Category: OFF Alerts

As you know, we currently have several important bills still in play in the Oregon legislature.

Three bills are being held hostage in the Senate Judiciary Committee by  Floyd Prozanski who is using them as bargaining chips to advance his anti-gun agenda.

We know that one of the things he wants to do is ban guns in schools. That much was made very clear by the sham “hearings” that were held for House Bills 2792, 2787 and 2797.

As you can see here and here, those “hearings” were a farce and nothing more than a opportunity for Prozanski’s anti-gun supporters to advance misinformation to promote a ban on guns in schools. As we have already noted, the anti-gun groups had clearly been given copies of amendments, or proposed “concepts” that no one else has been allowed to see.

But Prozanski also added to the agenda the “concepts” of felon rights restoration and “mental health issues.” To date, he has provided no one any idea what his “concepts” are, yet strangely still invited public testimony on them.

Although, (in the interest of government transparency no doubt) Prozanski won’t reveal what he hopes to do besides ban guns in schools, we assume it is his intention to stuff one or more of the these bills with anti-gun language.

Now is by no means the time to let up. Both Prozanski and Senate President Peter Courtney need to hear loud and clear that we want these bills moved out of committee and onto the Senate floor with no poison pill amendments.  Let’s get an up or down vote so Oregonians know where their legislators stand.  The posturing and games must stop.

If you’ve called and emailed, please do it again. Do not be discouraged if they do not respond. What matters is that they hear from us and are reminded that there are consequences for their actions. A return email is far less important.

Elsewhere, House Bill 2791, our bill to take background checks away from the State Police, has been referred to the Joint Ways and Means Committee and from there to the Public Safety Subcommittee after passing out of the House Judiciary Committee.

As you know, the State Police have simply not been able to run the background check program correctly lately and now they want to almost triple their fees. Gun owners should not be forced to subsidize other tasks of the State Police ID unit every time they want to make a purchase.

We now need to make sure that this bill does not disappear into the black hole of lost bills.

The Subcommittee has three co-chairs:

Senator Jackie Winters
Representative Greg Smith, and
Representative Mary Nolan

They need to hear from you and be told that gun owners deserve HB 2791. There is no reason we should be paying a fee to the State Police to run a background check through the feds which the feds will do directly at no charge. (Beyond what we are being dinged in tax dollars.)

Mary Nolan is the key player here.  She is a knee jerk, anti-gunner who will vote against bills she does not understand simply because she thinks they are “pro-gun.”  Nolan voted against 2791 in the Judiciary Committee because she said she “wanted the bill to go to Ways and Means” instead of directly to the floor.  Well, she got her wish. Now we need to let her know that this bill will save Oregonians millions of dollars and incalculable hassle.

Also, please contact Senators Prozanski and Courtney and tell then to stop playing games with the gun bills in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Contact info follows.

Senate President Peter Courtney.
Senator Floyd Prozanski

Thanks for your continued activism.

Senator Peter Courtney
900 Court St. NE, S-201
Salem, OR 97301
sen.petercourtney@state.or.us
503 986 1004

05.03.11

Dear President Courtney,

Having now sat through my second “informational meeting” in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I felt obligated to contact you about the “procedure.”

As you no doubt know, the Judiciary Committee scheduled three bills to be heard last Thursday. However, the hearing was also to be used as the setting for an “informational meeting” on three “concepts”:

Guns in schools, restoration of a felon’s gun rights, and “mental health issues.”

The hearing on the bills and the “informational meeting” ran concurrently, so those who wanted to testify on the bills themselves were sandwiched into the “informational meeting.”

Of course, the first speakers were all representatives of groups that wanted to lobby on behalf of banning concealed handgun license holders from school grounds. Interestingly, all of these people had testimony that referred to a specific amendment to a specific bill.

No one who came to support gun rights saw any amendment nor did either of the two Republican members of the Committee.

Chairman Prozanski insisted there were no amendments, yet even after making that statement, references were made to “the dash-1” amendments.

The first speakers were given an unlimited amount of time to speak. By the time anyone who supported gun rights was given an opportunity to testify, their time limit was down to 2 minutes.

No representative of any organized pro-gun group was given a chance to present testimony in spite of having signed up before many of the anti-gun, school representatives.

When time ran out, we were informed that the “meeting” would continue today, Tuesday.  When we arrived, sign up sheets for all three bills and the “informational meeting” were available on the table in the hearing room. Several people signed up.

From the beginning of this “hearing” we were informed that testimony would be limited to 2 minutes. So now, we were limited to two minutes to testify on three bills, all of which we requested and worked on, and all of  which received overwhelming support in the House. But we also had to testify on three “concepts”, none of which we were allowed to see in spite of a direct request to Senator Prozanski to share them with us.

Having listened to extensive and inaccurate testimony from the government school representatives last week we now had two minutes to refute their comments, discuss two other “concepts” (still unseen) and three important gun bills.  In all we were afforded 20 seconds for each issue.

Clearly, the bills in question never received an adequate hearing. They were barely discussed at all.

“Mental health” received almost no comment, felons’ rights restoration received no comment at all, and the hearings were instead used as an opportunity to bash license holders by people who clearly seemed to be familiar with amendments Senator Prozanski claims do not exist.

Today, as you well know, a number of people who had signed up to testify were simply ignored, although one person who signed up today was inexplicably given her two minutes.

After the hearing, Senator Prozanski contacted several inviting them to come in to testify tomorrow, claiming he had “overlooked” the new “sign up” sheet even though one person who did get to testify was only on the new sign up sheet, not having been there last week.

As you also know, this invitation came only after those people came together to your office to complain about the shoddy treatment they had received after taking time off from work to participate in the process.

If it is the desire of your caucus to kill these bills, that is their prerogative. They can take no action on them, amend them or simply vote them down. But this process, wherein bills of importance to enough people to have received overwhelming support from the House are used as a theatrical event to promote the erosion of the rights of the most law-abiding people in the state is an outrageous misuse of the system.

