2017 Legislative Session

[Defense Minister]

Let's start offering our legislators some suggestions for pro-gun bills to be introduced during the 2017 Legislative Session. I sent the following email to all Republican legislators today. Piggyback on mine, or come up with your own.


Dear __________,

It's time to start preparing some pro-gun legislation for the 2017 Legislative Session to put the other side on the defensive for a change. I'm tired of always being "on the ropes". I suggest starting with Constitutional Carry, and a bill that would amend ORS 166.170 to read as follows (NEW LANGUAGE IN CAPS):

(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, SCHOOL DISTRICT, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact POLICIES, EMPLOYMENT POLICIES, civil or criminal ordinances, , including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances POLICIES, AND EMPLOYMENT POLICIES that are contrary to this subsection are void.

Thank you for your consideration!

Read More

 

[OutlawHoss]

Heck yeah! The best defense is a good offense, and we should be proactively filling the legislature with what we would like to see, instead of reeling and reacting from what we usually see. It'll be another transparent moment for the "anti-natural rights" agenda ideologues to be exposed as working against Oregonians' best interests, especially if there was a bill that somehow addressed the deteriorated ability of victims of violence to arm (and train) themselves lawfully and competently. It could be a 'teaching moment' where the pro-gun and pro-rights folks could demonstrate that responsible armed citizens cherish freedom & life & personal security, and that everyone should have access to it.

Okay, I get carried away, but I think the point remains, I definitely think some proactive actions are called for. Maybe OFF could weigh in on this.

 

[tiggers97]

Correcting SB941 by the following (probably cannot repeal it, but we can at lest make it more tolerable):
+Restore FFL03 licenses
+Restore the Civilian Markmanship Program (CMP)
+Allow the use of a concealed carry permit in lieu of a background check system. Like a license in some of those "states with background checks" they liked to tout.

Probably would't be able to get all, but the FFL03 SHOULD be a no brainier, followed by the CMP. The last one might take a little fighting (i.e. a couple years of repetitive truth)

 

[Norm0931]

I'm writing Boquist to get legislation started to:
Get rid of FICS unit and switch to NICS processing (free and less info to the govt)
Open up reciprocity with other states
Mandatory Minimum sentencing for commission of a violent felony with a firearm

+Allow the use of a concealed carry permit in lieu of a background check system. Like a license in some of those "states with background checks" they liked to tout.

That's federally illegal. Federal law requires dealers to perform a background check. There are states, like Utah, that waive the background check fee, but dealers are still required to run a check. Now, you could argue for a change in the law to say private sales are legal as long as the buyer has an active concealed carry permit.

 

[etrain16]

Heck yeah! The best defense is a good offense, and we should be proactively filling the legislature with what we would like to see, instead of reeling and reacting from what we usually see. It'll be another transparent moment for the "anti-natural rights" agenda ideologues to be exposed as working against Oregonians' best interests, especially if there was a bill that somehow addressed the deteriorated ability of victims of violence to arm (and train) themselves lawfully and competently. It could be a 'teaching moment' where the pro-gun and pro-rights folks could demonstrate that responsible armed citizens cherish freedom & life & personal security, and that everyone should have access to it.

Okay, I get carried away, but I think the point remains, I definitely think some proactive actions are called for. Maybe OFF could weigh in on this.

We could try and get @Kevin Starrett to weigh in on this thread. He is the head of OFF and has commented a few times here before. I would love to see some pro-active, pro-gun legislation brought forward in 2017, ahead of the attacks we know will be coming. If OFF has an opportunity to bring some forward, I'd certainly be behind that!

 

[PiratePast40]

You're fighting an up hill battle unless we break up the super majority. That should be the priority until the November election.

 

[Norm0931]

You're fighting an up hill battle unless we break up the super majority. That should be the priority until the November election.

It's changing the perspective though. We need legislation that addresses firearms in a way that the Anti's can't disagree with and doesn't hurt firearms owners.

 

[Norm0931]

My letter to Senator Boquist:

Senator Boquist,

First off let me start by once again giving you my condolences over the loss of your son. I was a United States Marine and I have felt the loss of brothers due to unresolved issues. I myself still struggle with feelings from my time overseas. I never knew your son, but please know that I mourn his loss.

As for the 2017 session, I have several ideas for legislation I would like to see presented and I am willing to help with. I am a firearms owner and I manage a federally licensed shop in Beaverton. I am tired of seeing our 2nd Amendment rights corroded away due to the corruption and billionaire cash flow that is running rampant in the Democratic Party of Oregon. I want to go on the offensive in 2017 and I would like your help Senator.

