Category: OFF Alerts

HB 2853, a bill intended to expand the failed Brady law and force Oregon into compliance with the Federal “NICS Improvement” act passed out of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Public Safety today. The Federal bill was opposed by many state-wide pro-gun organizations, Gun Owners of America, the American Legion and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.  It was supported by the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign against gun ownership.

The committee is a joint committee so it includes both House Reps and Senators. Because of the timing (so late in the session) there was virtually no notice that the “work session” was scheduled. As we move towards the end of the session expect this to continue. Bills will be scheduled with little or no notice, making it virtually impossible for you as a voter to know the progress of legislation.

The committee invited testimony only from the supporters of the bill. Opponents were not allowed to testify. (In the interest of fairness no doubt.)

HB 2853 has been sold as a bill to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally ill (or in the language of the bill, “mentally retarded”) and who are a “danger to themselves and others.”

The obvious question is why are people who are a danger to themselves and others free and walking the streets?  Even if a person accepted the fantasy that a law can keep guns out of the hands of bad people, what about knives, cars and power tools?

The Brady law was supposed to prevent criminals from getting guns. It failed. What it DID do was prevent law abiding people from getting guns. The Oregon State Police told us they had over 8000 “delays” last year. They had no statistics on how many people challenged those delays or how many people were successful in getting the record corrected.

If HB 2853 passes, you can rest assured that the incomplete and incorrect records the government keeps will ensnare a vast new collection of innocent people attempting to purchase firearms. But, now, instead of only having to beg the State Police to correct your records, you will be forced to petition the “Psychiatric Security Review Board” to correct your records. (Imagine explaining that to your significant other.)  And of course, if you move or are attempting a purchase in another state, you will be forced to seek relief from the Feds. Good luck.

The bill, as you might expect, comes with the promise of Federal money. (If they can print it fast enough.)  No doubt, that was a major element in the seduction of those who voted for it. But the fact remains that this bill vastly expands a failed system and puts more gun owners in the crosshairs of the most anti-gun administration on the history of our country.

Three members of the Subcommittee stood up for your rights today and voted NO.

They were:

Sen. Doug Whitsett    sen.dougwhitsett@state.or.us

Rep. Tim Freeman    rep.timfreeman@state.or.us

Rep. Greg Smith    rep.gregsmith@state.or.us

They deserve your thanks.

Those who voted to go for the money and expand the Brady law were:

Sen. Joanne Verger, Co-Chair   sen.joanneverger@state.or.us

Sen. Vicki L Walker    sen.vickiwalker@state.or.us

Rep. Chip Shields, Co-Chair rep.chipshields@state.or.us

Rep. Jeff Barker      rep.jeffbarker@state.or.us

Rep. Nick Kahl     rep.nickkahl@state.or.us

Rep. Nancy Nathanson     rep.nancynathanson@state.or.us

The bill now moves to the full committee. This could happen any time with no notice. Please contact the full committee and express your opposition as soon as possible.

A sample cut and paste message follows. Please keep in mind this is a joint committee. You may be addressing either a Senator or a Representative.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HB 2853 is NOT about keeping guns out of the hands of the “dangerously mentally ill.”
It is about a vast expansion of the failed Brady law.  Thousands of people are delayed or denied legitimate firearms transfers in Oregon every year because of errors in the records used to determine if a buyer is “eligible” to exercise a right. If this bill is passed, those denied firearms purchases because of faulty record keeping in Oregon will now be forced to plead their case before the “Psychiatric Security Review Board.”

If they move or are attempting an out-of-state transfer they will be entangled in a bureaucratic Federal nightmare.

This bill does nothing to keep dangerous people off the streets, it merely adds another layer of bureaucracy to an already failed system.  Please vote NO on HB 2853.

Yours,

_________________________

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You’re The Problem.

We expect politicians to act on self interest. Let’s face it, that’s simply human nature. But we also expect a certain level of slickness in their attempts to con the voting public. They don’t all pull it off. At the bottom of this page you will see the response of one politician to a voter in her district. Her conclusion, it’s the people who are a problem when they don’t go along with the self serving actions of politicians.

As you know, OFF worked for months before the 2009 session to help craft a bill that would protect the privacy of CHL holders from the prying eyes of the media and those seeking that information for commercial profit.  As you also know, certain counties disclosed this info and as a result ,CHL holders in those counties were the recipients of direct mail pitches for utions from a supposed “pro-gun” group. This organization now has the ability to sell those names to whomever they choose.

There is no question that a strongly worded bill was needed to keep this information out of the hands of anti-gun media outlets and others. And that’s exactly what we got when House Rep Kim Thatcher introduced HB 2727. The bill was carefully crafted to provide the maximum amount of protection for license holders. The bill had 44 cosponsors.

