the law.

This is a very important day for gun rights in Oregon. Our Educational Foundation brought this suit after Jeffery Maxwell, a Marine Corps veteran, was unlawfully arrested on the campus of Western Oregon University while in possession of a handgun for which he had an Oregon concealed handgun license.

WOU’s outrageous abuses of Maxwell are well documented, and now we have at least some vindication.

Looking at the response of the school system, it is clear that they will do all in their power to circumvent the decision of the court, and we are confident that this battle is by no means over. But today’s ruling is clearly a victory for gun owners, a victory for the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, and most of all, a victory for every one of you who stood by us, and, by your extraordinary generosity, allowed us to see this through. To each of you, we offer our thanks and gratitude.

Of course, there will be the predictable response by some of the more extreme anti-rights politicians, so we need to prepare for the up coming battles, but for now, congratulate yourselves on a hard-earned victory.

We also want to thank those in the legislature who stood up for the rights of Oregonians as this issue played out.

Below is the most important part of today’s decision.

Although the State Board of Higher Education is an arm of the state, it is not the Legislative Assembly. And while, as noted, the State Board of Higher Education has general authority to control and manage its property, ORS 351.060, and to enact administrative rules, ORS 351.070(4)(b), no argument can be reasonably made that OAR 580-022-0045(3)–which regulates the very subject expressly preempted by ORS 166.170(1)–was “expressly authorized” by the Legislative Assembly. See ORS 166.170(1). Therefore, we conclude that OAR 580-022-0045(3) is an exercise of an “authority to regulate” firearms that is not expressly authorized by the Legislative Assembly, and that it is preempted by ORS 166.170(1).1 Accordingly, the rule exceeds the agency’s authority, ORS 183.400(4)(b), and is invalid.

OAR 580-022-0045(3) held invalid.

Special Election Oregon Congressional District 1

UPDATED SEPT 30
UPDATED OCT 6
UPDATED NOV.8
See Bottom of Page.

As a result of the implosion and long overdue resignation of David Wu, Oregon’s First Congressional District will be having a special election on May 15 2012.

Here is a list of candidates and their contact information.

We sent every candidate a survey to help gun owners make an informed decision when it came time to vote.  A copy of the survey can be seen here.

Of the 13 candidates running, only three responded. All were Democrats. (See update below)  They were Dan Strite, Dominic Hammon and Saba Ahmed. Hammon asked that we publish his responses.

Of the three respondents, both Strite and Hammon support Federal restrictions on modern firearms and ammunition feeding devices. Both believe the Feds have the right to regulate, tax and restrict firearms ownership.

Saba Ahmed answered 100% pro-gun.

Oddly, her website notes that she has worked for both Governor Ted Kulongoski and Congressman Earl Blumenauer, neither of whom have ever had much use for gun rights.

Of the three candidates (all Democrats) who are currently serving in elected office, none responded. They are Brad Avakian, Brad Witt and Suzanne Bonamici.

Witt did call with a request for more information about one question, but then never responded with a completed survey. Bonamici has a record as a committed opponent of Second Amendment rights. As a member of the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee, she has voted over and over to attack the liberties of gun owners.

Gun owners in the First Congressional District clearly have little to be excited about with their choices to replace Wu. Remember, not answering is answering.

Feel free to contact candidates who refused to answer and ask why they feel the need to hide their positions on this important issue. We will post updates if we receive any.

UPDATE 9.30.11

We have received a survey from Republican Delgado Morgan. She responded almost 100% pro-gun. On question 2, asking if she would have voted to extend the Patriot Act, she answered “Other” but with no explanation.

UPDATED 10.6.11
Jim Greenfield returned a nearly 100% pro gun survey. He did note that he was unfamiliar with the United Nations Small Arms treaty but his other answers were all pro 2nd Amendment

UPDATED 11.8.11
We received a very late survey from Lisa Michaels with a 100% pro-gun response.

Senator Floyd Prozanski. Provable, Certified Liar.

By Kevin Starrett

No doubt by now many of you have received an email (or possibly a snail mail) from Senator Floyd Prozanski attacking me personally (again).

In large part a rehash of a similar attack he sent some months ago, this message has some new accusations that require a response.

While I will attempt to address them point by point, I would like to start with one issue that needs to be put to rest because some people seem to believe there is some truth to it.

Prozanski has in the past, and again in his latest email, accused me of using a doctored photo of him in an email alert. In his latest attack on me he even included a link to the photo which appeared on someone else’s website, “Ammoland.”  In his email he says the following; “As clearly indicated by its web address, the altered photograph was posted on ammoland.com. The posting, titled “Anti-Gun Oregon Senator Prozanski, Cuckoo or Crazy Like a Fox,” was uted by and credited to OFF” .

