Oregon 02-03-14 OFF Facebook update

[bnsaibum]

OFF Facebook

OK, it is now almost official that Prozanski will have a hearing on his pre-confiscation bill on Thursday at 8 am.

There are rumors of celebrity anti-gun folks coming to testify.

If YOU are coming, keep a few things in mind.

While you may submit written testimony you should be ready to be flexible on what you say. It is very likely that amendments will be proposed which can change the makeup of the bill.

Here are some points about the bill.

(Be prepared to respond to a moving target.)

The bill outlaws private transfers to people you have known your whole life.

The bill is a de facto registration scheme. Without registration the bill has no meaning.

There is no reason to demand the serial number of the gun being transferred if this is NOT a registration scheme.

In spite of what Floyd says, people HAVE had their guns confiscated IN OREGON, with NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION because of background checks.

As written this bill allows you to give a gun to your nephew but forbids him from giving it back without police permission.

Under the bill you could give a gun to your step-parent's gay partner, but you could not give a gun to your father-in-law.

You could give a gun to your son-in-law, but he cannot give it back without permission from the state.

You can give a gun to your nephew but he can't give it back without permission from the state.

If you have a range, training facility, or gun club that allows people to use guns you own, as part of a class you charge for, you have "leased" a gun and now must run a background check and transfer the gun to them before they can use the gun in the class. (Assuming the check is even completed before the class is over.)

They then must "transfer" the gun back to you at the end of the class.

The bill has no provision for allowing a transfer if the OSP can't complete a background check.

The law allows dealers to transfer in three days but does NOT allow private parties to transfer in 3 days if OSP can't complete the check.

It's a train wreck folks. Let's get out there.

Read More

 

[bnsaibum]

Still nothing on the Senate Judiciary schedule and all other bills have been assigned a day and time. They do meet regularly at 8:00 am Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday in 343. The Oregon Alliance to Prevent Gun Violence has a Facebook event page about it.

The Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee will hear public testimony on Senate Bill 1551 (SB 1551 :: Oregon Legislature Bill Tracker - Your Government - The Oregonian), which requires a criminal background check before any sale or transfer of a gun.

Are you part of the 80% of Oregonians who believe it's time to close the "private sales" loophole that makes it simple for criminals, the mentally ill and domestic abusers to buy a gun? Then join us in Salem on Thursday morning and show your support for common sense gun safety legislation.

Please plan to arrive no later than 7 a.m. for the 8 a.m. hearing time. The hearing will start promptly at 8 a.m., and end promptly at 10 a.m.

Be sure to connect with Ceasefire Oregon or Moms Demand Action - OR to learn how you can submit written testimony if you can't be there on Thursday.

Please RSVP here if you'd like to hook up with other attendees and carpool: <broken link removed>

(FB event link courtesy Mr. Freeman)
It appears that they have at least 23 people who have Facebook accounts going with who know how many others planning to attend, we need to meet and exceed this.

Does anyone else find it odd that SB 1551 is the only bill that is currently unscheduled and that supporters of such a controversial train wreck of a bill were informed when the bill is not scheduled? I don't know if this is actually against any law here, but at the very least it is dishonest and is a perfect example of dirty politics.

 

[diagoras]

.
.
Does anyone else find it odd that SB 1551 is the only bill that is currently unscheduled and that supporters of such a controversial train wreck of a bill were informed when the bill is not scheduled? I don't know if this is actually against any law here, but at the very least it is dishonest and is a perfect example of dirty politics.

"Odd"... Yeah, no schumer it's "Odd". I wouldn't call it "Odd", I'd call it "Criminal". Who does
that cockroach Prozacski think it's fooling?

At the very least Pinko Floyd should be censured by its fellow cockroaches (yeah, fat chance) - and
I wonder if it couldn't be indicted under the Public Meetings laws (Though I'm sure they don't
apply to Legislative cockroaches).