Let’s take a look at who they were. We have posted the Republicans in blue and the Democrats in red.

Representatives THATCHER, BARKER,BENTZ, BOONE, BRUUN, CAMERON, CLEM, ESQUIVEL, FREEMAN, GARRARD,GILLIAM, GILMAN, HANNA, HUFFMAN, JENSON, KENNEMER, KRIEGER,MATTHEWS, MAURER, OLSON, RICHARDSON, ROBLAN, SCHAUFLER, GSMITH, J SMITH, SPRENGER, THOMPSON, WEIDNER, WHISNANT, WINGARD,
WITT,

Senators ATKINSON, BOQUIST, FERRIOLI, GEORGE, GIROD,JOHNSON, KRUSE, MORSE, NELSON, PROZANSKI, STARR, TELFER,VERGER, WHITSETT .

The opponents of the bill? Well, the usual suspects. Ginny Burdick, Portland City Council Member Randy Leonard, The Oregonian Newspaper and of course, those guardians of privacy, the ACLU.

It’s important to note that committee chairs have enormous control over bills. A bill like this would surely go to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The chairs of both those committees, Jeff Barker and Floyd Prozanski were cosponsors of the original bill. And both are Democrats.

It’s also important to note that on the Senate Committee (with 5 members), there were three who were cosponsors of the bill. Boquist,Whitsett and Prozanski. On the House Committee there were 6 cosponsors.  Barker, Whisnant,Cameron, Krieger, Olson and Jefferson Smith.

It would be hard to conclude that this bill was anything but a shoe-in to pass.That is, until freshman House Rep Judy Steigler stepped in.

Steigler decided that CHL holders deserved virtually no protections. So she amended the bill in a way that, for all intents and purposes, stripped it of any protections.

Now, we have to give her credit. She did manage to roll the rest of the committee. With the exception of Kevin Cameron, they all agreed to her amendments, caving in to her threats to round up votes against the bill.

It is obviously disappointing that so many people would cave on a bill that had broad bi-partisan support. In that respect, the other members of the committee deserve to share the blame. But Steigler was the mastermind. She also masterminded the amendments to HB 2463, a bill that would have had Oregon recognize other states’ licenses thereby opening the door to having other states recognize ours. Her amendments cost Oregon gun owners the right to carry in many states. It’s important to keep that in mind as you read Steigler’s comments below. You will see that she claims to have “given life” to the CHL privacy bill. One has to wonder if she also believes she “gave life” to the reciprocity bill she killed. What follows is Steigler’s response to a voter who expressed his opposition to her position. Her response to the voter is that HE is the problem. His request for a bill that actually protected CHL holders made him (and of course us) “dogmatic.”

Steigler’s efforts doomed two very positive bills. Because of her, CHL holders will have to rely solely on the sheriffs’ willingness to face lawsuits from the likes of the Mail Tribune and the Register Guard.  Her self-serving comments about the “public records law” are clearly nonsense. Oregon’s public records law was intended to keep the activities of government transparent. Not to expose private citizens to abuse because they were compelled by law to turn over personal information in order to exercise a “right.” Steigler’s agenda is clear. Her attempt to divert attention from it by blaming her constituents for the failure of a bill she personally destroyed is unconscionable.

Judy Steigler.(D. Bend OR)

We will honor your request and remove your name from our e-mail list. I do want to take a moment however, and address your statement about HB2727, with no illusion that I will change your view, as frankly, it is folks such as yourself that have doomed this bill. You take an all or nothing approach, and that is it–end of discussion. Let me be clear–I am not a gun opponent–my husband and son are hunters and guns have been a part of our family’s culture. What I quite frankly did was take a bill that didn’t have a chance of passing even one chamber of the Legislature, and give it some life. There was little hope, as it was originally written, that HB 2727 would have even gotten out of the House Judiciary Committee, let alone the House of Representatives. The idea that these records should be taken out of the public records laws altogether was antithetical to Oregon’s public records laws. With that in mind, I tried to work with others to carefully craft the strongest exemption I could for allowing release of those records. Under the public records exemptions, this was one of the strongest, giving CHL holders the most protection possible. Ultimately, when release would be requested under this version, there would be a very heavy burden on the requesting party to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the release was in the public interest. Usually, if an entity such as a newspaper did not like the denial of this request (the likely result in most cases) it would be the District Attorney and/or a Circuit Court Judge who would make the decision. At the end of the day, those who were staunchly dogmatic about this issue, chose not to join me in this effort, and even spoke against it on the House floor, but most ended-up voting in favor of it, as they like me, knew realistically that it held the best chance of passage in the Senate, and protected legitimate privacy interests of CHL holders. Unfortunately, in the Senate, the bill became the battleground from those on both extremes of the issue–those adamantly in favor of looser standards allowing greater access to these records, and those such as yourself who could not leave well enough alone and tried to move it to an outright exclusion from public records. As a result, the bill is likely going nowhere in the Senate, and instead of gun owners having some common sense privacy protections, you have nothing. Frankly, I suspect this is what you really desired in the end so that it could continue to be used as a political weapon. So, rather than solving a problem, you sacrifice the legitimate concerns of the vast majority of CHL holders to move a political agenda.