At a time when the idea of “government transparency” is gaining public attention, it’s absurd to invite people to testify and then refuse to allow them to know what they are testifying about.

Frankly, we’ve seen this before on the same issue. Several years ago Senator Burdick held hearings on a school gun ban in a courthouse, where, of course, CHL holders are forbidden with their self-defense tools. The hearing date was given to the opponents of gun rights before the Republican members of the Senate were told when it was, and seating was “reserved” for anti-gun speakers.

If members of your body want to disarm CHL holders in spite of their own admittance that there have been exactly zero problems, they can introduce a bill and make an effort to pass it. But to misuse the process, prevent proper testimony about important bills from getting on the record and refuse to allow the public to know what members’ intentions are is a sorry excuse for governing.

Kevin Starrett
Director
Oregon Firearms Federation

Ginny Burdick’s Testimony

Oregon Education Association’s Testimony

School Superintendent’s Testimony

Ceasefire Oregon HB 2792

Ceasefire Oregon HB 2787

Ceasefire Oregon Guns In Schools

Karen Twain’s Testimony.

Today’s Senate Judiciary Committee “hearing” was another display of the paranoia of the anti-liberty crowd.

Although the meeting was supposed to be a hearing on three good gun bills, it was, in fact, nothing more than theater arranged by, and for, the anti-gun rights, government school establishment.

In an unusual “informational meeting”, the opponents of gun rights were given a virtual monopoly on public testimony, but more, they were given information provided to no one else and the opportunity to testify at length before anyone from the pro-freedom side had a chance to respond. While limited and abbreviated testimony was taken from a few pro gun citizens, no one from OFF or NRA had a chance to testify in spite of the fact that they were “signed in” before almost everyone else.

The meeting followed a format we have never seen before. The “informational meeting” took center stage but no pro-gun people had any insights into exactly what the meeting was about. Strangely, that was not true of the people who testified on behalf of the government schools.

They repeatedly voiced their support for “amendments to HB 2797.” 2797 is the bill that clarifies lawful carry of handguns on motorcycles, ATVs and snowmobiles. The “amendments” clearly outlawed CHL holders from being on school property. Oddly, only the government school representatives seemed to have actually seen these “amendments.” Even one member of the committee asked what these supposed “amendments” were, since he had not seen them either.

After repeated references to these amendments. the chair of the committee, Floyd Prozanski, informed the audience that “there were no amendments to any of the bills” being heard today. But even after he said that several times, more representatives of the government schools referred to the “amendments to HB 2797.”

It was quite odd that numerous people who worked for the state school establishment testified in favor of amendments to a specific bill that would outlaw CHL carry on school property, but no one else saw these amendments and the Chair insisted they did not exist. Someone is not being very forthcoming.

Although we were told that the “informational meeting” would cover guns in schools, rights restoration for people with felony convictions, and “mental health issues” it was clear that the focus was on licensed carry at schools. It was also clear that the anti-gun school establishment was privy to inside information denied to everyone else.

The government school reps trotted out all the same paranoid cliches they have been relying on for years. School superintendent Susan Castillo testified that guns in schools were a dangerous proposition and illustrated her position by citing Columbine, Thurston High School and Virginia Tech. When asked if any of those shooters were concealed handgun license holders she admitted they were not, but the schools did not want to “wait “until a CHL holder opened fire on a class full of children.  (Hey, it could happen, right?)  Of course, just as every CHL holder is a potential mass murderer, every public school teacher is a potential child molester. So clearly we need to address that issue.

Ginny Burdick demonstrated, once again, her perennially addled state by testifying that CHL holders could not be trusted in schools because they did not have the extensive training that police have. She went on to illustrate her point by citing data from the New York City Police Department which concluded that NYC cops rarely hit their targets.

This is an interesting argument. On the one hand, the anti-gun crowd does not want to recognize the CHLs from other states because they may not meet Oregon’s lofty training requirements. On the other hand, we cannot trust CHL holders in schools because they have such paltry training requirements.

Of course, over and over, the anti-gun mouthpieces complained about the carnage caused by guns in schools. And over and over they were asked if any of the people who were responsible for violence in schools were CHL holders. The number of problems involving CHLs according to the anti-liberty zealots?  Er…uhh…oh…none.

After listening to multiple representatives of the Oregon government schools testify that the most law abiding Oregonians need to be disarmed because of the acts of the most criminal Oregonians, we were struck with a horrifying thought. These people are teaching our children. There have been few more compelling arguments for homeschooling than today’s testimony.

If you are a public school teacher, you should know how you are being represented in Salem. If you are a parent with children in the public school system you should know how your children are being propagandized.

In spite of Prozanski’s repeated denials, there would seem to be amendments to one of the gun bills to, once again, dredge up the failed efforts to ban CHL holders from being on school property. Why we are allowed to be in malls, parks and even the Capitol, but we can’t be trusted to pick up our children from school is never answered by the school union reps, the School Superintendent, or the orchestrated and delusional members of the government school monopoly.

Either the teachers’ union or the Chairman of the committee is lying about the phantom “amendments” to 2797.  The hearing ended with no testimony from any member of the gun lobby. Prozanski announced that he would pick this hearing up again next Tuesday. If the deck will be stacked again then, we cannot say. It is clear however, that there is an effort to butcher the pro-gun bills that passed the House with wide margins.

We strongly encourage you to continue to make your voice heard on the three bills that were supposed to be heard today. Please contact the following Senators and tell them to pass House Bills 2787, 2792, and 2797 as passed by the House with NO amendments. These are the people that need to hear from you. Do not be hesitant to contact them multiple times.

