Gun Bill Scheduled For Hearing.
House Bill 2334 is scheduled for a hearing on Wednesday, March 7th at 8:30 AM in the House Judiciary Committee.
(Please note. Schedules are subject to change. Please use this link for updated committee schedules.)
This bill is a rewrite of the Sheriff’s concealed handgun license bill that OFF members killed last session. (For more, click on this link and scroll down to the alert dated 05/25/05)
This year’s version is a big improvement over last session’s and does contain language we sought in 2005 that would allow active duty military to renew concealed handgun licenses by mail, however the bill still contains some significant flaws
The bill has added language to deny CHL’s unless the applicant “Is not an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance.” That sounds reasonable, except that in this case, we are not talking about people who have a conviction for drug use, or even an arrest. The bill describes drug users as follows:
(10) For purposes of subsection (1)(m) of this section, a person is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance if within the four years prior to the application:
(a) There have been two or more official reports by a law enforcement agency that document incidents involving the person’s unlawful use of a controlled substance;
(b) The person has admitted to being addicted to a controlled substance to a peace officer, a corrections officer or a parole and probation officer;
(c) The person has been addicted to a controlled substance and the fact of the addiction has been documented, electronically or in writing, during the course of an investigation by a law enforcement agency
Basically, you are a drug user if a law enforcement officer SAYS you are.
In our lengthy meetings with the Sheriffs last session, they could not provide any satisfactory explanation of what prevented any law enforcement officer from “documenting” drug use whether it had occurred or not.
Our position then, and now, is that if there is evidence of unlawful use of drugs, there should be an arrest. In the absence of one, we believe this provision is an open invitation to abuse.
OFF hears from people regularly who face unlawful delays for CHL’s and the incidence of lengthy delays for firearm’s purchases in Oregon is exploding. The unfortunate reality is that not all law enforcement officers or agencies are supportive of gun rights. Many police officers are committed Second Amendment advocates, but often the bosses’s of departments do not share those beliefs.
Another area of concern is Section 3, sub section(4) of the bill, which states:
Any peace officer or corrections officer may seize a concealed handgun license and return it to the issuing sheriff { – when – } { + if + } the license is held by a person who has been arrested or cited for a crime that can or would otherwise disqualify the person from being issued a concealed handgun license { + or if the officer knows of the existence of any other circumstance that would disqualify the person from being issued a concealed handgun license + }. The issuing sheriff shall hold the license for 30 days. If the person is not charged with a crime within the 30 days, the sheriff shall return the license unless the sheriff revokes the license as provided in subsection (3) of this section.
(The red text is new language.)
Once again, we believe this language is dangerously over broad and ripe for misinterpretation and abuse. We believe gun owners deserve clearer laws.
We know of many cases where sheriffs have used “discretion” they were not entitled to by law, and believe that without clear cut guidelines gun owners are in jeopardy.
Please contact the House Judiciary Committee and urge them to remove these dangerous provisions from the bill. Their contact information and a sample letter follows:
___________________________________________________
Dear Representative,
House Bill 2334 contains several provisions that could create unnecessary problems for concealed handgun license holders. In particular, Section 2(10)(a)(b)and (c) and Section(3)(4) are dangerously vague and open to abuse. I urge you to amend this bill to remove those provisions. Gun owners and police benefit when the laws are clear and unambiguous. Unfortunately, these provisions of the bill are not.
Very truly yours,
_____________________________________
House Judiciary Committee
Greg Macpherson, Chair
rep.gregmacpherson@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., H-385, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1438
Jeff Barker, Vice-Chair rep.
rep.jeffbarker@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., H-476, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1428
Gene Whisnant, Vice-Chair
rep.genewhisnant@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-372, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1453
Suzanne Bonamici
rep.suzannebonamici@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE, H-374, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1434
Kevin Cameron
rep.kevincameron@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-383, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1419
Linda Flores
rep.lindaflores@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., H-287, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1451
Betty Komp
rep.bettykomp@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-276, Salem,, OR, 97301
503-986-1422
Wayne Krieger
rep.waynekrieger@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., H-378, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1401
Tobias Read
rep.tobiasread@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE, H-489, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1427