Thread: 2012 Oregon Gun Bills

http://oregonfirearms.org/2012/2012%20bills.html

A commentary on some is here:

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

They consist of bills to ban guns from public buildings (one specific to schools and one for all public buildings), a reciprocity bill, and a CHL privacy bill.

Looks like Ginny Burdick is crusading again. Unfortunate.

OFF characterizes SB1572 as a "supposed" reciprocity bill. At first I wondered why, but after reading their summary I realized the states that would make the list appear to be awfully few. In fact, I cannot think of one. Help me here!

Originally Posted by drew

Oregon Firearms Federation

A commentary on some is here:

Oregon Firearms Federation

They consist of bills to ban guns from public buildings (one specific to schools and one for all public buildings), a reciprocity bill, and a CHL privacy bill.

Looks like Ginny Burdick is crusading again. Unfortunate.

better not take my rights to carry at my kids schools,little bast*rds have guns there....i will too!

Originally Posted by civilian75

OFF characterizes SB1572 as a "supposed" reciprocity bill. At first I wondered why, but after reading their summary I realized the states that would make the list appear to be awfully few. In fact, I cannot think of one. Help me here!

Yeah. It also doesn't look like it sets criteria for what is "substantially similar" or establish a timeline for the OSP. I'd think the big one would be requiring handgun safety as a component of a course. I can think of several states offhand.

Yeah, that one is tricky. Really, it all boils down to the OSP's interpretation of "substantially similar", which can change from OSP superintendent to superintendent...

I would think that plenty of other states would qualify - Oregon's is pretty lax.

I'm glad Prozanski got the memo that he has MANY registered-Democrat gun-rights-advocating constituents, and is at least going THIS far. I can only hope he listens to requests to make it more reasonable. (Like establishing an independent, verifiable method of "substantial similarity" that isn't open to so much interpretation at minimum.)

Originally Posted by CharonPDX

I'm glad Prozanski got the memo that he has MANY registered-Democrat gun-rights-advocating constituents, and is at least going THIS far. I can only hope he listens to requests to make it more reasonable. (Like establishing an independent, verifiable method of "substantial similarity" that isn't open to so much interpretation at minimum.)

I'm still guessing that he'll support prohibiting carry in public buildings. He may say he's for gun owners but last year he didn't do anything to endear himself to me.

Yeah, Prozanski has been a bit of a hot-button for Gun-friendly Democrats. He claims gun friendliness, but has a VERY mixed record.

In fact, with all the stuff that went on last year, the Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon even went so far as to release a statement about him:

In light of a recent email that was sent out by Sen. Prozanski, we felt compelled to offer a statement:

The Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon is a big-tent Caucus and we do not limit our membership save that our members be registered Democrats and 2nd Amendment supporters. Any pro-2nd Amendment Democrat is welcome to join the GOC and add to our diversity. Some of our membership may agree with Sen. Prozanski's positions and behavior in the Senate Judiciary Committee last session and many do not. While Sen Prozansky does not speak for all of us, his is an example of the diversity of opinions which we cherish and encourage, albeit, do not promulgate as official caucus positions.

In short: Yeah, he's a Democrat who says he's pro-gun, but don't tar us all with the same brush as him... Again, I can only hope that after that public calling-out by the Gun Owners Caucus, he is actually going to TRY to be as gun-friendly as he has claimed to be this time around...

Originally Posted by CharonPDX

Yeah, Prozanski has been a bit of a hot-button for Gun-friendly Democrats. He claims gun friendliness, but has a VERY mixed record.

In fact, with all the stuff that went on last year, the Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon even went so far as to release a statement about him:


In short: Yeah, he's a Democrat who says he's pro-gun, but don't tar us all with the same brush as him... Again, I can only hope that after that public calling-out by the Gun Owners Caucus, he is actually going to TRY to be as gun-friendly as he has claimed to be this time around...

When all this was going on I was receiving email from Prozanski telling me what he and his staff were doing to prove that OFF was messing with him.I sent all the email to the Ethics committee and ask them to look into the use of staff and my money to prove OFF was messing with him..Never heard another peep out of him.