1. Abolish the FICS unit of OSP and utilize the FBI NICS system.
The FICS unit is small and understaffed. They have difficulties processing background checks and take months, and sometimes years, to investigate delayed transactions. The FBI offers the NICS system with better efficiency, at a faster rate, and with more protections for purchasers. People who advocate for the abolishment of firearm ownership will argue that the FICS unit does a better job because they just look at the state of Oregon. However, the NICS unit has access to more funding and better data. If the Oregon State Police are not providing information to the FBI then they are putting Oregonians at risk due to incompetence. The NICS system is also free and does not require information about the firearms being purchased. This will increase the amount of people who conduct private sales actually utilizing the system.

2. Mandatory minimum sentencing for possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent felony.
The Democrats keep insisting their goal is to "end gun violence," but then they keep advocating legislation that lets criminals back on to our streets. Legislation like this will actually punish people who commit violent felonies with a firearm. There is no arguing that a violent felon with a firearm should not be in prison. The officer that gave his life for Oregonians last month in Seaside would be alive today if we had this legislation. I find it would be difficult for any legislator to argue that cop killers should be roaming streets.

3. Concealed Carry Reciprocity with other states.
I know this has been tried several times, but Floyd Prozanski's jihad against Oregonians must be stopped. Submitting this legislation again with the proper backing will continue to make the case that it is not about public safety, but about making it as difficult as possible for Oregonians to defend themselves. Just as one example, Utah requires a mandatory, in person, minimum 4 hour class, and yet they supposedly have fewer requirements than Oregon? This is common sense legislation to allow Oregonians and other Americans the right to defend themselves here and in other states.

I hope you are interested in these ideas and proposing legislation for the 2017 session. I would love to help as much as I can. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of assistance. Thank you.

 

[etrain16]

You're fighting an up hill battle unless we break up the super majority. That should be the priority until the November election.

It's changing the perspective though. We need legislation that addresses firearms in a way that the Anti's can't disagree with and doesn't hurt firearms owners.

Norm has a good point. We already know the anti's will come after us - especially if they retain a super-majority (in which case, we're screwed - it's up to the voters). But, if the right people can get pro-gun legislation on the books, legislation that comes across as positive, it will force anti-gun folks to vote against it, and have to answer for those choices.

Say, for example, a pro-gun bill came forward that was based on providing better mental health care in the state, in order to help prevent shootings. Not another background check bill, but one that addresses actually doing something about mentally ill people, getting them off the streets and getting the care they need. If they vote against this, they must answer as to why they're 'against' better mental health care. It can complicate things for them with their voters that care about such things.

 

[Norm0931]

Norm has a good point. We already know the anti's will come after us - especially if they retain a super-majority (in which case, we're screwed - it's up to the voters). But, if the right people can get pro-gun legislation on the books, legislation that comes across as positive, it will force anti-gun folks to vote against it, and have to answer for those choices.

Say, for example, a pro-gun bill came forward that was based on providing better mental health care in the state, in order to help prevent shootings. Not another background check bill, but one that addresses actually doing something about mentally ill people, getting them off the streets and getting the care they need. If they vote against this, they must answer as to why they're 'against' better mental health care. It can complicate things for them with their voters that care about such things.

Exactly, my suggestion to Boquist about Minimum sentencing for violent felonies with a firearm. The dirtbag who killed the officer in Seaside would have been in prison, not out on the street murdering cops. They vote the legislation down, now they have to answer in public about why they think cops should be murdered by violent felons. Furthermore, why violent felons shouldn't be locked up. If they want to stop gun violence, then locking up the people who commit crimes with guns is a damn good and WIDELY ACCEPTED start. This even puts Ceasefire Oregon at a loss of attack, we literally turn their own agenda against them.

 

[Mikej]

My letter to Senator Boquist:

Senator Boquist,

First off let me start by once again giving you my condolences over the loss of your son. I was a United States Marine and I have felt the loss of brothers due to unresolved issues. I myself still struggle with feelings from my time overseas. I never knew your son, but please know that I mourn his loss.

As for the 2017 session, I have several ideas for legislation I would like to see presented and I am willing to help with. I am a firearms owner and I manage a federally licensed shop in Beaverton. I am tired of seeing our 2nd Amendment rights corroded away due to the corruption and billionaire cash flow that is running rampant in the Democratic Party of Oregon. I want to go on the offensive in 2017 and I would like your help Senator.