This kind of behavior REALLY infuriates me, in case you didn't notice. I am PAYING these insects
to behave this way. Someone should try to buttonhole Prozacski - particularly with the
media present - and ask it WHY it failed to post information about the bill while informing
its fellow leftists about it. If anyone here can get ahold of Dan Sandini at Daylight Disinfectant
and point him at this, it would be worth it. It's fun watching them scurry when they get the
light shined on them...

(this is the link to the Senate Judiciary Committee list of bills in case anyone
wonders what we're talking about...)

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2014R1/Committees/SJUD/AssignedMeasures

 

[bnsaibum]

If anyone here can get ahold of Dan Sandini at Daylight Disinfectant
and point him at this, it would be worth it.

I sent him an email.

 

[bnsaibum]

I also sent my Senator, Betsy Close, an email asking a few questions about the oddity.

I am wondering if you could answer a few questions about the Senate Judiciary Committee. Who assigns the bills to the meeting schedule? Why (as of Feb. 3, 2014) is SB 1551 the only bill not on the official schedule? It does appear from at least two sources such as Ceasefire Oregon and the Oregon Alliance to Prevent Gun Violence that this bill will be heard and discussed at 8:00 am on Feb. 6th. It seems that those who would support this bill were notified as early as Jan. 31, 2014 that it would be heard on this date. I am sure this is legal, but I cannot fathom why as it seems like dirty politics and dishonest in the very least. I would appreciate any illumination you could provide. Thank you.

And her response

As for the scheduling of bills, the chair of the committee, Senator Prozanski, schedules bills to be heard. We have heard that the gun bill, SB 1551, will be heard Thursday but as you say, OLIS does not show it scheduled as of my last check. We are looking into whether or not it is legal to inform a private group (ceasefire Oregon) before informing committee members, especially the co-chair of the committee (myself). Legal or not, I certainly do not see it as ethical.



I hope this helps answer or at least shed some light on your questions.

Response from Stephen Elzinga, Policy Analyst, Senate Republican Office

Senate rules require a chair to provide 24 hours notice to the public before the meeting, but no rule or law that I am aware of prevents a chair from giving some persons notice further in advance. Notice of a public hearing was just posted at 8:52 AM today (see attached), and this was the first time that Senate Republicans were officially informed of the hearing.

Not illegal, but shady as F&%#

 

[U201491]

As usual democrats are good at deception and backroom underhanded deals and bons. Par for the course. I cannot for the life ofe me understand how anyone can even admit being part of that party.
RANT OVER

 

[bnsaibum]

Call me naive, but it seems that if a bill or legislative process cannot stand up on its own merits in the light of day then IT SHOULDN'T BE GIVEN ANY CONSIDERATION!!!

 

[diagoras]

The thing to do would be to sue Pinko Floyd in the Federal courts under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.
Whatever the likelihood of such a lawsuit succeeding, that would expose the little roach in a manner that it really doesn't want.

It would then have to "Clarify" the situation repeatedly to all of its pothead friends in pEugene, which would make it very uncomfortable and have a "Chilling Effect" on future performances of this sort.

With leftists it's all what they're scared most of - right now Prozacski is trying to keep everyone in the dark so he and all the cockroaches at CeaseFreedom Oregon can scurry around in the dark where they feel safe. He's just not MORE scared of something like a lawsuit (or worse yet, nobody inviting him into the back room to swill any of the good "Bud" at his Eugene pot parties), is the problem.

 

[bnsaibum]

Too strong, or not strong enough? I put "78% of Oregonians agree with SB 1551" in the subject line to give it a better chance of being read.

Senator Prozanski,

I am contacting you as an Oregon resident to tell you to be mindful of which bills you put forth and support. The highly biased, leading and flawed poll by Public Policy Polling shows that Oregonians support your travesty of a bill. Are you aware that the same company did a similar poll in Colorado and found similar results with PPP reporting that 73% of Colorado residents supported background checks for private sales? How did that end up for 3 of the bills supporters? In many respects Oregon and Colorado are similar. Both have citizens who are responsible, independent and thoughtful, both have one major city, a few medium sized cities and many smaller towns, and both have State governments lead by Democrats.