I know that this is a lengthy response, and may be unfair in ascribing to you the motives of those in the extreme, but your caustic remarks lead me to believe I may be correct. To me this situation is a classic example of what citizens complain about–the inability of the Legislature to solve problems. Unfortunately, what many do not realize is that it is when real efforts are made to actually solve an issue such as protecting the privacy rights of CHL holders, it is the efforts of citizens themselves which often keep anything from happening. As I said at the beginning of this e-mail, it is the all or nothing attitude on either or both sides of an issue, which often keeps anything from being accomplished. I think this is as much a sad commentary on society as a whole as with the political system.

“EUGENE REGISTER GUARD” REPORTER SEEKS CHL HOLDERS’ PRIVATE INFO. SHERIFF REFUSES.

As you probably know, a bill intended to safeguard the privacy or CHL holders was eviscerated by House Rep Judy Stiegler.

After forcing through amendments to neuter the bill, it passed the House and was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. There it was further weakened and then sent to the Senate Rules Committee, with the apparent intention of having it die there so Senator  Ginny Burdick could take credit for killing it.

Although the amended bill did virtually nothing for license holders, many sheriffs across the state have stepped up on their own to protect license holders, and with good reason.

Here you can see a letter sent by Sheriff Russ Burger of Lane County, to a reporter for the Eugene Register Guard.  The Guard is the latest in a long list of media outlets who are attempting to gain access to private information on license holders. We applaud the Sheriff for standing up to this most recent attack on the privacy of gun owners.

The reporter who requested this private information is Jack Moran.
Telephone: 338-2373, E-mail: jack.moran@registerguard.com

It’s become clear that because of Stiegler’s efforts to gut the very good bill sponsored by Kim Thatcher, the Oregon legislature will not have the courage to pass needed legislation to protect gun owners from the snooping of reporters, and others who have obtained these lists for fund raising purposes, but we are pleased to see some sheriffs standing up for gun owners in their counties.

“READILY ACCESSIBLE” BILL PASSES HOUSE. “MENTAL HEALTH ” BILL GOES TO WAYS AND MEANS…

Senate Bill 603, which we requested to define the term “readily accessible” for the purposes of transporting a handgun without a CHL, passed the House today without a single “no” vote.
This is a significant victory in the current political climate and due entirely to your efforts in contacting the Senate Judiciary Chairman.  Because the bill was amended in the House Committee it will require concurrence in the Senate which we fully expect. Thank you for your hard work.

On June 2nd we reported that the HB 2853 had passed out of the Rules Committee and was headed for the House Floor with a subsequent referral to the Ways and Means Committee. Now, by order of the Speaker of the House, the bill will go to Ways and Means first and then to the floor, if it passes out of committee.

The bill has been assigned to the Public Safety Subcommittee. As of June 10th, it has not been scheduled for a hearing.

Contact information for the subcommittee and a sample message follows.
Please note. This is a joint committee. Please address your e-mails to either “Senator” or “Representative.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HB 2853 has been assigned to your Ways and Means Subcommittee. This bill was written to guarantee that Oregon would get some Federal dollars by complying with a Federal mandate to turn over mental health records to the FBI. I would strongly urge you to read the Federal legislation before you agree to force Oregon to capitulate to Federal mandates. I think if you do, you will see that the Federal law is complicated, subject to many interpretations, and prone to abuse. Please vote “no” on HB 2853.
Yours,
_______________________________

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Membership:

Sen. Joanne Verger, Co-Chair   sen.joanneverger@state.or.us

Rep. Chip Shields, Co-Chair  rep.chipshields@state.or.us

Sen. Vicki L Walker      sen.vickiwalker@state.or.us

Sen. Doug Whitsett   sen.dougwhitsett@state.or.us

Rep. Jeff Barker  rep.jeffbarker@state.or.us

Rep. Tim Freeman  rep.timfreeman@state.or.us

Rep. Nick Kahl  rep.nickkahl@state.or.us

Rep. Nancy Nathanson rep.nancynathanson@state.or.us

Rep. Greg Smith  rep.gregsmith@state.or.us

BRADY EXPANSION BILL PASSES OREGON HOUSE COMMITTEE

HB 2853, a bill to force Oregon into compliance with the Brady Campaign/NRA sponsored gun control bill, HR 2640, passed out of the House Rules Committee today.