To set the record straight here are the facts. “Ammoland”, like many other pro gun sites and chat boards, often reproduces OFF alerts. (Type “Prozanski” in the search field. ) People, from firearms instructor Jim Jacobe to nationally known gun writer David Codrea, either reproduce or post links to our legislative alerts. We do not ask for this to be done, nor do we require permission that it be done.

In this case, “Ammoland” apparently included the altered photo of Prozanski  when they reproduced our alert. (An unaltered photo appears there now.)  Let’s be clear and unequivocal. The altered photo was NEVER posted on our site, was not created, approved, suggested or even seen by us before Ammoland posted our alert. In short, myself, OFF and everyone associated with OFF had nothing to do with this photo of Prozanski. He is quite simply lying about it. He has been informed we had nothing to do with it but continues to lie about it. In his most recent attack he states “Although he took down the image the day after I pointed it out, Kevin failed to realize that it would be retained on the World Wide Web.”

Here is a news flash for you Floyd, that photo never appeared on our website, and if it had, we would not have taken it down because of anything a lying coward like you said. Furthermore, it was not “uted” by us and if it was “credited” to us, prove it. Your claim that it appeared on our website is a bald faced lie. The assertion that we in some way “provided” this photo is too. Quite frankly Floyd, you do a fine job making yourself look foolish, you don’t need our help with that. If it was “retained on the web” how come there is no link or record of it on our site?

Just to further prove how far from reality Prozanski resides, he also stated “…Kevin continued to deny any association with the altered photo of me that appeared … and his accusation that I was the person who fabricated it.”  Please Floyd, show us where I accused you of fabricating the picture. Another lie. Really Floyd, I doubt you have the creativity or skill to come up with something like that.

So here’s the deal Prozanski, our political action committee will write a $5000.00 check to your reelection campaign if you can provide proof of your claim that this image ever appeared on our site or that it was created or uted by anyone from OFF to any other site.  It’s right here on the internet, saved for all time.

Thousands of people get our alerts. If we did what this pathetic liar accused us of, SOMEONE will be able to provide documentation.  Put up or shut up Floyd.

I presume that addresses that issue. Now let’s respond to some other things Prozanski has said.

Prozanski says “After my first e-mail, Kevin sent me a message demanding that I apologize to him for stating that he altered my picture and posted it on ammoland.com. He even threatened to file an ethics complaint if I did not.Knowing that my statements are factual, I sincerely had hoped that Kevin would file his complaint. ”

I never said anything in my email to Prozanski about “posting on Ammoland”. This is absurd. I don’t even know if a person can “post on Ammoland”. Show us the email Floyd. I am sure you have a copy. No wait, I have a copy. What follows is the exact text of the email I sent to Prozanski:
______________________________________________
06.08.11
Dear Senator Prozanski,
By now you have no doubt seen my response to the email you sent out yesterday dealing with gun legislation.
Frankly, I have no problem with your accusations about my use of “scare tactics” and “misinformation.” My alerts are available for anyone to see anytime and I will stand by their accuracy. However, in your email you made the following statement: ” Many of you have received information from Kevin Starrett of Oregon Firearms Federation, who has used scare tactics, misinformation and “photo shopped” pictures to berate the bill or me.”This is false. No alerts or other communication dealing with the pending bills, or you, contained a photo, much less one that was “photo shopped” of you.
For the record, I do not own Photo Shop and can assure you that I have better things to do than “photo shop” images of you.
Inasmuch as this false and bizarre accusation reflects directly on my credibility and professionalism, I request that you correct the record with all who received your first email. Out of respect for your office and the reality that you and I will no doubt be involved with each other on a professional basis I would accept a simple correction and retraction. I believe this would be preferable to any ethics complaint.
As you know, lobbyists are expected to abide by certain accepted standards, I believe legislators should as well. Your accusation is false and needs to be corrected.

Kevin Starrett

___________________________________________________

One note. After sending this  email I did recall a web page (not an alert) that dealt with bills sent to Prozanski’s committee. That page did include a photo of him, but as noted and corrected here, the image was only a copy of his legislative web page photo and was not “photoshopped.” The only change made it was that it was reproduced in black and  white.

In fact, I did contact the ethics commission. They informed me that they would not consider any complaint unless if involved a legislator illegally taking money. I can assure that had that not been the case, a complaint would have been filed.

In the opening of his email Prozanski says “I believe that it is important to communicate directly with folks, especially as I try to set the record straight against someone spreading misinformation about me.”

This is, of course, the same accusation Prozanski has made in the past, that I mislead and lie about him.

Prozanski continues to assert that I lie and mislead about him and his record.  But the problem for Prozanski is that everything we write and distribute is available for anyone to read and judge for themselves. In fact, any ten year old with an internet connection can research everything we report and learn for themselves if any of Prozanski’s accusations have any merit. It’s interesting to note that for all the lies I am accused of creating, Prozanski cannot provide a single example of one. Not one.  Really Floyd, with that crack staff of yours who managed to find an altered photo of you on a website OFF has nothing to do with, don’t you think those well trained legislative aides could find at least ONE example of anything I have said which is not 100% accurate? (Hard to find good help these days isn’t it?)  Really, I can provide numerous lies from just one of his emails, and he can’t provide a single one from the dozens and dozens of alerts available to anyone on our website. And this guys is a “municipal prosecutor”? (Oh that would be traffic tickets right?)

