Thread: HB 4045 this one we want. update UPDATE

This one we want, write them and ask them how they would like there home address printed in the newspaper.. if you don't write they think you DON'T care.



Please contact members of the House Judiciary Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to support HB 4045. The House Judiciary Committee contact information is provided below:
Representative Jeff Barker, Co-Chairman (D-28)
503-986-1428
rep.jeffbarker@state.or.us
Representative Wayne Krieger, Co-Chairman (R-1)
503-986-1401
rep.waynekrieger@state.or.us

Representative Chris Garrett, Co-Vice Chairman (D-38)
503-986-1438
rep.chrisgarrett@state.or.us

Representative Wally Hicks, Co-Vice Chairman (R-3)
503-986-1403
rep.wallyhicks@state.or.us

Representative Mary Nolan (D-36)
503-986-1436
rep.marynolan@state.or.us

Representative Andy Olson (R-15)
503-986-1415
rep.andyolson@state.or.us

Representative Mike Schaufler (D-48)
503-986-1448
rep.mikeschaufler@state.or.us

Representative Carolyn Tomei (D-41)
503-986-1441
rep.carolyntomei@state.or.us

Representative Matt Wand (R-49)
503-986-1449
rep.mattwand@state.or.us

Representative Gene Whisnant (R-53)
503-986-1453
rep.genewhisnant@state.or.us

HB 4045: Authorizes person applying for concealed handgun license to limit ability of public body to disclose records or information that identifies person as applicant for, or holder of, concealed handgun license.

come on guy's write to your Rep. It does help.

+1!

email I rec.

Thank you for your email.

I support HB 4045, in fact I co-sponsored the bill with Rep. Thatcher. As a retired police lieutenant, I know that CHL holders present no threat to anyone’s safety. As a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I know that someone’s CHL info is nobody else’s business.

During the 2011 session, we passed a similar CHL secrecy bill in the House, but it never came up for a vote on the Senate side. I am very confident that we can get HB 4045 passed here in the House during the 2012 session and I’m working very hard to convince a majority of my Senate colleagues to pass it, as well.

Thanks again for your email.

Jeff Barker

Looks like there were some late amendments that among other things would ban CHL carry in schools and public buildings.

Tell the Judiciary Committee you don't want amendments!

http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage...2%20alert.html

Prozanski plans to kill it.

http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage...2%20alert.html

It's dead.

Perhaps it's not dead. Third time's the charm?

http://www.leg.state.or.us/press_rel...her_021512.pdf

So do I email all of them? Or just the one from my district? I'm in Salem so is that d-41?

Originally Posted by FORKLIFT252

So do I email all of them? Or just the one from my district? I'm in Salem so is that d-41?

do your district and the senate president.

When I filled out my CHL application, the last page was a page about the confidentiality of my information. It basically said I may be eligible for an exemption from having my information released and gave a couple of fields to check and state my "personal reasons". I put I didn't want my information released and simply stated I had a right to my privacy. Not sure what the outcome will be but I'm going in for my appt hopefully early next week.

Has anyone else in OR seen this? Is this standard for CHL apps in Oregon or did my county sheriff choose to add this as a courtesy?

Originally Posted by noshis9s

When I filled out my CHL application, the last page was a page about the confidentiality of my information. It basically said I may be eligible for an exemption from having my information released and gave a couple of fields to check and state my "personal reasons". I put I didn't want my information released and simply stated I had a right to my privacy. Not sure what the outcome will be but I'm going in for my appt hopefully early next week.

Has anyone else in OR seen this? Is this standard for CHL apps in Oregon or did my county sheriff choose to add this as a courtesy?

It's an addition that most (maybe all?) sheriff's added to avoid having to turn over records when a public records request came across their desk. A couple of recent requests came to the state police who apparently have been told by the AG to turn the information over.

email I rec from Floyd..


I am writing to clarify inaccurate and misleading information being circulated about HB 4045.

While some legislators consider HB 4045 to be a “gun” bill, I do not. As the sponsor stated in her closing statement during the House floor debate, it is a public records bill. I agree. HB 4045 is a public records bill that deals with CHL records.

As of late Friday afternoon, HB 4045 had not been assigned to a senate committee. The bill cannot be scheduled for a public hearing or work session until it is assigned to a committee. If the president plans on assigning it to the senate Judiciary Committee, it must happen before this Tuesday at 5 PM so that I, as chair of that committee, can get it scheduled for a public hearing and possible work session before the deadline for bills to be scheduled on a committee’s agenda. (If that does not happen, the president will need to assign HB 4045 to the Rules Committee because that committee will stay open after the Judiciary and most other senate committees are closed for the session.)

Upon HB 4045 being assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will immediately request the senate president allow the bill to be scheduled for a public hearing and work session. (Since the president has declared the end of session to be imminent, he must now approve all committee agendas.) My goal is to get HB 4045 assigned to the senate Judiciary Committee, get it scheduled for public hearing and possible work session, and then amend the bill with the -26 amendment (see below and attached) before passing it out of committee and to the senate floor for a vote.