Only one member of the committee, Bill Garrard, voted no.

Although several members of the committee expressed concerns about the possible effects of the bill, with the exception of Garrard they all voted to send it to the House floor with a subsequent referral to the Ways and Means Committee.

The NRA’s Oregon consultant, who had previously expressed opposition to the bill, changed his position and declared the NRA neutral on the bill.

We now move one step closer to the complete big brother, centrally located, Federal database of people who will be denied gun purchases.

Because of your efforts, the language in the bill has change considerably, but the outcome will be the same. Sensitive and possibly incorrect information will be forwarded to the Obama controlled FBI. Should your information be incorrect and you either move out of state or attempt an out-of-state purchase, you will then be required to seek relief from an onerous and complicated Federal system. You better have plenty of time on your hands.

We have no reason to believe that any member of the House Rules Committee has actually read the Federal law they agreed to comply with. Regardless, it is important to note that a major component to this bill comes down to money.

If Oregon agrees to capitulate and comply with the NRA’s latest gun control scheme, the Feds have promised to send us money. In these difficult times, money, it seems, really does talk.

That is unfortunate. The Federal law was passed in response to the Virginia Tech murders. But everyone agrees that neither the Federal law, nor this Oregon bill, had they been in effect at the time of VT, would have made the slightest difference.

Furthermore, this bill  seeks to identify  people who are a “danger to themselves or others.” It’s impossible to avoid asking the obvious question. If someone is a danger to himself or others, why are they walking the streets, where, even if they are magically denied firearms (a fairy tale of course) they still can acquire knives, baseball bats, gasoline and automobiles?

The bill now moves to the full House. It is then scheduled to go to the Ways and Means Committee. From there it could go to another Senate Committee and then to the full Senate. So as you can see, now would not be the time to give up on killing this expansion of a failed gun control scheme.

The next stop is the full House. Please contact your own House Rep and tell them the promise of Federal money should not be the motivation for passing a bill with so many unknown ramifications. You can find your House Rep here.  Your Oregon House Rep will be the LAST person listed. Their contact info will be listed as well. A sample message follows:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Representative,

HB 2853 will soon be before you on the House floor. This bill was written to guarantee that Oregon would get some Federal dollars by complying with a Federal mandate to turn over mental health records to the FBI.  I would strongly urge you to read the Federal legislation before you agree to force Oregon to capitulate to Federal mandates.  I think if you do, you will see that the Federal law is complicated, subject to many interpretations, and prone to abuse. Please vote “no” on HB 2853.

Yours,

_______________________________

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Mental Health Records Bill In Home Stretch.

HB 2853, the much amended bill that would turn over mental health records to the Obama administration, had what we believe will be its last public hearing in the House Rules Committee today.

We testified, that in addition to our objection to expanding the failed Brady background check law, the bill created new nightmares for gun buyers whose records were mistakenly flagged as “mental defectives.” (The Federal government’s term, not ours.)

Tomorrow the bill is scheduled for a “work session.” This is where amendments are adopted, or rejected, and the bill can actually receive a vote in committee.

We still think this bill is one more step towards total acquiescence to the theory that the state should demand that you ask permission to exercise a right.

It drags us into one more database prone to mistakes and data theft and it does nothing to prevent crime.

We urge you to take a minute to remind the House Rules Committee that this bill will not stop a single killing and may not even get us into compliance with the Federal law this bill is supposed to align with.  Time is really tight. The committee meets at 3PM on Tuesday.

Please contact the committee members ASAP.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Representative,

HB 2853 is an attempt to comply with a Federal mandate, but it is not even clear if this bill will accomplish that goal. So, we will be sending records, both accurate and inaccurate, to the FBI and we may not even be in compliance with this Federal mandate.

I urge you to postpone any action that would deliver the mental health records of Oregonians to the Federal government until we have had the time to sort out the many issues that HB 2853 brings up but does not fully address.

Yours,

___________________________________

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HB 2853, the bill that would force Oregon into compliance with the NRA/ Brady Campaign supported, federal law, was NOT heard on Friday and has been postponed until Monday.

As you probably know, the legislative website does not reflect the current status of the bill. It still shows the original language, however, as of Friday, we had received our 7th set of “gut and stuff” amendments.

Aside from the dangers of passing on sensitive records to the gun-hating Obama administration, this bill comes with another giant liability.