Floyd Prozanski
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1704
District Phone:
541-342-2447
sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us

Jackie Dingfelder
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1723
District Phone:
503-493-2804
sen.jackiedingfelder@state.or.us

Suzanne Bonamici
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1717
District Phone:
503-627-0246
sen.suzannebonamici@state.or.us

As we previously reported, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear three pro-gun bills tomorrow at 8:30 am. The bills scheduled for tomorrow are:

HB 2787 A.
Prohibits public body from releasing information that identifies holder of or applicant for concealed handgun license.

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

HB 2797 A
Describes “readily accessible for purpose of prohibition on possessing readily accessible, concealed handgun within vehicle, when vehicle is snowmobile, motorcycle or all-terrain vehicle.

As of now, they have only been scheduled for a hearing, not a “work session,” so it’s likely that whatever amendments are sure to be drafted for these bills will not be adopted until a later date.

We have also reported that an unusual  “informational meeting” has been scheduled at the same hearing.  The topics will be:

-Guns on public school grounds
-Restoration of privileges for persons convicted of felonies
-Access to firearms for persons suffering from mental health issues

No doubt the “mental health issue” discussion will include this unfortunate incident.

Public testimony is “welcome” but the pro-gun side has not been informed what to expect. It’s pretty difficult to prepare your testimony when you have no idea what “solutions” are going to be discussed. This will be a pivotal hearing for gun rights so we strongly encourage you to attend if at all possible. The hearing is scheduled for 8:30 am in room 343 at the State Capitol. You can monitor the hearing on line using this link. We are guessing that some folks on the other side of the issue may have more insights into what is going to be happening tomorrow than we do. Stay tuned.

Also tomorrow there is a possibility that the House will vote on HB 2791. This bill ends the State Police involvement in background checks and turns them over to the Feds who do not charge and have a far better track record of getting checks done quickly.  Please send a note to your House Rep and urge support for HB 2791. This commonsense bill would save Oregon and Oregonians countless dollars, and gun buyers countless headaches.

You can contact your own rep using this link.

Senate Judiciary Committee Announces  “Discussion on Topics Relating to Firearms.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee, dominated by anti-gun Democrats, has announced that on Thursday, April 28th, it will be holding an “informational meeting on topics related to firearms.”

On the agenda; guns on public school grounds, restoration of gun rights for people convicted of felonies, and access to firearms for persons “suffering from mental health issues”.

This meeting is scheduled for 8:30 AM in room 343 in the Capitol. The public is encourged to attend.

In plain English what this means is that, once again, the anti-gun zealots will be trying to prevent CHL holders from being anywhere where school children gather, they will try to overturn SB 603 from 2009 and probably add more people to the list of those who should be denied firearms because of “mental health issues” even though we have demonstrated to many in the legislature that there are already people on this list who should never have been there, as we predicted.

There are three pro-gun bills on the schedule for that meeting as well.

We have good reason to believe these bill will be used as vehicles to be amended and turned into anti-gun bills.

It is essential that you, once again, contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and demand that they NOT butcher the good bills that passed the House with large majorities.

There are only two Republicans on the Committee. Both are pro-gun and do not need to hear from you unless you are writing to thank them for their commitment to your rights. The three Democrats are going to be the problem.

We encourage you to let them know that you do not want the pro-gun bills used as bargaining chips for Ginny Burdick’s radical anti-rignts agenda.

The Democrats on the committee are :

Floyd Prozanski
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1704
District Phone:
541-342-2447
sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us

Jackie Dingfelder
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1723
District Phone:
503-493-2804
sen.jackiedingfelder@state.or.us

Suzanne Bonamici
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1717
District Phone:
503-627-0246
sen.suzannebonamici@state.or.us

Sample message follows:

_____________________________________________________________

Dear Senator,

On Thursday you will have before you three House bills that protect the rights of your constituents. I will be very disappointed if you allow those bills to become vehicles to attack the rights of the people whom you serve.

Yours,

_________________________________________________________________

SENATE BILL GETS TANKED. DEMS PLAN TO USE PRO-GUN HOUSE BILLS TO PROMOTE GUN CONTROL.

Senate Bill 934, scheduled, once again, for a work session today in the Senate Judiciary Committee, was shelved after the chairman, Floyd Prozanski, determined that the amendments he had requested where “not ready for prime time.” Instead, Prozanski plans to use pro-gun House bills that have already passed the House and been assigned to his committee, to include new gun restrictions.

Once bills pass one chamber, either the House or Senate, they are assigned to a committee in the other chamber. There they can be amended into nearly anything.

Three bills have already passed the House and been sent to Prozanski’s committee: HB 2787, HB 2792, and HB 2797.

Today Prozanski announced that on Thursday, April 28, some or all of those bills would be amended to include anti-gun provisions. One that he mentioned was a new “no guns in schools” element. He used the term “campus”, so we don’t know if he will be attempting to outlaw guns in all schools or just on college campuses. If it is colleges he is after, it’s an ironic time to do it. Our lawsuit against the Oregon University System is awaiting a decision in the Oregon Appeals Court and more and more states are promoting legislation to allow guns on college campuses.

Oregon would be making a great leap backward.

Prozanski also mentioned a proposed change in the law that allows felons in Oregon to request firearms rights restoration. We have received unconfirmed reports that there may even be an attempt to use our motorcycle/atv bill to introduce more restrictions when carrying on those vehicles.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to see amendments to bills until they are actually adopted. It is now not uncommon for legislators who are being asked to vote on bills to not have copies of them. We never have seen the amendments to SB 934. It is quite possible that we will not be able to tell you in advance exactly what changes are being proposed for the House Bills you worked so hard to pass, but it is safe to say, based on the makeup of the Democratic Party’s leadership in the Senate, that they won’t be good.

We are facing the very real prospect that every positive action taken in the House will be reversed in Prozanski’s committee. Not only will the gains we’ve made likely be overturned, but our bills could become successful vehicles for new rights restrictions. We clearly have a fight on our hands.