Floyd’s next big lie is that we use our email alerts to raise money. Now, why Prozanski thinks we should not raise money to fight liars like him may be explained by the fact that 100% of his income comes from feeding at the public trough both in and out of  session, but we welcome anyone to view our legislative alerts and judge for themselves how often we use them as a fund raising tool. Come on Floyd, they are right there on our website, even if you cannot read and understand legislation, you should be able to read alerts and then count. Go ahead. Count them.Advocacy organizations raise money. We do it far less than most. Really not important, but just another demonstrable lie from Floyd.

As part of his attack on me Prozanski says “Since Kevin did not give you all of the facts, here is a link to the bill signed by the Governor: leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/hb2700.dir/hb2792.en.pdf.”

The bizarre thing is that the alert he was attacking contained a link to the very bill he said I was not giving the facts about! What is this guy talking about? Why not just list the “facts” I did not provide? Because he can’t.

Prozanski goes on with this gem:“Kevin continues to provide you with misinformation and has lost credibility with many legislators. I suggest you consider getting the facts from another gun rights organization. The NRA and the Oregon Gun Owners are two respected advocacy groups that will provide you with actual facts and that work positively with legislators. Those groups are known to advocate effectively for gun rights in Oregon.”

Once again, Prozanski and his crack staff fail to provide a single example of the “misinformation” while suggesting you get your “facts” from NRA and “Oregon Gun Owners.”

While we often disagree with the NRA, here’s a fact from them that we share,Prozanski received ad “F” from NRA .  It’s pretty hard to get an “F” from NRA, yet Prozanzki states (presumably with a straight face) that he is “pro-gun.”

“Oregon Gun Owners” is best known for drafting and promoting a bill to ban private sales at gun shows and when that failed they attempted to get a measure on the ballot  to do the same. That  also failed. Of course, “Oregon Gun Owners” endorsed Prozanski and anti-gun Senate President Peter Courtney.  “Oregon Gun Owners” lobbyist could not even correctly say how long a concealed handgun license was valid for when he testified before a House Committee. No wonder Floyd wants you to get your information from them.

Prozanski’s lies may well be too many to catalog, but one final lie deserves attention. In his  attack on me he says :”As stated in my last e-mail, I am pro-gun. I support the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 27, of the Oregon Constitution. I personally own several firearms and have owned guns since I was 15. I am also a member of my party’s gun caucus.”

Well Floyd, you can say you’re an astronaut too, but that does not make you one. Prozanski killed efforts to keep CHL info private and turned a bill that clarified carry on motorcycles and ATVs into a bill to ban self-defense firearms on school property. He reversed a bill he himself carried and  passed through his committee CORRECTION. IT PASSED THE FULL SENATE(twice) but clearly never read or understood,to give persons a path for firearms rights restoration and manipulated hearings to prevent any meaningful testimony by pro-gun advocates. Can you  imagine if he were anti-gun?

Prozanski has proven himself to be not only a determined enemy of liberty and  the Second Amendment, but a provable liar. This must be why he is the Senate Judiciary Chair.

Kevin Starrett

After reading Kevin Starrett’s recent attack e-mail and blog posting, I thought it was time to send out another message to each of you. But first, I truly appreciate the many replies of thanks to my last e-mail. I believe that it is important to communicate directly with folks, especially as I try to set the record straight against someone spreading misinformation about me.
I’d like to start by acknowledging that gun owners may not always agree with each other on every issue, but we should be willing to discuss the merits of those issues without misrepresenting the facts or calling each other names.

That said, I am continually disappointed in the behavior of Kevin Starrett and his attacks on my character. Kevin has demonstrated his skill at name-calling, but he does not have the facts to back up his claims. Even I was surprised that Kevin continued to deny any association with the altered photo of me that appeared … and his accusation that I was the person who fabricated it.