OFF has heard for years from people who were unjustifiably denied firearms purchases because of faulty criminal records. OFF has had numerous meetings with the State Police ID unit in an effort to correct this problem and progress has been made. But now we have a whole new problem.

Now the State Police are requesting a list of people who are prohibited from buying a firearm because of a “mental health” issue.

We have attempted to determine exactly what would happen to a person who was denied based on incorrect  “mental health” records.  The answers have not been very reassuring.

In response to our questions, a member of Legislative Counsel, the people who craft the laws, sent this note to Representative Sara Gelser, the only member of the committee to have openly opposed the bill so far:

I’ve taken a quick look at federal law and the remedy appears to be the same in the mental health context as it is in the criminal context. Under federal law, there exists a procedure for a person to correct erroneous information in the federal database. See 18 USC 925A and 28 CFR 25.10. Depending on the circumstances, the person can petition the state “point of contact” (ie. the State Police), the agency that originated the document in question, the FBI or a court to correct the erroneous information.

Given that under the bill, as currently amended, the State Police will only have access to the fact that you have been considered a “mental defective” but they will not have any other information, it seems likely that a person falsely denied because of incorrect mental health records would now find themselves having to go to court or the “Psychiatric Review Board” to start the process to correct the records and be allowed to buy a firearm.  Clearly, a person unjustly denied under these circumstances faces an unreasonable hurdle just because Oregon decided that we had to comply with more NRA sponsored gun control.

There is still time to kill this bill or add protections for people falsely denied.  A sample message follows:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Representative,

The current “Brady background check ” system often prevents legitimate firearms’ purchases because of faulty criminal history records. I believe that adding “mental health” records to the system can only cause more problems, especially since the intent is to keep those records as private as possible, making it difficult or impossible for the State Police to clear a person falsely accused of being a “mental defective.”

HB 2853 has the potential to deny legitimate firearms purchases and has no safeguards for people falsely branded as “mental defectives.”

I would urge you to vote no on this bill, but at the very least ask that you include some safeguards for persons denied as a result  of faulty records.

Yours,
____________________________________

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Today the House Judiciary Committee passed SB 603 out of committee.

They included amendments that make the bill a strong, positive step for gun owners who live in, or visit Oregon.

SB 603 was originally drafted, at our request, to legally define the term “readily accessible” for the purposes of transporting a concealed handgun in a car.

Although Oregon CHL holders may transport a handgun however they please in a vehicle, the same is not true for those without licenses, or visitors to our state.

For those people, handguns must be either not concealed, or “not readily accessible.”  But what does that mean? It is not defined in Oregon law. Where is a handgun “not readily accessible” in a Mini-Cooper?

For that reason we requested that the term be legally defined.

Because of your constant efforts, not only was the bill given a hearing, it was amended to fix problems we attempted to address in other bills, it passed the Senate without a single “no” vote and has now passed the House Committee unanimously. It now goes on to the full House where we expect it to pass.

The bill gives a clear definition of what “readily accessible” means. The new definition is:

If a vehicle has no storage location that is outside the passenger compartment of the vehicle, a handgun is not readily accessible within the meaning of this section if:
A) The handgun is stored in a closed and locked glove compartment, center console or other container and
B) The key is not inserted into the lock, if the glove compartment, center console or other container unlocks with a key.

We believe that having a clear definition of this term is a great benefit to gun owners traveling in Oregon. Please note, this new law does not affect open carry or persons with CHL’s, in any way.

But the amended bill does more.

As we have told you, Oregon law contains some obvious errors that needed to be addressed. We had hope to fix them in other bills, but the solutions were incorporated into this one bill.

In addition to defining “readily accessible” the bill also fixes a mistake in Oregon law that allows a person with a felony conviction to petition the courts to have their rights restored to buy a gun, but does not allow them to own a gun.  Furthermore, it addresses an error in Oregon law that appears to return firearms rights to a person with a single felony conviction,( not involving a homicide or weapons charge,) after 15 years, but in fact still left that person open to a misdemeanor firearm’s possession charge.

This is a good bill and we look forward to its passage.

On another note, HB 2727A, the CHL “privacy” bill, finally passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee today with more amendments.

As you know, the bill, which was intended to insure that CHL holder’s private information was not available to the Oregonian or the Medford Mail Tribune, was completely neutered by House Rep Judy Stiegler. In its current form, it provides virtually no protections for CHL holders at all.

The amendments added today also do nothing for license holders, they simply clarify the procedure for those who want access to these records.  The bill now serves even less of a purpose than it had after Stiegler gutted it.