I'm not seeing this the same way as some others. The reciprocity bill appears to require the State Police to identify specific states with similar requirements and name them. That doesn't sound nebulous to me.

The bills about schools and public buildings appear to eliminate a person's ability to use his permit as an "affirmative defense."

Does everyone know what an "affirmative defense" is? LINK

SB1550:

9
10
(b) A person who intentionally (how do they prove that?) possesses a firearm or any other instrument used as a
dangerous weapon, while on school grounds, commits a Class C felony.

........

11 (2)(a) Except as otherwise provided...

------

28 [(d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.

------
------

Standard disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, contact a lawyer, etc, etc, etc. This is all my personal reading of the laws.

Affirmative defense: You violated the law, but there is another law that allows you to violate the law.

"Self defense" is the most common affirmative defense in cases where you harm another.

What Oregon law does is define certain things as illegal, then exempts certain people from being considered guilty. Concealed handguns are one of those. Carrying a concealed handgun in a public place is a crime. Period. However, if you go through the process of getting a permit, you then have a valid defense. The way some of the laws are written, having an affirmative defense means you cannot even be arrested. In others, you may be arrested, you may be charged, you may even go to trial - but in trial, presenting your "affirmative defense" is theoretically grounds for an automatic "not guilty". (I can't remember which one, but ONE of the concealed-carry laws makes it sound like an officer could do just that. Most of them specifically exempt CHL holders from even being arrested in the first place, but one of them is worded differently...)

Originally Posted by CharonPDX

Standard disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, contact a lawyer, etc, etc, etc. This is all my personal reading of the laws.

Affirmative defense: You violated the law, but there is another law that allows you to violate the law.

"Self defense" is the most common affirmative defense in cases where you harm another.

What Oregon law does is define certain things as illegal, then exempts certain people from being considered guilty. Concealed handguns are one of those. Carrying a concealed handgun in a public place is a crime. Period. However, if you go through the process of getting a permit, you then have a valid defense. The way some of the laws are written, having an affirmative defense means you cannot even be arrested. In others, you may be arrested, you may be charged, you may even go to trial - but in trial, presenting your "affirmative defense" is theoretically grounds for an automatic "not guilty". (I can't remember which one, but ONE of the concealed-carry laws makes it sound like an officer could do just that. Most of them specifically exempt CHL holders from even being arrested in the first place, but one of them is worded differently...)

Having a CHL is an affirmative defense to many things which would otherwise be illegal.

They way I read those laws, the CHL exempts you from the restrictions, but you may not use the CHL as an affirmative defense if you commit another crime or wrong. Actually, I thought it was always that way.

Originally Posted by Gunner3456

Having a CHL is an affirmative defense to many things which would otherwise be illegal.

They way I read those laws, the CHL exempts you from the restrictions, but you may not use the CHL as an affirmative defense if you commit another crime or wrong. Actually, I thought it was always that way.

I believe you're correct. Exemption from a statute and an affirmative defense are used in different circumstances. Exemption means you should not be arrested or charged. Affirmative defenses are used in court to defeat a factual claim of guilt based on the facts.

Originally Posted by drew

I believe you're correct. Exemption from a statute and an affirmative defense are used in different circumstances. Exemption means you should not be arrested or charged. Affirmative defenses are used in court to defeat a factual claim of guilt based on the facts.

First, in my OP I didn't define affirmative defense, or intend to debate it. I just noted that the bill denied the use of it in some circumstances.

Second, an affirmative defense might keep you from going to court or even being charged. An officer might arrest you, but the valid affirmative defense might cause the DA to release you, knowing he didn't have a case. You might just get a dismissal with prejudice.

Now I'm unsubscribing because this is off topic and could go on forever and I get tired of that.

The real topic is whether we will have reciprocity, and whether we lose any carry rights under these new bills. I see where we would have specific state reciprocity via State Police research, and I don't see where we would lose any CHL rights.