As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, I am told that it is not illegal for you to tell anyone, including your supporters, of your plans to hear any particular bill before you tell the rest of the committee, but it is HIGHLY unethical to say the very least. You disgrace the political institutions of this great state by following these base behaviors. While I do not believe that the Democratic Party endorses these types of actions, their silence does point to complicity. If your bill cannot stand on its own merit in the light of day it should NOT be heard or considered in the first place.

I will send the same to Roblan and Dembrow. I think Roblan may be the most receptive to this and susceptible to consequences. I could be wrong as I don't know a whole lot about him or his district.

I am contacting you as an Oregon resident to tell you to be mindful of which bills you support. The highly biased, leading and flawed poll by Public Policy Polling shows that Oregonians supposedly support the policies that are in SB 1551 which is a travesty of a bill. Are you aware that the same company did a similar poll in Colorado and found similar results with PPP reporting that 73% of Colorado residents supported background checks for private sales? How did that end up for 3 of the bills supporters? In many respects Oregon and Colorado are similar. Both have citizens who are responsible, independent and thoughtful, both have one major city, a few medium sized cities and many smaller towns, and both have State governments lead by Democrats.

I am told that it is not illegal for the Chair to tell anyone, including his supporters, of his plans to hear any particular bill before he tells the rest of the committee, but it is HIGHLY unethical to say the very least. He disgraces the political institutions of this great state by following these base behaviors. While I do not believe that the Democratic Party endorses these types of actions, their silence does point to complicity. If his bill cannot stand on its own merit in the light of day it should NOT be heard or considered in the first place.

 

[U201491]

Too strong, or not strong enough? I put "78% of Oregonians agree with SB 1551" in the subject line to give it a better chance of being read.


I will send the same to Roblan and Dembrow. I think Roblan may be the most receptive to this and susceptible to consequences. I could be wrong as I don't know a whole lot about him or his district.

That may just sway the sheep to push for the bill. People generally follow a herd and many do not go past a headline. --/

 

[diagoras]

Too strong, or not strong enough? I put "78% of Oregonians agree with SB 1551" in the subject line to give it a better chance of being read.


I will send the same to Roblan and Dembrow. I think Roblan may be the most receptive to this and susceptible to consequences. I could be wrong as I don't know a whole lot about him or his district.

Just my (hyperinflated) 2 cents, but I would split the two issues. I.e. I'd go after Prozacski on the ethics issue without mentioning the gun issue, and I'd broadcast it to ALL his leftist buddies and tell them in essence "You may not be in control forever, and Payback is a chiclet". They're usually too dumb to understand abstract concepts like that, but they wouldn't be able to just dismiss your missive because it originated in an argument about
<< shudder >> << Quake!! >> GUNS...

The same applies to the (sniveling leftist) media as well, and even to the media-drugged-and-tortured public, who may not spend a lot of time worrying about their gun rights but can nevertheless recognize a liar and a cheat when they see one.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

78% of Oregonians think that a background check is filling out a 4473 and hearing back from the OSP in ten minutes or less. That is not the case as many of us have found out. They cannot handle the current volume of background checks without putting some people on a month long delay, how are they going to deal with almost double the number of requests?

 

[U201491]

78% of Oregonians think that a background check is filling out a 4473 and hearing back from the OSP in ten minutes or less. That is not the case as many of us have found out. They cannot handle the current volume of background checks without putting some people on a month long delay, how are they going to deal with almost double the number of requests?

They wont deal with it and that is exactly what the left likes to create.
To them, any obstacle is a good obstacle unless it is something they want.
A lot of mention of recall and the next election they do pay attention to.