Interestingly, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which heard the gutted bill today, could have just voted to send it to the Senate floor. But instead they voted to send it to the Senate Rules Committee. One of the  5 members of that committee is Ginny Burdick who has built her entire political career on attacking gun rights.

Burdick’s star has been shining more and more dimly in the last few years and her inability to pass a single piece of anti-gun legislation has certainly weighed heavily on her. This move may be her last-gasp chance to claim credit for killing a “pro-gun” bill.   The irony is, this bill is anything but “pro-gun” and is nothing more than a political game to allow politicians to take credit for having done …nothing.

House Rep. Kim Thatcher wrote a solid, simple pro-gun bill. That bill was eviscerated by Judy Stiegler (who meddled with and destroyed other good pro-gun bills) and other politicians went along for the ride. If Burdick wants to shoot down HB 2727 A, we welcome her efforts, but if she thinks she has, in any way, set back gun rights, well as  we have said before, “what makes you think we read the bills?”

Mental Health Records, One More Time

HB 2853, the bill being used as a vehicle for turning over mental health records to the FBI
(as mandated by the NRA-sponsored HR 2640) was back in the House Rules Committee yesterday.

(Several other gun bills were not acted on because of time constraints or because legislators were using them as bargaining chips.)

This bill is intended to force Oregon into compliance with a Federal law seeking mental health records in order to deny gun purchases.

The bill has seen many versions come and go and been the subject of many “work groups”  which included gun rights organizations, mental health organizations, the Governor’s office and groups like the ACLU, which want to defend the privacy of everyone EXCEPT gun owners.

As a result, the bill has been continually narrowed to provide less and less info to the Feds.

That by itself is a good thing. We should not be providing more personal data to an administration that has an open animosity towards gun owners. But therein lies the rub.

As the bill has been amended, the changes have been intended to only identify people who have been adjudicated a danger to themselves and others. The last version of the bill did not achieve that, but was close. The problem is, while we’re turning over records of “mental defectives” to the State Police to share with the FBI, we are also greatly restricting the State Police’s access to the records that determine why  someone is “mentally defective.”

Restricting government access to private records is a good thing, and we support it. The problem is the same problem we have with the existing Brady Bill.

OFF hears from people almost every day who have been denied firearms’ purchases because government databases indicate some “criminal “history.

Criminal history should, at least in theory, be pubic record. But the fact is, getting details about criminal histories from other states is often an exercise in frustration.

How much worse will it be if you are mistakenly identified as “mentally defective” and the State Police have an even harder time getting access to records that would clear you?

We are opposed to the Brady check system as a prior restraint on your rights. We oppose any expansion of the system, which HB 2853 would be. But we are very concerned that if enacted, HB 2853 would cause the many problems we have with State Police background checks to increase.

We have heard from people who have waited for months to get an approval for a firearm transfer.

Under this bill we expect a tremendous expansion of the problem.

The bill will be heard again on Friday May 29th. We urge you to contact the House Rules Committee and let them know that we do not need to expand the failed Brady background check system.

Sample message below:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Representative,

Although attempts have been made to improve HB 2853, the problems with the bill remain.

The current “Brady background check ” system often prevents legitimate firearms’ purchases because of faulty criminal history records.   I believe that adding “mental health” records to the system can only cause more problems, especially since the intent is to keep those records as private as possible, making it difficult or impossible for the State Police to clear a person falsely accused of being a “mental defective.”

This bill creates more problems than it solves. Please vote “no” on this bill.

Thank you,

_________________________

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CHL PRIVACY BILL. IT AIN’T DEAD YET.

HB 2727 A was heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee today.

As you know, in its original form, the bill provided extensive protections for CHL holders’ privacy.

But the bill was essentially neutered in the House Judiciary Committee and now provides little more than window dressing.  But even those meager protections were too much for Ginny Burdick, Portland City Commissioner Randy Leonard, the ACLU and the Oregonian newspaper, all of whom came to complain that the bill afforded too much privacy for CHL holders.

Burdick and Leonard have long been vocal opponents of gun rights (although Leonard has had a CHL himself in the past) and the Oregonian makes no secret of their desire to have access to the private records of Oregon gun owners. The ACLU, of course, are big protectors of privacy rights, unless those rights belong to gun owners. The ACLU’s hypocrisy on this issue is both glaring and expected.

Andrea Meyer , the ACLU’s lobbyist, testified that CHL holders records should be open to the public on the same day that she testified that drunk drivers should not be forced to submit to urine analysis.  Protection of people’s rights is a highly selective endeavor at the ACLU.

But pro-gunners opposed the bill for the opposite reason. It simply provides no real safeguards for CHL holders. And that’s why it’s more important than ever that you contact not only the Senate Judiciary Committee members, but your own Senator (if he or she is not on the committee) and urge them to restore the original safeguards that appeared in the unamended bill.