Please take a moment to contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and tell them not to use the good bills the House has passed as a vehicle for more restrictions on your rights.

You can reach them all by email using this link.

If you have any problems using that link, or your browser does not connect directly to your email program, their individual contact and a sample message info follows:

Floyd Prozanski
900 Court St. NE, S-417
Salem, OR 97301
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1704
sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us

Jeff Kruse
900 Court St. NE, S-315
Salem, OR 97301
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1701
sen.jeffkruse@state.or.us

Suzanne Bonamici
900 Court St. NE, S-403
Salem, OR 97301
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1717
sen.suzannebonamici@state.or.us

Jackie Dingfelder
900 Court St. NE, S-407
Salem, OR 97301
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1723
sen.jackiedingfelder@state.or.us

Doug Whitsett
900 Court St. NE, S-303
Salem, OR 97301
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1728
sen.dougwhitsett@state.or.us

_____________________________________________________________________

Dear Senator,

I am deeply concerned that bills passed in the House to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners will be used by your committee to institute new restrictions on my rights.

The House Bill passed by wide margins and reflects the desires of the people of Oregon. I strongly urge you not to turn back the clock on gun rights in Oregon.

Yours,

_________________________________________________________________________

ONE BILL MOVES, ONE BILL HELD OVER

Today, both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees were scheduled to vote on bills that would save gun owners enormous hassles and Oregonians millions of dollars.

The Senate Committee was, once again, due to vote on SB 934, a bill which would remove the responsibility for running firearms background checks from the Oregon State Police and turn those checks over to the feds, who do not charge and have a far better track record of getting the checks done efficiently.

For the record, OFF does not support or endorse any background checks for a number of reasons. FIrst, we believe it is a prior restraint on your rights. Second we do not believe it prevents bad actors from getting guns.  However, as long as we are saddled with a federal mandate to subject ourselves to background checks, we believe we should have the least time consuming and least expensive system we can. RIght now, that would be the federal NICS system.

Although SB 934 has been scheduled for action for several days, it was once again postponed. We have been told that amendments to the bill have been drafted, but as of now, we have not been permitted to see them. It is very likely that the amendments will completely change the contents of the bill. Until we see the amendments we simply do not know. However, when we see them, you will see them.

In the House, a work session was held on a similar bill, HB 2791.

As with SB 934, this bill would end the fees and delays on background checks by removing the State Police as the point of contact. While more and more states who rely on local authorities have been experiencing problems with background checks, states that use the national NICS system have been having no problems.

The House Judiciary Committee took testimony from the Oregon State Police at today’s work session even though OSP chose not to comment at the public hearing where testimony is normally taken. At that hearing, the only testimony taken against the bill was from the public employee’s union.

The OSP said that the delays dealers have been experiencing while trying to contact them on the phone, and the surge in delays in approvals was due to a big increase in background check requests. Oddly, they also said that in spite of the almost three million dollars in federal grants already received to forward mental health records to the feds, they have not yet done so.

While we, of course, wonder what they have been doing with the money, we are more perplexed by the statement that they have not shared any mental health records as required by federal law.

To be clear, we oppose sharing that data and fought hard to prevent Oregon from enacting a law that forced us into compliance with the NRA-and-Brady-Campaign-backed legislation demanding this sensitive information. But the fact is, we are now stuck with this law and the OSP has gotten lots of money to comply. What is particularly inexplicable is their statement that they have shared no information with the feds, when we already know of one person who has been denied firearms purchases because of mental health records that the feds recently got.

What’s even more troubling is that this person had already had his rights restored by the courts! So why his private data was shared with the feds is a mystery.  Clearly, someone is not getting his story straight.

A side note to this issue is that Psychiatric Safety Review Board has received almost $300,000.00 to conduct gun rights restoration hearings and so far has conducted …none. They have also created a resolution process so onerous, expensive and invasive that few rational people would attempt it. When you get a boatload of money to run a process that no one wants to engage in, you get to keep a boatload of money.

The vote on HB 2791 had a few surprises.

(One thing that was not a surprise was when Representative Carolyn Tomei expressed opposition to the bill because she wanted to “keep Oregon jobs.”  In other words, gun owners should pay twice in order to insure that the people who work in the ID unit at OSP have jobs. The millions in savings to Oregon did not impress Tomei.)

The first surprise was when Representative Andy Olson vote no. Usually a reliable supporter of gun rights, Olson’s “no” vote was unexpected.  Mary Nolan, who can always be counted on to vote against gun rights, regardless of the millions in potential savings for Oregon, stated that it was Olson’s vote that convinced her to vote “no.”  Representative Gene Whisnant was excused at the time of the vote. As a supporter, his vote was crucial. (Whisnant was attending other business and not avoiding this vote.)

In the end Representaitves Krieger, Barker, Wand, Hicks and Schaufler vote yes.

A “yes” vote was a vote for gun rights and common sense.

Tomei, Nolan and Olson voted no.

The deciding vote, which passed the bill, came from Representative Chris Garrett, who said that while he expected to vote “no” on the floor, he was casting a courtesy vote for the excused Whisnant and voted “yes.”

Ironically, a regular supporter of gun rights, Andy Olson, almost sank this important bill, and a Democrat who often votes against gun rights saved it.

We hope they will both reconsider their positions and vote “yes” on the floor of the House, but there can be no denying that it was Garrett’s vote that kept this bill alive.

The bill is now scheduled to go to the full House floor, although procedural moves could send it to another committee. But right now we have to assume the next step is the House floor.

Please take a moment to write your own House rep and urge a “yes” vote on HB 2791.

Your rep can be reached using this link.

A sample message follows:

___________________________________________________________

Dear Representative,

HB 2791 has been voted out of the House Judiciary Committee and should be coming to you on the House floor soon.