Really? Here are the facts:
Although he took down the image the day after I pointed it out, Kevin failed to realize that it would be retained on the World Wide Web. Here’s a link to the picture my staff was able to locate through a Google “spider” search: www.leg.state.or.us/prozanski/ammoland_website.jpg.
As clearly indicated by its web address, the altered photograph was posted on ammoland.com. The posting, titled “Anti-Gun Oregon Senator Prozanski, Cuckoo or Crazy Like a Fox,” was contributed by and credited to OFF.
After my first e-mail, Kevin sent me a message demanding that I apologize to him for stating that he altered my picture and posted it on ammoland.com. He even threatened to file an ethics complaint if I did not.
Knowing that my statements are factual, I sincerely had hoped that Kevin would file his complaint. He did not because the facts don’t support him. Instead, he sent out another e-alert blasting me and, predictably, asking you for money. Kevin continues to defame my character and misrepresent my position on gun rights. If he truly believes that the facts support his claims, he should file his ethics complaint.
As stated in my last e-mail, I am pro-gun. I support the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 27, of the Oregon Constitution. I personally own several firearms and have owned guns since I was 15. I am also a member of my party’s gun caucus.
As a gun owner for more than 40 years, I believe certain felons (e.g., murderers, rapists and felons who used a gun or dangerous weapon to commit a person felony) should not be eligible to petition for restoration of their right to purchase or possess guns. On the other hand, Kevin believes all felons should have that right. I see no reason for Kevin to resort to such extreme tactics against me just because we disagree on this issue, except to try to raise money.
In Kevin’s recent e-alert, he praised passage of HB 2792 as it pertained to clarifying possessing firearms on motorcycles and ATVs, but stated he had misgivings about some felons not being able to petition the courts for gun rights. As the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I amended HB 2792 to include both of those provisions. The bill passed the Senate 24-5, and the House 45-12.
Since Kevin did not give you all of the facts, here is a link to the bill signed by the Governor: leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/hb2700.dir/hb2792.en.pdf.
As I also stated in my first e-mail to you, Kevin uses scare tactics to raise money for his organization. He denies it on the premise that he did not ask for money in his May 31 posting that contained the altered photo. He then makes a pitch for your money in his July 23 e-alert! Does he really think we’re that gullible? All session long he used a time-honored approach of some advocacy groups to raise money: First, sound the alarms and use scare tactics, and then ask for money to fight the “Big Bad” __________ (fill in the blank). Kevin decided to make me the “Big Bad” to try to raise money. He fails to mention that I’m a gun owner and that I work as a municipal prosecutor when I’m not in session.
Kevin continues to provide you with misinformation and has lost credibility with many legislators. I suggest you consider getting the facts from another gun rights organization. The NRA and the Oregon Gun Owners are two respected advocacy groups that will provide you with actual facts and that work positively with legislators. Those groups are known to advocate effectively for gun rights in Oregon.
You can also review the legislative record yourself. All bills and committee records can be accessed here: www.leg.state.or.us/index.html. Currently, the two judiciary committees are scheduled to discuss additional gun legislation during the interim. You can follow the committees’ work through the above link.
In closing, I want to reemphasize that gun owners may not always agree with each other on every issue, but we should be willing to discuss the merits of those issues without misrepresenting the facts or calling each other names. As always, my office is ready to assist you in getting legislative information and I welcome your input.
Thanks again,
Floyd

Governor Signs Gun Bill

Governor Kitzhaber has signed HB 2792 into law. That’s good news and bad news.

2792 clarifies lawful carry of firearms on motorcycles, snowmobiles and all terrain vehicles. The “short ” version follows.

As always, concealed handgun license holders can carry handguns any way they choose while on motorcycles. This was always so. However,until this bill became law, there was no practical way for a person to legally transport a handgun on a motorcycle if they did not have a CHL. Now those without licenses can carry handguns on motorcycles if they are in a locked container or if they are equipped with a trigger lock. This is a positive development.

In the past, it was unlawful to have a  loaded firearm on a snowmobile or ATV. This applied to everyone, even those with concealed handgun licenses. One of the main problems with this law was that the term “loaded” was not defined. Could you have a magazine inserted in an auto loader if there was no round in the chamber? The law did not say. Now, with the enactment of 2792, this too has been clarified. For the purposes of carry on snowmobiles and ATV’s “unloaded” 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.

Please note, the above restriction no longer applies to CHL holders, who may carry fully loaded firearms on snowmobiles or ATV’s . You may also carry concealed on snowmobiles and ATV’s without a CHL if you follow the same guidelines as are applied to motorcycles, meaning the gun must be in a locked container or be equipped with a trigger lock. Without a CHL you may carry the gun openly in the newly defined “unloaded” condition anyplace there are not local restrictions. The rules for motorcycles, snowmobiles and ATV’s are now much like the rules for cars and trucks

While these are good changes and ones we have been working on for some time, 2792 also had bad components. As you may know, in 2009 OFF crafted legislation to clean up Oregon’s laws on gun rights restoration for persons with past felony convictions. SB 603 corrected an error in Oregon law that allowed a person with a felony conviction to petition the court have his rights restored to buy a gun, but because of an anomaly in the law, that person could still not own it!. SB 603 fixed that and worked well for the short time it was in effect. Now, HB 2792 greatly restricts who may apply for rights restoration. Remember, this was not a law that gave anyone their rights back, it only allowed them to ask for their rights back. Some applied and were approved and some were not. The new system worked. Now, many who were convicted of a “person felony” cannot apply for rights restoration. You can see a list of “person felonies” here. This link is no longer active. You can see the list of person felonies in ORS 137.700

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.