Although the hearing was held today, no action was taken on the bill and the Chairman, Floyd Prozanski, did not rule out restoring the safeguards that were stripped out in the House.

If those are restored, the House will have to concur with the changed bill, but it’s a fight worth having rather than settling for a bill than is little more than smoke and mirrors.

Please let them know that without the original protections, the bill means very little. And be sure to contact your own Senator if he or she is not on the Committee.  They may not have a vote in the Committee, but they can still make their feelings known to the Committee members.

You can find your State Senator using this link. Your STATE Senator will be the 4th person listed. You can write directly to your legislators using this link.

The bill is scheduled to be acted on next Tuesday. Please contact the Committee and your Senator as soon as possible.

Sample message:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Senator,

Testimony given at the hearing for HB2727 “A”  made it clear that some people want access to the private records of CHL holders. As you know, several counties have already made that information available to private organizations who are using it for fundraising purposes and who could easily sell it to third parties.

CHL holders deserve to have their personal information kept private. These are not  “non-sensitive government  documents.”  These are highly sensitive documents filled with the personal  information, not only of the license holders and applicants, but also of the references they are required  by law to provide.

In its current form, HB 2727 “A”  provides virtually no protections for CHL holders.  I urge you to restore the original protections that HB 2727 contained.

Yours,

________________________________

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HB 2727 A, a vastly watered down “CHL Privacy” bill, is due to be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday May 21st at 8AM.

As you know, this bill passed out of the House recently and now must pass both a Senate Committee and the full Senate before becoming law.

Frankly, the bill as amended provides virtually no protections for CHL holders. After being diluted by members of the House Judiciary Committee, the original strong protections envisioned by its chief sponsor, Representative Kim Thatcher, were stripped from the bill and now it is little more that window dressing.

If you saw our alert dated May 9th, you know that some anti-gun crusaders are already gloating about their continued access to the personal information about CHL holders.

But there is still time to fix the bill. It is essential that you contact the Chair of the Committee, Floyd Prozanski , along with the committee members and urge them to return the original protections to the bill.

Contact information and a sample message follow:

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

Dear Senator Prozanski,

HB 2727 A is due to be heard in your committee shortly.

As an original sponsor of the bill, you know the importance of the safeguards the original bill included.

As you are no doubt aware, The “Newberg Graphic” has already stated that they can still use the amended law to harass certain CHL holders. In a May 7th editorial, they stated “This newspaper and many others, have accessed information on CHL holders in order to report for instance, that teachers with CHL permits are carrying handguns in schools.”

It’s just this kind of reckless misuse of the CHL information that 2727 attempted to curb, but the amended bill will not.

Now that you are planning a hearing for the amended bill, I urge you in the strongest terms to add amendments to make the bill actually do something for license holders. WIthout real safeguards, the bill will solve nothing.

Yours,
___________________________

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HB 2853 SCHEDULED AGAIN.

HB 2853 is scheduled for another hearing and possible work session on May 20th at 3pm in the House Rules Committee.

At least one member of the Rules Committee which heard HB 2853 yesterday, decided it was not worth reading before voicing her support for it.

As you know, HB 2853 was a bill that has been “gut and stuffed” to turn it into a vehicle to give mental health records to the FBI. The bill has been amended to force Oregon into compliance with a Federal law, HR 2640.

HR 2640 was the NRA-promoted, Brady Bill expansion that was passed under George Bush following the killings at Virginia Tech.

Of course, as with so many other gun control bills, there is no reason to believe that had this law been in effect at the time of the VT massacre, it would have made any difference, but lawmakers make laws, whether they make sense or not.

The original bill dealt with an expansion of the list of people who could not own guns to include those who were found guilty “except for insanity” of a “crime.”  Current law says people are prohibited if they were found guilty “except for insanity” of a FELONY.

But that bill, although still listed on the legislative website, has long been amended into a completely different bill that now deals exclusively with the transfer of some peoples’ mental health histories to the Obama-controlled FBI.

The intent is to keep guns out of the hands of what the Feds call “mental defectives.”

The numerous amendments to the bill have been introduced over several weeks, with the last ones being made available at a hearing the bill had in the House Rules Committee, on Wednesday, May 13th.

Because of your efforts and the concerns of many other people, the last set of amendments were the most restrictive so far, greatly limiting the information that would be sent to the Feds.

Unfortunately, they still expanded the records that would be used in the failed Brady background check system and, as such, provided great potential for errors and abuse.

In addition, they classified people who are “mentally retarded” the same way as people who are dangerously mentally ill.