This common sense bill can save Oregon millions in duplicated services and eliminate costly delays for Oregon’s law-abiding gun owners. I strongly urge you vote yes on a bill that will accomplish so much at no cost.

Yours,

________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Today is the day Americans usually get to feel good about America by making their patriotic utions to our friends at the Internal Revenue Service. This year we get a few more days to bask in that patriotic glow while writing checks to fund the activities of the Obama Administration.

Three senate bills were scheduled for action yesterday in the Senate Judiciary Committee. They were SB 934, SB 762 and SB 582.

In order, the bills did the following:

SB 934   Removes Department of State Police as designated state point of contact for purposes of National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Requires gun dealer to obtain authorization to transfer firearm directly from system.

Sends background checks back to the Feds.

SB 762  Allows persons convicted of felony to petition for restoration of firearm rights not sooner than 10 years after date of conviction or date person completes sentence, whichever is later.

Reverses the gains we made in 2009 and greatly restricts the ability of people to petition for firearms rights restoration.

SB 582 Prohibits public body from releasing information that identifies holder of or applicant for concealed handgun license.

CHL privacy bill much like the one that has already passed in the House.

We support 934 and 582 and oppose 762.

You may recall that SB 582 received a hearing and was then scheduled for a work session. The day of the scheduled work session we were informed that the bill would not, in fact, receive consideration and was dead. Then it was resurrected with another scheduled work session yesterday.  Once again however, no action was taken on it.

Similarly, no action was taken on SB 762, an anti-gun bill and the source of a lot of confusion.

We have been told that bill will not move forward. We have also been told that SB 582, the privacy bill, will not move forward. But nothing is ever as simple as it sounds.

Testimony was taken on SB 934 but that may very well have been no more than a formality.

The work session for that bill is scheduled for next Monday, and it could very well be “worked” into something unrecognizable. We believe that bill will be used as a vehicle to be amended to include many other concepts than simply ending OSP background checks for dealer sales. It is possible that it won’t even contain that language.

Language from the two bills not dealt with yesterday could be incorporated as could almost anything else, even, for example, a ban on guns on school property. Since the public is not allowed to see the proposed amendments we will have to wait until Monday to update you on what this bill will become. Lately, even people in the hearing room often don’t get to see the proposed amendments and we sometimes don’t know what they are until after they have been adopted. This is part of the legislature’s brilliant new “paperless” policy. The effect of this policy is to keep the public, and often many legislators, in the dark about what is happening to bills.

It is our expectation that CHL privacy will be used as a bargaining chip to get some anti-gun language into a bill. We will, of course, oppose any efforts to water down gun rights.

The House version of SB 934 (the background check bill) is HB 2791 and that bill is scheduled for a hearing next Tuesday in the House Judiciary Committee. We believe we have the votes to get that bill out of committee, but it never hurts to contact the members and voice your support.

During testimony yesterday on SB 934, “Ceasefire Oregon” testified that the huge spike in delays and the trouble dealers are having getting through to the OSP are proof that the system is working. We look forward to more comical testimony on the house bill.

The key to all these bills is still Senator Floyd Prozanski, the Chair of Senate Judiciary. He controls the background check bill, the privacy bill, the recognition bill and the motorcycle /atv bill. Please continue to remind him that gun rights matter to you.

We’ll keep you posted.

PLEASE COMMENT ON POSSIBLE SHOTGUN BAN.

You may have heard rumors and rumbling about a possible ban on some shotguns.You can read the “study” done by BATF here

Clearly, there is a serious danger of new restrictions based on the vague “sporting purpose” test.

You may recall that certain shotguns were once simply reclassified as “destructive devices” making their owners felons if the “destructive devices” were not properly registered.

There are still people who have these guns, like the “Street Sweeper” and the “Stryker” and don’t know that their possession is a crime.

We recommend that you visit the website of our friends at the Firearms Coalition to learn more about how you can take action on the possible restrictions.

One more thing. If you are planning on attending the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, and we encourage you to do so, please note the meeting has been moved from 8.30 am to 8 am. For more, see here.

THE PACE PICKS UP

As we told you previously, a number of gun bills have been unexpectedly scheduled for action in the Senate and House.

The Senate bills have all been scheduled for April 14th.

All of these dates are subject to change with little or no notice. Given the number of bills scheduled for the Senate Judiciary Committee on the 14th, it is very possible that some will be held over.

The Senate bills are  SB 762, SB 582 and SB 934.

SB 762 is the only bill we oppose at this point, although any of these bills could be amended into something never intended by their sponsors.

What SB 762 does is reverse the gains you worked so hard to achieve in 2009.

Prior to the passage of Senate Bill 603 in 2009, a person with a felony conviction could petition the court to have his rights restored to buy a gun, but even if successful, he could not own that gun.

We believed that was absurd, and so SB 603 was drafted to simply say if the courts felt that a person had demonstrated that he deserved to have his rights restored to buy a gun he could also own it. The bill passed without a single “no” vote in either house and was signed by the governor. Since then many people have gone to court and sought restoration of rights.

Some have been successful, some have not. All in all, we believe the legislation worked exactly as it should have. We know of not a single instance where a person has had rights restoration and a problem followed. Given how easy it is to run afoul of the countless laws in this country, we believe the current law is fair and makes sense.

But almost as soon as it passed, Senator Prozanski, who actually drafted the final version of Senate Bill 603, decided that it was a terrible mistake and tried to reverse it. In the special session in 2010, Prozanski introduced legislation to eliminate the gains we made in SB 603. Because of your tireless efforts, he was unsuccessful and his bill, after passing in the Senate, was amended into positive legislation in the House. Now Senate Bill 762 is another attempt to undo what your hard work accomplished in 2009, with no evidence that anyone has abused the current process.