Since HB 4045 addresses public records, it needs to be amended to place CHL public records into the existing public records chapter, ORS 192. Based on my review of other public records exempted from disclosure, it appears that the CHL exception should be placed in ORS 192.501. This is the same section that exempts from disclosure the home addresses and home phone numbers of police and public safety officers.

The -26 amendment will outright prohibit the custodian of record (i.e., sheriffs) from disclosing any personal information contained in CHL permit records and applications except for name, age and county of residence. In other words, even if a sheriff determines that the “public interest” outweighs the privacy interest, the sheriff could only release name, age and county of residence. Except for those three items, the amendment strictly prohibits the release of any other information contained in the record or application, including addresses, dates of birth and social security numbers.

I hope this e-mail clarifies any inaccurate information you may have received about HB 4045, the -26 amendment and my intentions.

Floyd

OFF's REPLY

FLOYD'S GAMES ROLL ON.
By now many of you may have received an email from Floyd Prozanski where he warns you about "inaccurate and misleading information being circulated about HB 4045."

As has become his custom, Floyd does not point out what information that is being circulated is "inaccurate" or "misleading."

Here are some facts that no amount of spin can change. HB 4045 is a simple, straightforward and brief bill. It says that the information obtained by sheriffs when they receive an application for a concealed handgun license is protected except in a very few cases. The bill is quite brief (1 page) and not hard to understand.

Here are Floyd's amendments. 19 pages.

Floyd's email says "The -26 amendment will outright prohibit the custodian of record (i.e., sheriffs) from disclosing any personal information contained in CHL permit records and applications except for name, age and county of residence."

Why Floyd believes that name, age and county should be released is anyone's guess, but let's take a look at some quotes from the courts.

"...the fact that information is exempt from obligatory disclosure under the Public Records Act does not resolve the question of the authority of a public official to disclose the information voluntarily. An exemption from the Public Records Acts means that the custodian of the information is not obliged to disclose it. Exemption from disclosure does not necessarily mean that the custodian is required not to disclose it." Portland Adventist Medical Center v. Sheffield, 303 Or. 197, n.2

"ORS 192.502 does not prohibit disclosure of exempted information. Exemption means merely that the public body is not obligated to disclosure under ORS 192.420. The legislature has used unambiguous language when it desired to prohibit the release of information." Guard Pub. Co. v. Lange County School Dist No. 4J, 310 Or. 32, n.6 (1990

Kim Thatcher's bill is clear, simple and unambiguous. But nothing is so simple that Floyd cannot needlessly complicate it.

Please contact Senate President Peter Courtney and demand a floor vote on HB 4045 in its present form.

Senator Peter Courtney
503 986 1600
sen.petercourtney@state.or.us

update

OFF ALERT 02.23.12

CHL Confidentiality.

As many of you know, the fertilizer has hit the ventilator in the matter of HB 4045, the CHL privacy bill.

Floyd Prozanski has drafted amendments that gut and stuff the original simple bill and complicate it considerably. The bill was NOT assigned to his committee but instead sent to the Senate Rules Committee.

There is a lot of speculation about why the bill was sent there. Many assume Senate President Peter Courtney sent it there to be killed. Based on comments Courtney has made lately about not wanting to deal with gun bills, this is certainly a possibility. The Chair of the Rules Committee, Diane Rosenbaum, makes the final decision about whether or not to hear the bill, although if Courtney told her he wanted it dead, that’s the most likely outcome.

Since Prozanski has sent out a blast email (using the legislative email address and not his own) many are wondering what to make of the amendments he attached. Since the NRA has now stated they will acquiesce to the amendments and have asked people to support the amended, gut and stuffed bill, there is a lot of confusion.

As we have said over and over, HB 4045 was simple, straight forward and easy to understand. The gut and stuffed version is anything but. Prozanski’s last amendments mark the 33rd time this bill has been amended.

Kim Thatcher, the sponsor of the original bill, has signaled that she will go along with the changes. We continue to support her original bill which did not require an army of lawyers to understand.

Oregon’s current statutes are so confusing that some DA’s do not understand them. (True story.) In the past we have spent weeks trying to get legislators to figure out that some of our gun laws literally make no sense. (Why for example could a person with a felony conviction petition to have his rights restored to BUY a gun and still not be allowed to OWN it?) That is why we feel so strongly about the unamended bill.

It’s no secret that HB 4045 was drafted with the specific intent of keeping the privacy protections OUT of the “public records” statutes because of their weak and limited protections. Prozanski’s changes put them right back in there.

We believe that the original bill got the job done in the simplest way. Whatever protections the amended bill claims to provide, it remains complex and confusing for no particular reason other than to stroke the egos of politicians who want to control the process.

We refer you to yesterday’s alert.