Some members of the committee, specifically Arnie Roblan and Sara Gelser, rightfully pointed out the fact that being mentally retarded does not make a person dangerous. Chair Roblan even discussed a friend of his, whose son is mentally retarded, but a fine and safe hunting companion.

But while some committee members demonstrated a lot of insight, at least one made us ask “What are they smoking in there?”

House Rep Mary Nolan has responded to many gun owners, who wrote to ask her to oppose this bill, with the following e-mail:

Thank you for taking the time to write me about HB 2853. I share your commitment to protecting individuals’ privacy – in matters, especially including health information. Indeed, I have earned a reputation in the legislature as a leader on behalf of privacy and civil rights.

I differ from you in my interpretation of this bill. As I read it, the bill applies only to persons who have committed a crime and are applying for a gun permit. The bill provides an opportunity to request an exception. I will continue to keep your perspective in mind as I consider this bill, but am now inclined to support the bill.
Sincerely,
Mary Nolan
State Representative (SW Portland)
House Majority Leader

Note: Nolan was sending out this response as late as this afternoon, long after the bill had been amended and moved from the Judiciary Committee to the Rules Committee on which she sits and votes. Long after, in fact, her committee had the last set of amendments.

Nolan (below) may have a reputation as a “leader on behalf of privacy” but she won’t win any prizes for reading comprehension.

Even in its original form (now long dead), it would be hard to come to the conclusion that the focus of the bill was people who had “committed a crime and were applying for a gun permit” (whatever that is) but in its amended form, (even the early amendments) it clearly had nothing to do with that and now was all about mental health records and the feds.

This bill is nothing more than an expansion of Brady, and Brady has not achieved anything except to slow or stop many legitimate gun purchases. It greatly expands the potential for mistakes, mischief, and abuse and opens the door to far greater record keeping by an administration that is openly hostile to gun owners.  We think it’s essential that Nolan, who may be voting on the bill, at least exhibit a clue about what’s in it.

There are three gun related bills that have had action you should be aware of.

Yesterday, the Senate passed a bill we requested (SB 603) to define the term “readily accessible” for the purposes of having a handgun in your car. As you know, if a person does not have a concealed handgun license, there are restrictions on how they may transport a handgun in a vehicle.  In most (but not all) places, a loaded handgun can be carried in a vehicle if it is either not concealed, or “not readily accessible.”

The problem is, Oregon does not define what that term means.

We requested and wrote a bill to answer that question. The bill was amended heavily from our original language. Some of the changes were quite good and incorporated language that we had requested in other bills. Those changes would address conflicts in existing law.

Unfortunately, the re-written definition for “readily accessible” created new ambiguities.

We are working to correct those problems when the bill gets to the House.  We believe it will go to the House Judiciary Committee, but because of the late date, it is possible that the bill will go to another committee. Wherever it goes, we will let you know and tell you who you need to contact to request that the language be corrected to eliminate the uncertainties created by the amendments.  The bill passed the Senate with 29 “aye” votes and one Senator excused.

HB 2853 was heard in the House Rules Committee late today. This bill was amended once again and the amendments were only available at the very last minute at the hearing. They are not yet available on line.  The purpose of the bill as amended, is to make Oregon comply with the Federal bill HR 2640, the gun control bill promoted by the Brady Campaign and the NRA after the Virginia Tech killings.

The bill would create a system whereby the Oregon State Police would share mental health records of Oregonians with the FBI and the NICS system.

OFF has opposed this legislation from the beginning and we continue to. We believe that the background check system is already not only a prior restraint on your rights, but so riddled with errors that unwarranted delays and denials are commonplace. We oppose dumping a whole new batch of records into a failed system. Beyond that, the bill places enormous power in Oregon’s “Psychiatric Security Review Board” to decide if you are “mentally defective” ( to use the Fed’s term) and they testified today that they currently would not likely have the resources or manpower to handle the new responsibility. Beyond that, we are not convinced they are necessarily qualified. Keep in mind, the shooter  at Virginia Tech had long exhibited signs of mental illness and aberrant behavior, all of which was ignored by the “mental health professionals” who will be given so much power under this bill.

The committee members expressed reservations with the bill as amended, so your communications have been having an affect. Please don’t stop now.  This bill is far from dead, but your efforts have created doubt about the wisdom of expanding the failed Brady Check system.The bill DID NOT move out of committee today. Please contact the Rules Committee and express your opposition to HB 2853.

For more info please see our previous alert.

Finally, HB 2727, which in its original form protected the privacy of concealed handgun licensees, has gone to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The amended bill provides virtually NO protections for license holders. So we are hoping to have those protections put back in while the bill is in the Senate Committee. For more information see this alert.