It makes little sense to think that a person who had criminal intent would actually go to a court to ask for rights restoration, and in fact, the vast majority of people who have sought relief under the current statute are people who made one mistake early in life and are only seeking to do the right thing now. SB 762 would end that avenue until 10 years had passed since the conviction. SB 762 is clearly a solution in search of a problem.

The other two bills scheduled for April 14 in Senate Judiciary are SB 582 and SB 934.

582 is the Senate version of the CHL privacy bill. We have already told you much about this bill in previous alerts.  The bill is scheduled for a “work session” which, as we have said, is odd, since the Chairman has already made it clear he does not intend to move the bill. While we would be very pleased if Chair Prozanski actually moves the bill out of his committee, we are concerned that this may be just a procedural parlor game.

The last bill scheduled is SB 934. This bill would address the recent problems faced by gun buyers and gun dealers when attempting background checks through the Oregon State Police. For months, dealers and buyers have been facing long waits to get through to OSP and the number of delays after the background checks have gone up significantly.  SB 934 would turn background checks by licensed dealers over to the NICS system, which by the way, does not charge a fee. This is especially important at a time when the OSP are attempting to raise the check fee from $10.00 to $26.00. We first requested this legislation in 2009.

House Bill 2791 does the same thing. It is the House version of SB 934.  This bill is scheduled to be heard in the House Judiciary Committee on April 19th.

If you are a dealer or a gun buyer who has experienced unwarranted delays when attempting a transfer, we encourage you to consider attending the hearings and testifying about your experiences.

The Senate Hearing will be at 8:30 am  8 am on April 14 at the Capitol, room 343.  The House hearing will be April 19th at 1 pm in the same room.

Schedules change, so please check to be sure the bills are still scheduled before you come.  You can check committee schedules here for the latest information.

Deadlines and Drama. Your Tax Dollars At Work.

The deadlines set by the Oregon legislature for actions on bills have created a flurry of activity in Salem.

Bills we thought would never see the light of day have suddenly been scheduled for hearings or work sessions. Agendas are filling up fast.

Many of you have contacted Senator Floyd Prozanski to urge him to take action on the bills that protect the privacy of concealed handgun licensees.

The Senator’s staff has been telling people who contact them that they (the callers) have been misinformed by OFF and that the Senator supports the legislation that protects the privacy of license holders.

In fact, Senator Prozanski’s office called us today to complain that they were receiving angry phone calls when they are actually “trying to pass” the privacy bills.

As in the past, we are more than happy to give a forum to Senator Prozanski to make his case, here, unedited on our website. But let’s be clear.

Senator Prozanski is the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee where both the Senate and House versions of the CHL privacy bill have been assigned.  (The House version passed overwhelmingly before going to his committee.)

The Senate Bill, SB 582, received a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was then scheduled for a “work session” which is the meeting at which bills typically receive a committee vote.

On the day of the scheduled “work session” for SB 582, Prozanski pulled the bill from the schedule and informed us that it would not be moving because “his caucus” did not support it.

Since then he has been telling people who contacted him that he actually supports the bill himself.

Here is the problem. Prozanski is the Chair of the committee. He gets to decide which bills move or die.

The committee is made up of 5 people. Three Democrats and two Republicans.

If Prozanski does support the bill, all he has to do is bring it up for a vote in committee.

We can still count. Two Republicans plus Prozanski equals three votes. Three votes in a committee of five is a majority, and the bill passes out of committee to the Senate Floor.

At least two other Democrats have expressed support for the bill. Two other Democrats plus Prozanski equals three Democrats. Three Democrats plus fourteen Republicans equals seventeen votes. The Senate is made up of thirty Senators. Seventeen votes is one more than is needed to pass the bill.

The really odd part of all this is that Prozanski HAS scheduled another work session for SB 582 even while telling us he has no plans to move it and telling callers that he lacks the support in his caucus to pass it.  If this makes sense to you, please feel free to explain it to us.

If Senator Prozanski actually plans to move the bill on April 14th, the day he scheduled the work session, obviously, we applaud him. But as we noted in our last alert, something is not adding up.

Clearly, Senator Prozanski holds all the cards here. If he really wants to protect the privacy of gun owners, he can do it.  And even if, for some reason, the Senate failed to pass the bill, Oregonians deserve to know which of their representatives are willing to step up and protect them and which are not.

If Senator Prozanski is more concerned about internal politics than the privacy of Oregonians, he can continue to play the “caucus card.” Or he can vote the bill out of his committee and let the full Senate go on record.

If he is experiencing push-back from the small but radical anti-gun wing of his party, this would be a great opportunity to stand up for the people of Oregon rather than be pushed around by zealots.

We hope Senator Prozanski uses his curiously timed work session to actually move this bill out of committee instead of using the work session as a procedural game. We can assure you, and Senator Prozanski, that if he does the right thing, we will be the first to report it.

We will be follow up shortly with news about multiple gun bills, both good and bad, that have unexpectedly been scheduled for action in their respective houses.

Thank you as always for your hard work and continued activism.

“Our first priority when it comes to domestic violence issues has to be ensuring the safety of Oregon’s domestic violence survivors, and this bill does just that,” said Senate Majority Leader Diane Rosenbaum (D-Portland).

Much as we would like to report that Senator Rosenbaum was discussing Senate Bill 582, or House Bill 2787, which would have protected the identities of victims of abuse who obtained concealed handgun licenses to protect themselves, we cannot.

In fact Rosenbaum was talking about  SB 347, a bill that would keep information from domestic violence centers out of the public records.

The sheer hypocrisy of this is breathtaking.

While laudably protecting the victims of domestic abuse if they seek help at a public shelter, the Senate Democrats are determined to keep public the home address and phone number of any abuse victim who takes steps to protect herself. This is shameless.