Oregon Senate  Democrats Vote Share Private Data Of  CHL Holders.

Today, the Oregon Senate voted against keeping the personal, sensitive, information of CHL holders private.

Senate Democrats voted 100% against gun rights, while Senate Republicans voted 100% for gun rights. There were a few Senate Democrats we had hoped would step up for their constituents. We were wrong.

Republican Senator Ted Ferriolli made a motion to withdraw SB 582 from the Senate Judiciary Committee where it had be left to die. This bill would have protected the privacy of CHL holders.
Because Senate Democrats had maneuvered to kill every attempt to safeguard the private information of their constituents, this motion was intended to bring the bill to the floor and bypass Senator Floyd Prozanski’s Judiciary Committee, which has killed or twisted every pro-gun bill that came its way.

The Senate voted the motion down on a straight party line vote.

We thank Senator Ferriolli for his efforts and are pleased that the Oregon Senators are on record with their views on the value of your privacy.

Every Democratic Oregon Senator voted against the privacy of gun owners today.

HB 2792, “Gut and Stuffed” By  The Senate, Passes House.

House Bill 2792 passed the Oregon House today. The bill started life as a recognition of other states’ concealed handgun licenses. In its original form it passed the House with wide bipartisan support. It was then sent to the Senate.

In the Senate all the original language was stripped out by Senator Floyd Prozanski and replaced with language that had nothing to do with accepting other states’ permits. Instead it took the language from HB 2797 that clarified lawful carry on motorcycles, snowmobiles and atv’s and added new language restricting, complicating and muddling the process for firearms rights restoration for persons with felony convictions.

You might wonder why the House did not just pass HB 2797. Well, they did. But when that got to the Senate, it was turned into a “no guns in schools” bill.  2792 is currently sleeping in the Senate Rules Committee, where we expect it to die the death it deserves. It never made it to the Senate floor for a vote because Senate President, Peter Courtney, had the good sense to prevent his Democrat colleagues from going on the record on this issue. What he lacks in ethics, he makes up in political acumen.

So back to HB 2792. After the Senate “gut and stuffed” the bill the House refused to concur in the Senate changes. A “conference committee” was assembled and the House members, who had refused to agree to the Senate amendments, accepted all the amendments. They did get one minor change from what the Senate had done, but it had no effect whatsoever on the changed bill and was meaningless.

After being postponed for a floor vote yesterday because of widespread confusion about what the bill did, the House took up the bill today and demonstrated that they still had no idea what the bill was about. The only House rep who really understood the bill and the changes made to it was its sponsor, Kim Thatcher, who in the end refused to vote for her own bill because it had been so badly mangled.

While the bill does contain some good and needed language to clarify carry on motorcycles, snowmobiles and atv’s the new restrictions on rights restoration will do nothing more than complicate and confuse the process, and for no reason. The current law is working exactly as it should. By the way, the current law was passed in 2009 without a single “no” vote in either House. Now, in spite of no problems with the law, the House has voted to roll over to the Senate’s changes because as Represent Wayne Krieger noted on the House floor, “you don’t want to run your campaign” having given guns to felons! But of course, every member who was there in 2009 voted for that very language and it was never a campaign issue.

Krieger also said that it probably “not the intention” of the legislature to pass the 2009 bill which established the current law. That’s an interesting statement. No one voted against it. No one.

If all of them were so confused by that bill in 2009, we have to wonder if they read this bill. Based on the comments made by several of the supporters of this version of the bill, they have not read this one either.

The motorcycle language is good and the change was overdue. We are pleased it was adopted. The language dealing with felons will effect very few of us. But those who it will effect will no-doubt face the same confusion and frustration that some are facing as a result of the changes made in 2009 to share mental health records with the Feds. The bureaucratic nightmares that created don’t impact many, but those that are impacted face really unfair hurdles.

It’s disappointing that so many voted to roll over to the tiny fringe of anti-rights zealots in the Senate, but that’s where we are at. The bill will need to go back to the Senate for a final vote where we expect it to pass.

There were actually two votes on HB 2792 today. The first was a vote to accept the changes made by the “conference committee. (Basically agreeing to everything the Senate did). You can see that vote count here. The second was on adopting the bill itself. You can see that vote count here.

ANTI-GUN BILL SCHEDULED FOR VOTE TOMORROW

On Monday, June 27th,the Oregon House is scheduled to vote on HB 2792. (That does not mean it will actually be voted on. Anything can happen.)

In its original form, as introduced by House Rep and pro-liberty heroine, Kim Thatcher, the bill would have recognized the concealed handgun licenses of other states. Now all its original language has been stripped out and it bears no resemblance to the bill as introduced.

After the bill was “gut and stuffed” by Senator Floyd Prozanski, the Senate passed it but the House refused to agree to the new and now unrecognizable bill. So a “conference committee” was appointed to iron out the differences.