1. Abolish the FICS unit of OSP and utilize the FBI NICS system.
The FICS unit is small and understaffed. They have difficulties processing background checks and take months, and sometimes years, to investigate delayed transactions. The FBI offers the NICS system with better efficiency, at a faster rate, and with more protections for purchasers. People who advocate for the abolishment of firearm ownership will argue that the FICS unit does a better job because they just look at the state of Oregon. However, the NICS unit has access to more funding and better data. If the Oregon State Police are not providing information to the FBI then they are putting Oregonians at risk due to incompetence. The NICS system is also free and does not require information about the firearms being purchased. This will increase the amount of people who conduct private sales actually utilizing the system.

2. Mandatory minimum sentencing for possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent felony.
The Democrats keep insisting their goal is to "end gun violence," but then they keep advocating legislation that lets criminals back on to our streets. Legislation like this will actually punish people who commit violent felonies with a firearm. There is no arguing that a violent felon with a firearm should not be in prison. The officer that gave his life for Oregonians last month in Seaside would be alive today if we had this legislation. I find it would be difficult for any legislator to argue that cop killers should be roaming streets.

3. Concealed Carry Reciprocity with other states.
I know this has been tried several times, but Floyd Prozanski's jihad against Oregonians must be stopped. Submitting this legislation again with the proper backing will continue to make the case that it is not about public safety, but about making it as difficult as possible for Oregonians to defend themselves. Just as one example, Utah requires a mandatory, in person, minimum 4 hour class, and yet they supposedly have fewer requirements than Oregon? This is common sense legislation to allow Oregonians and other Americans the right to defend themselves here and in other states.

I hope you are interested in these ideas and proposing legislation for the 2017 session. I would love to help as much as I can. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of assistance. Thank you.

This is very good. Especially the part about the Dems voting against these ideas will make them look like the bad guys. The problem is, will your letter just be ignored? I think it was @etrain16 that couldn't get the Repubs to get on board with something (can't remember what it was now), and whoever it was he was trying to get support from just wanted him to let it lay and not rock the boat?

It will be interesting to see what response you get.

 

[etrain16]

This is very good. Especially the part about the Dems voting against these ideas will make them look like the bad guys. The problem is, will your letter just be ignored? I think it was @etrain16 that couldn't get the Repubs to get on board with something (can't remember what it was now), and whoever it was he was trying to get support from just wanted him to let it lay and not rock the boat?

It will be interesting to see what response you get.

Actually @bolus had trouble with the Republican party during his recall effort. I did have a run-in on the forum here with a local Republican party rep as we were talking about possibly going after Brent Barton (didn't materialize), and was basically telling us not to do it. What we learned from their actions (or rather, in-actions), was that they are unwilling to fight for us - most likely so they, like the establishment in WA DC, can keep their own little niche of the world under their own control.

 

[bolus]

Actually @bolus had trouble with the Republican party during his recall effort. I did have a run-in on the forum here with a local Republican party rep as we were talking about possibly going after Brent Barton (didn't materialize), and was basically telling us not to do it. What we learned from their actions (or rather, in-actions), was that they are unwilling to fight for us - most likely so they, like the establishment in WA DC, can keep their own little niche of the world under their own control.

They threatened someone who wanted to volunteer time for us to not work with us otherwise they would not give him any work in the future. Then they pushed for us to add McLain to our recall and then did nothing to support us. Some where saying "get some results and we will support you" and the leads over at the Oregon Republican party were actively trying to harm our efforts. I guess they got what they wanted and have done jack squat since then. Then indirectly, the girlfriend of a republican legislator tried to scam us and OFF out of tons of money under the guise of supporting our efforts.

They did almost as much damage as Bloomberg

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy

 

[Mikej]

Happy, happy, happy.....

 

[Ralgha]

Of course the Republicans aren't going to support a recall, they're on the same team as the Democrats. ANY recall threatens ALL of them, tells ALL of them that they can't do whatever they want. None of them are going to support any recall.

 

[Libertas7]

Mandatory minimum sentencing for possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent felony.
The Democrats keep insisting their goal is to "end gun violence," but then they keep advocating legislation that lets criminals back on to our streets. Legislation like this will actually punish people who commit violent felonies with a firearm. There is no arguing that a violent felon with a firearm should not be in prison. The officer that gave his life for Oregonians last month in Seaside would be alive today if we had this legislation. I find it would be difficult for any legislator to argue that cop killers should be roaming streets.

I really like this idea! I wonder if it's legal(constitutional) to add more years to the sentence for every subsequent violent crime you commit?

 

[Defense Minister]

You guys have some great ideas here. Let our reps hear them.

Concerning what tiggers97 suggested regarding the substitution of a CHL in lieu of a background check, it can't happen when buying from an FFl, but it could be an amendment to the statute created by SB941 at the state level.