As you know, HB 2787 passed the House with a large majority. It now languishes in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A very similar Senate Bill, SB 582, was heard in that same committee, but after scheduling it for a “work session” (the meeting where bills are amended and voted on), Prozanski abruptly yanked the bill from the schedule and informed us it would not be moved or voted on. Privacy for license holders was dead as far as Prozanski was concerned. This is a serious problem, since reporters are still seeking the private info of CHL holders.

The opponents of CHL privacy have repeatedly stated that people should know if their “crazy neighbor down the street had a gun.” This was one of their most popular excuses for voting against CHL privacy. What’s so bizarre about this argument is that while you can own a gun without having a CHL, and you can have a CHL without owning a gun, the records of gun purchases are exempt from public disclosure! If your “crazy neighbor down the street” bought a gun, you would not be allowed to know it. Only if they had jumped through state mandated hoops to prove they are not a danger to anyone would you be informed.

So now both CHL privacy bills, as well as a bill to recognize other states’ permits, are being held hostage by Prozanski in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But the plot thickens.

After telling us in no uncertain terms that SB 582 WOULD NOT move out of his committee, Prozanski has scheduled another “work session” for it.

Did Senator Prozanski have a sudden change of heart?  Did the Senate Democrats “see the light?”  We’d like to report they had. But frankly, we doubt it.

So why would he schedule a work session on a bill he wants to kill?

Well there are a few possibilities. The deadline for bills to be scheduled for  work sessions in their originating house is tomorrow. That means that by Friday, April 8, all Senate bills must have been given a date for a work session in the Senate and all House bills must have been given a date for a work session in the House. So timing is critical. But why schedule it at all?

In many cases when something like this happens, the Chair is simply keeping the bill “in play” so that later on he can come back and “gut and stuff” it. That means that he can take a bill and change every single word, so it has no resemblance to its original intentions. But he can only do this if the bill has met the required deadlines.

But all the changes in the bill still must conform to the “relating clause” of the the bill. So, if the relating clause were “relating to firearms” there would be the very strong potential that this bill would be “gut and stuffed” and turned into an anti-gun bill. But in this case, the relating clause says “Relating to the records of concealed handgun licenses.” This is not a clause that gives them a lot of room to turn it into a bad bill, unless his plan is to stuff the bill with all the terrible amendments that became part of a similar bill in 2009. Those amendments actually turned the bill into a roadmap for getting the information rather than a method to protect it.

Another scenario is that Prozanski is attempting to keep the bill in play so that he can discourage any attempts to have it removed from his committee and voted on on the floor. Most legislators would be reluctant to call for the removal of a bill that had action scheduled on it.

Keep in mind that although the bill is scheduled, there is no guarantee action will actually be taken on it. The work session could be entirely procedural to simply meet the deadlines.

Once again, we need to remind Senator Prozanski  that this bill is important to all people who value privacy: Democrats, Republicans and independents, gun owners or not, from every district.

Please contact Senator Prozanski one more time and remind him that you do not believe that sensitive private information should be available to newspapers and stalkers. Contact info and a suggested message follow:

Senator Floyd Prozanski
Party: D District: 4
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1704
District Phone: 541-342-2447
Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, S-417, Salem, OR, 97301
District Office Address: PO Box 11511, Eugene, OR, 97440
Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/prozanski

Email: sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us
_____________________________________________________________

Dear Senator Prozanski,

I am troubled that the Senate would continue to block the safeguarding of private information of CHL holders, many of whom received their licenses to be able to defend themselves.

I applaud the passage of SB 347, but simply cannot understand why you would not extend that same protection to persons who took steps to assure their safety and the safety of their loved ones. This is astonishing hypocrisy.

I know that you have scheduled a work session for SB 582 after saying the bill would not move out of your committee. I strongly urge you not to use this important bill as a bargaining chip or a tool to play political games.

If you truly intend to hold a legitimate work session on the bill, I thank you and urge you to vote yes. But I also urge you not to use the sensitive private information of Oregonians as a political football to achieve other ends.

Yours,

__________________________

___________________________________________________________

Today, after several years of wrangling, our lawsuit against the Oregon University System was heard in the Oregon Appeals Court.

As you  probably know, we have been pursuing this case against the college cabal since Jeffery Maxwell was arrested and suspended from Western Oregon University for the crime of… oh wait, there was no crime.

Maxwell was in lawful possession of a firearm on campus when he was jacked up by campus and local police who had no idea that Jeff was totally within his rights to be armed on campus.

A few years down the road, we finally got our day in court.

Nothing the Court did gave us any particular reason to believe they would interpret the clear language of Oregon’s preemption statute to mean what it obviously means. No government agency can lawfully make up their own gun restrictions.

Our lawyers did a fine job and now we will wait, months no doubt, for a decision from the court. Does preemption mean what it says or not?

Many of you have uted to this legal effort for years. We thank you for all you have done. It has truly meant a great deal to us to have so many who have been willing to ute to this cause.

Now, we are back in a position of having to ask once again for your financial support to continue our legal battles.

As you know, we take on the fights no one else will, and it’s costly. This one battle has been very expensive. We have no way of knowing how this case will turn out, but we are determined to keep fighting on principle, not based on our chances of winning.

We can’t lie to you here, we are running low on funds.

If you believe in the work we are doing, I hope you will consider making a tax deductible donation to the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation so, win or lose, we can keep stepping up in these legal battles. The fact is, we can do nothing without your support.

Please be sure to note that your gift is for the Foundation so that you get a receipt for tax purposes.

As you know, we are still fighting to get CHL info protected. Stay tuned for more info on every House Rep who voted against privacy for CHL holders.

HOW WE MOVE AHEAD.

As you know, three pro-gun bills requested by OFF have passed the Oregon House by wide margins.

HB 2797, our motorcycle/ATV bill, passed without a single “no” vote on Thursday. This bill is so simple and uncontroversial that it is hard to imagine anyone except Ginny Burdick opposing it.