The conference committee agreed to all the changes the House refused to agree to with one minor and meaningless change.

This mangled bill is scheduled to be voted on tomorrow on the House floor.

In its current form the bill does provide the language we asked for to define how a handgun could be lawfully carried on a snowmobile, ATV or motorcycle, but in exchange for adding that language (which was stripped from a bill which would have addressed that issue alone) Prozanski added the poison bill he promised at the beginning of the session. He added language which hopelessly muddles and complicates the current law dealing with how a person can get seek rights restoration if they had a very old felony conviction.

Since the beginning of 2010, people with felony convictions could appeal to a court and request rights restoration. If they could convince the court that they were now upstanding citizens and no threat, they could have their rights to own a gun restored if the court agreed.

Frankly, the new law has worked well. Dangerous people have neither sought nor received rights restoration and people who made a dumb mistake 30 years ago, and have since been productive members of society, had the opportunity to make a case for themselves.

Now, that is in jeopardy of disappearing. The gut and stuffed version of HB 2792 will make the rights restoration process as much of a mess has HB 2853 did in 2009.

As much as we want our motorcycle language to become law, and as much as sportsmen and motorcycle riders deserve to have clear laws, we think adding this poison bill is a mistake. We regret that the Republicans on the conference committee agreed to it. Please consider contacting your House Rep and telling them that HB 2792 is a dangerous and counterproductive  capitulation. Thanks for your activism.

HB 2792  was supposed to be a bill that recognized other state’s concealed handgun licenses.

After passing the House by a wide margin it was sent to the Senate where Senate Judiciary Chairman Floyd Prozanski “gut and stuffed” it so it was no longer recognizable.

Now, while the bill does contain language we sought to clarify the lawful carry of firearms on motorcycles, snowmobiles and ATV’s it also contains complex and vague language creating new restrictions on persons attempting to get their firearm’s rights restored.

Today the bill went to a “Conference Committee” to iron out differences between the House and Senate.

The committee members from the Senate side were Floyd Prozanski, Jackie Dingfelder and Doug Whitsett. The House members were Wayne Krieger and Jeff Barker. The entire committee voted unanimously to accept the “gut and stuffed” Senate version of the bill with one meaningless amendment. The amendment changes from three to one year, the amount of time that must transpire before those who may still apply for rights restoration must wait after leaving prison. No one from the “pro-gun” side offered substantive pro-gun amendments.

We have no idea why the committee felt the need to make this change. While we have no objection to it, it serves no purpose, something we have repeatedly pointed out to committee members. Federal law still forbids anyone with a felony record from having his rights restored in Oregon for 15 years. So the amendment was a meaningless gesture that benefits no one.

So now, with the help of the House members of the conference committee, and the Republican Senate member, a message has been sent to Senator Prozanski that he can mangle or simply kill pro-gun bills with impunity.

Much will be said by legislators about the need to not “arm felons.”  Many who supported the original bill that had no language about rights restoration,are fearful that this will become a campaign issue. But there are two important points to keep in mind. In 2009, the bill that allowed felons to seek rights restoration was drafted by Floyd Prozanski and it passed both Houses with no opposition. So “arming felons” was actually done in 2009, and no one lost a re-election campaign as a result. It’s a bogus issue.

Secondly, in spite of the “sky is falling” rhetoric by Prozanski, the law is working. Murderers and rapists are neither seeking nor receiving gun rights restoration. There simply is not a problem.

Before the law was changed in 2009 it was clear that many in the legislature were confused about what existing law said.   It soon became clear that many were confused about what the correcting legislation did. In 2010, when Floyd Prozanski introduced legislation to reverse what he wrote in 2009 it was clear he did not understand what his new bill said. Now we have a cluttered, unneeded and confusing bill that accomplishes little and is likely to be misunderstood by most,

And every single word about recognizing other states’s license is gone.

Today, Prozanski also led the floor debate to kill SB 347. 347 would have protected the privacy of  CHL holders and victims of domestic violence.  Prozanski and fellow  Democrats voted to throw domestic violence victims under the bus just to make sure CHL holders got no protection.On this vote, a “nay” is a pro-gun vote.

As a result of that vote, 347 must be assigned to a conference committee of the type that just sold out to the anti-gunners in the Senate.

So while SB 347 awaits a conference committee, HB 2792 will go back to both Houses for a vote on whether to agree with the conference committee’s decision to go along with all the “gut and stuff” language added into it in the Senate.

We strongly urge you to contact both your House Rep and your State Senator and urge them to vote “No” on HB 2792 when it comes back to them. The bill no longer protects visitors to our state, is confusing and unneeded.  You can reach both your House Rep and your State Senator here.

Please tell them that while you strongly supported the original bill, you cannot support a bill that has been used by anti-gunners to promote their own agenda.

The 2011 Legislative session is nearing an end. Some say it may happen as soon as this coming week. Because of the confusing nature of the way gun bills were dealt with, we will try to provide a summary of where we are now.

Although quite a few gun bills, both good and bad, were introduced, only a few saw any action.

Here is a brief overview of the status of the bills that were at least considered.

HB 2787 would have protected the privacy of concealed handgun license holders. The bill passed by a wide margin in the House. When it was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Floyd Prozanski scheduled it for a hearing and then refused to hear it. It is now dead.

The House Republicans added CHL privacy language to SB 347, which protects the privacy of domestic violence victims, and passed it. It went back to the Senate for concurrence and we have good reason to believe Senate President Peter Courtney will not allow it to pass with the CHL privacy language in it. When the CHL privacy language was added, militant anti-gunners worked against the bill. They wanted protections for domestic violence victims, but not if those victims took any action to protect themselves. Privacy for CHL holders is almost certainly dead this session. Miracles do happen, but that’s almost what it would take at this point.

We can only speculate on the motivations of the people who are determined to make public the private, sensitive information of CHL holders. Their stated reasons are nonsensical. But, since they are convinced that centralized, public databases of personal info are a good idea, we’ve created one ourselves. As public figures, we’re sure they would approve.

HB 2791 would have replaced our current system of gun purchase background checks. Our checks are done by the Oregon State Police, cost $10.00, and are frequently mishandled, causing countless unjustified delays. 2791 would have turned this job over to the Federal NICS system which does not charge a fee, does not retain info on the gun purchased (unlike the OSP) and has had virtually no problems in the states that use it. (Yes, odd for a Federal program, but true.)

That bill passed out of the House Judiciary Committee and was sent to the Ways and Means Committee. A hearing was held there. After testimony by public employees (who took the position that if a few civilian employees of the State Police lost their jobs because the Feds would do most background checks, the Oregon economy would collapse), that bill was left there to die. While not officially dead until the session ends, its chances of survival are almost zero. Oregonians will continue to spend millions on background checks from an agency that has admitted that it is not getting the job done.

HB 2797 was supposed to define how you could lawfully transport a handgun on a motorcycle, snowmobile or ATV.  It passed with no opposition in the House. It too was sent to Prozanski’s committee, where Prozanski added a few other elements. He took the language he said he would not consider in the CHL privacy bill and slipped that in there, which might seem good except that he also added language banning guns in all public schools and colleges and he added new restrictions on those seeking to get their rights restored if they had a felony conviction. Basically he created a whole class of people who could never even ask to get their rights restored. Prozanski never provided a single example of a dangerous felon seeking rights restoration under the current law, which is working quite well. He did accuse us of wanting to arm “murderers and rapists” but never mentioned that he was responsible for the change in the law in 2009 that allowed ex-felons to petition the court for rights restoration. That bill passed out of his committee, and although it was an awful bill, had it gone to the floor for a vote, we would have a record of where Senators stood on your rights and we could have killed it later in the House. But Senate President Peter Courtney, being just a bit wiser than Prozanski, instead sent the bill to Senate Rules Committee for no reason other than to assure it would quietly die and no Senate Democrats would be on record. Gamesmanship to be sure, but evidence of Courtney’s political acumen. He’s not ethical, but he is skilled.

HB 2792 started as a bill to recognize other states’ handgun licenses. After passing the House by a wide margin, it too was sent to Floyd Prozanski’s committee. There, he stripped out all the recognition language and replaced it with the language from HB 2797 dealing with motorcycles, snowmobiles, and ATV’s. Once again, that sounds good, but he added his favorite poison pill, new restrictions on rights restoration.

That bill passed out of his committee with the support of both Republicans(Jeff Kruse and Doug Whitsett) and was sent to the Senate floor where it passed with only one “no” vote, from Senator Larry George. We were informed by one Republican Senator that the GOP caucus had no discussions about the bill at all, so many of them probably had no idea what they were voting on.

When that bill came back to the House for concurrence, the House refused to agree to the Senate amendments. So as of Friday, June 17, the bill was headed for a conference committee.

Prozanski desperately wants to end the possibility of rights restoration for a whole class of people, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that dangerous people are either asking for or receiving gun rights back. The Republicans will be in a difficult political position because if they remove the bad language from the bill, Prozanski and other Democrats will claim (as they have of us,) that Republicans support “arming murderers and rapists.” There will be great political pressure to cave at least partially to the Democrats.

We are close to the end of this session. Don’t feel lonely if you’ve been confused by the paths these bills have taken. We’ll keep you updated and it will all be over soon, for better or worse.

House Bill 2792 started as a bill to recognize other states’ handgun permits and passed the House by a wide margin.

The bill was then sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where all the recognition language was removed. In its place the Senate Committee inserted language dealing with possessing firearms on motorcycles, snowmobiles, and ATV’s. This language had been taken from another bill.