The two other bills, however, HB 2787 and HB 2792, face major hurdles in the Senate. Both of these bills have been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

HB 2787 is the bill that would protect the privacy of CHL holders. While it’s difficult to imagine why anyone would want to force public disclosure of this information, a few Senate Democrats are demanding just that. In an email Senator Ginny Burdick offered this bizarre justification for her efforts to kill this legislation:

“Throughout my time as a State Senator I have fought to strengthen our public records and transparency statutes. I support protecting our existing public records legislation.
If HB 2787 is passed, victims of domestic violence will be unable to check if their attackers carry a concealed weapon. In addition, there will be no way to monitor whether Sheriffs are administering the concealed handgun license requirements correctly.
Thank you for contacting my office. Please feel free to call or email with any further questions or concerns.“

This is patently and obviously absurd. Victims of domestic violence are unable to tell if their attackers are carrying concealed weapons now. Persons guilty of domestic violence are not allowed to own guns, let alone get CHLs. Furthermore, the real danger to domestic violence victims is when THEIR personal information is revealed by exposing these records. The fact is that Burdick is a bigot who simply hates gun owners, even those who have jumped through significant government hoops to exercise a “right.” But at the moment, Burdick is pulling the strings.

(It might be interesting to see how many legislators who voted against CHL privacy are willing to post their home addresses, telephone numbers and drug use history.)

The Chairman of the Senate Committee, to which HB 2787 has been assigned, has informed us that “his caucus” is opposed to the bill. However, he himself was a co-sponsor of very similar legislation in 2009 and other Democrats have publicly stated they support the bill.Ther is every indication that it is simply the hysterical ravings of Ginny Burdick that have cowed Chairman Prozanski into backing off this bill.

A Senate Bill with the same language has already been heard in his committee and Prozanski scheduled a work session to adopt a few short amendments that would have made the Senate Bill identical to the passed House Bill. It was this Senate Bill that Prozanski told us he had to pull from the schedule because of opposition from his “caucus.”

Now the House Bill has been assigned to his committee and it is going to be up to us to get it heard and passed. It is simply outrageous that one zealot in the Senate is holding up this important legislation for no other reason than her hatred for gun owners and her anger about being unable to pass any anti-gun legislation for all the years she has been in the legislature.

We can still do this. We just have to turn up the heat.

As those of you who take action may have learned, some legislators have taken to writing back to activists saying things like “we have forwarded your concerns to your own legislator.”  This is their way of informing you that they know you are not from their district. (Although more and more they are forwarding your concerns to the wrong legislator.) Should you care?  No.

First of all, whether a legislator is “yours” or not, they still cast votes that affect your freedom. They are still responsible for what they do. Second, while it’s true that you may not be able to cast a vote against them at election time, you still can very much ute to their defeat. You can make a ution to whoever runs against them, or ute to PACs like ours, which can work to defeat them.

Not everyone who supports OFF and OFFPAC lives in Judy Stiegler’s old district, but many of you uted to her defeat. So never be put off by a legislator who claims to be indifferent to your concerns because you don’t live in his district.

Right now, the House is split exactly in half. The Senate is 16/14 in favor of Democrats. While we have plenty of Democrats voting correctly, it is still mostly Democrats voting against gun rights. (And one Republican, Vicki Berger.)  That means that a single seat change in either House could vastly change the outlook for gun rights. Democrats know this and know that you can ute to ANY race. So disregard any implication that your concerns don’t matter.

That being said, it’s time to redouble our efforts to protect the privacy of CHL holders. The man standing in the way of a hearing on HB 2787 is still Floyd Prozanski. As a co-sponsor of similar legislation in the past, and someone who has already held hearings on CHL privacy, we think it’s safe to say that Prozanski supports the concept of privacy for Oregon’s most law-abiding gun owners. But he’s being pushed around by a handful of bigoted militants. It’s time, once again, to let Prozanski know how important this bill is to people who believe in liberty and privacy. Please make your voice heard.

Contact info and a sample message follow.

Senator Floyd Prozanski
Party: D District: 4
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1704
District Phone: 541-342-2447
Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, S-417, Salem, OR, 97301
District Office Address: PO Box 11511, Eugene, OR, 97440
Email: sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us
Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/prozanski
__________________________________________________

Dear Senator Prozanski,

I am aware that you have chosen to kill Senate Bill 582. Now, its companion bill, HB 2787, has been assigned to your committee.

As you know, HB 2787 passed overwhelmingly in the House with support from both parties and all Oregon Sheriffs. As you also know, CHL holders come from both parties and one thing they all agree on is that their personal, private information should not be made available to anyone looking for a mailing list, or any media outlet with an ax to grind against gun owners. This is a nonpartisan issue in a closely divided legislature. No matter what district a voter is in, this is the kind of issue that makes people ute to the opponents of those who seek to invade their privacy.

I strongly urge you to look past the few militants who oppose anything they view as “pro-gun” and stand up for the rights and privacy of gun owners as  you did when you co-sponsored similar legislation in 2009.

Yours,
_________________
____________________________________________________

HB 2797. a bill requested and drafted by OFF, passed the Oregon House today without a single “no” vote.

This bill does no more than clarify a lawful way to transport a handgun on a motorcycle and defines the term “loaded” when riding a snowmobile or ATV with a firearm.

The ATV/snowmobile issue has bedeviled Oregon gun owners for years and this correction is long overdue.

Given the lack of opposition in committee and on the House floor, we are hopeful that this important legislation will not meet any resistance in the Senate, but stay tuned.

Two other bills that passed the House and have headed over to the Senate, HB 2787 and HB 2792 have not yet been assigned to a Senate Committee but will almost certainly go to Senate Judiciary where they face stiff opposition.

You will soon be receiving more information on how to help get these bills moving in the Senate.

Thanks for you all you have done to get HB 2797 this far.