Oddly, instead of just passing HB 2797 (the original motorcycle bill) as written, they “gut and stuffed” HB 2792 with this language. However, in addition to the motorcycle language, which is good and needed, Floyd Prozanski also included language to restrict the ability of persons with felony convictions to seek gun rights restoration.

Since 2009, when Prozanski drafted legislation to allow those people to petition the courts for rights restoration (a bill that passed both Houses without a single “no” vote), he has been trying to reverse his own bill.

The current law is working. Contrary to what Prozanski has implied in mass mailings and newspaper editorials, the courts are not returning gun rights to “murderers and rapists.” All the 2009 law does is make the process make sense. Prior to 2009 the law allowed someone to ask the courts to get his rights restored to buy a gun, but he still could not own it. It was absurd.

In 2009, we fixed this error, and in spite of universal support by both Houses, Prozanski has been trying to reverse his own legislation ever since.

HB 2792 was “gut and stuffed” to institute new and totally unneeded restrictions on the process.

Today, when the bill went back to the House for concurrence, the House refused to concur. This means that a “conference committee” must be appointed to resolve the differences.

Thus, there is still a possibility that this bill can be saved, if the conference committee strips out all the bad rights restoration language and just keeps the motorcycle language. But the reality is that politicians, no matter how good they are, are still afraid of what will happen at election time.  Any legislator who takes the tough position of demanding that the bad language should be removed will no doubt face the kind of false and defamatory accusations that we have about “arming murders and rapists.”

So far, Prozanski has successfully ruined or killed every good gun bill that came his way. It is very important that the members of the House not allow him to continue destroying good legislation instead of simply moving his own bills to advance his agenda. Please contact Speaker Bruce Hanna and ask that he use his position to ensure that HB 2792 do no more than clarify motorcycle, snowmobile and ATV rules.

Contact Info and sample message for Speaker Hanna follow.

Representative Bruce L Hanna
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1200
Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, 269, Salem, OR, 97301
Email: rep.brucehanna@state.or.us

_________________________________________________________

Dear Speaker Hanna,

As you know, HB 2792 was “gut and stuffed” in Senate Judiciary and no longer resembles its original intent.

This was the fate of every pro-gun bill that made it out of the House and was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. As you also know, the House has refused to concur in the changes made in the Senate.

As the conference committee considers this bill, I strongly urge you to salvage the good language dealing with motorcycles, snowmobiles, and ATV’s, and remove the unneeded and counterproductive language dealing with gun rights restoration. The current law is working as it should. Please do not allow the false allegations about “arming murderers and rapists” to become a political weapon. Please use your influence to save what we can of this badly battered bill.

Sincerely yours,

___________________

__________________________________________________________

House Bill 2792, which passed the House with 40 votes, started life as a bill that recognized other states’ concealed handgun licenses.

After passing in the House, it was sent to Floyd Prozanski’s Senate Judiciary Committee where he stripped out all the language dealing with recognition and replaced it with language dealing with a lawful way to transport handguns on motorcycles, snowmobiles and ATVs. The bill which originally contained that language was gutted and turned into a bill to ban licensed carry on school property, including colleges.

The new “stuffed” version of 2792 also includes dramatic new restrictions on restoration of gun rights by persons with felony convictions.

Only Senator Larry George voted “no” on 2792. We commend him.

While we support (and in fact wrote) the language on transport, we believe that the new restrictions on rights restoration is unwise, unneeded and counterproductive.

The bill now goes back to the House for a vote on concurring with Prozanski’s amendments. Please contact your House Rep and urge that they not concur with the Senate amendments.

They still have the opportunity to take the bill to a conference committee and strip out the bad parts of the gutted bill and only leave the good parts.

You can use the following link to write to your House Rep.

Remember, the person you want to contact is your State House Rep.

Today the Oregon House passed SB 347. This bill protects the privacy of certain domestic violence victims.  After passing the Senate, the House Judiciary Committee added protections for persons who had, or applied for, a concealed handgun license.

As you know, the House had previously passed, by a large margin, a bill to protect CHL privacy. That bill was killed in the Senate by Floyd Prozanski who would not even allow discussion of the bill in committee.

When 347 came to the House, the House Judiciary Committee wisely added the CHL protections with the obvious reasoning that it made little sense to protect domestic violence victims unless they had taken steps to protect themselves, at which point their private, sensitive information would once again be made public.

As you might expect, the more militant haters of self-reliance were so horrified by the idea that CHL holders might be afforded some protections, that they actually voted against protections for domestic violence victims because they so objected to any protections for CHL holders.

This bill will now have to go back to the Senate for concurrence on the changes. We are going to go way out on a limb here and predict that the anti-gun zealots in the Senate will not concur and this bill will be dead.

On another note, HB 2792, another pro-gun bill that was “gut and stuffed” by Prozanski is due for a vote on the Senate floor on Wednesday.

To see who hates gun owners so much that they are willing to vote against the victims of domestic violence, view the vote count on SB 347 here.