Asked my legislators to exempt CHL holders from background checks (Oregon)

[papahepcat]

So, here in Oregon, we have our "short session" coming up in the legislature. I generally hope they don't get a lot done. But this morning, I sent an email to both my state Sentator and Rep asking if they could do a bill to add CHL holders to the list of exemptions for when a background check is required.

My thinking is this:

1. CHL already do a fingerprint check, which is more thorough than the phone check
2. That check is done every 4 years when it's renewed
3. And you get issued an ID, so checking if someone has one is pretty easy

Both of my legislators voted against SB941 last year, so maybe they'll go for it. I'm not going to hold my breath either way. But if anyone wants to do something similar, you can go to https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/ to look up your person and email them. It's pretty easy.

I've worked with these folks and their staff, and here's my very humble opinion if your legislator votes the "other way": If you get all mad when you contact them, they'll tune you out (this is prob true for anyone). If you're quiet and calm, but use a lot of cold logic, they'll still tune you out. BUT if you get emotional and can even pull a tear-jerker story or scenario out, they're more apt to listen and consider what you're saying. Again. Humble opinion.

Read More

 

[Jim Colvill]

Good luck with that. Those points were brought up during the discussions regarding SB941 and they were ignored then. The statehouse dynamics haven't changed since then and I seriously doubt that during the short session anything new will gain traction; it's like nothing gets done after 2pm on a Friday. I'd like to be proven incorrect.

 

[etrain16]

I have to agree with Qaolin, it's not going to go anywhere. Many of us brought that very idea to our legislators, politely, during the debates over SB941, and they were ignored.

The problem is that the Dems hold the majority in the house and senate, which gives them control over the committees. As I understand it, an attempt to add an exemption for CHL holders first must go through the Judiciary committee - over which the Dems hold control, including some of the most vehement anti-gunners in the legislature, such as Prozanski. They will make sure any attempt is killed in committee and the proposal will never make it to the floor to even get a vote in the first place.

They knew exactly what they were doing when they didn't provide a CHL exemption in SB941 - that was intentional. Unless the makeup of the legislature changes in Nov. 2016, there will be no CHL exemption - the anti-gun crowd has no reason to do it.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

We should keep pushing for it.
There are plenty of ways having a CHL should be able to circumvent BS941.

We should also bring up the cost issue.. Its a direct class attack, again making it more expensive for the average American to purchase something at a competitive price.. Now they are forced to go through an FFL and shell out at least $25 extra ON TOP of the money they're already spending on a firearm?! And add to the fact that some states are even taxing firearms and ammo in cities making it even more difficult and costly to go out and purchase a firearm.

 

[GUNARCHER]

It will not pass, but I submit that a tax refund for BGC costs would eliminate the fact that we are being charged to exercise a right to bear arms.

Hell, you can't even demand ID to vote!!! yet you are charged, investigated and for CHL fingerprinted and photographed.

 

[papahepcat]

I don't disagree with any of the above, but I think it's important to try. We can talk on here all we want, but we're just preaching to the choir here.

I got an email back from my rep. He said that they only get two bills in short session, and he's already submitted his. But he said he'd look to see if anyone else is submitting something that could have an amendment added to allow CHL exemptions. It's not a lot, but it's not nothing, either. And if nothing happens this time around, I'll probably try again next year. Short of heading over to a bird sanctuary, it's all I can do for now.

 

[bolus]

I don't disagree with any of the above, but I think it's important to try. We can talk on here all we want, but we're just preaching to the choir here.

I got an email back from my rep. He said that they only get two bills in short session, and he's already submitted his. But he said he'd look to see if anyone else is submitting something that could have an amendment added to allow CHL exemptions. It's not a lot, but it's not nothing, either. And if nothing happens this time around, I'll probably try again next year. Short of heading over to a bird sanctuary, it's all I can do for now.

Who is your rep? the ones that actually answer emails and agree to try should be acknowledged here.

 

[papahepcat]

Who is your rep? the ones that actually answer emails and agree to try should be acknowledged here.

Rep Gilliam
<broken link removed>

 

[Larrytpdx]

That's how it used to be quite a few years ago, but Ginny Burdick (D) Portland and the other Dems pushed through the change in order to get the $10.00 fee from everyone regardless of whether you already passed a background check. Basically a way to get $10.00 on every gun sale. No way they will ever give up that money.

 

[nammac]

Most just seem to totally ignore their constituents, if their constituents view differs from theirs (Chuck Riley, Bloomberg's bought and paid for flunky) in this case...

 

[ZigZagZeke]

For all of you who automatically respond with "Why try?" or variations on that theme, because we need to push back and keep pushing. Keep at it long and loud enough and we'll get our exemption. Some politician will notice that it costs money to process unnecessary BGCs and they can make points with their constituency by being fiscally responsible. And yeah, of course we couldn't get it in SB941. That would have been a public cave-in by the Dems. A quiet exemption after the fact is a whole lot more likely, especially in an off year.

 

[DMax]

It is way to logical for libs to get an exemption after being vetted by the FBI for CHL, Biggest reason ITS NOT ABOUT RESULTS ITS ABOUT THE NEXT STEP TO LOSS OF LIBERTY AND TAKING CONTROL. PERIOD

 

[GUNARCHER]

That's how it used to be quite a few years ago, but Ginny Burdick (D) Portland and the other Dems pushed through the change in order to get the $10.00 fee from everyone regardless of whether you already passed a background check. Basically a way to get $10.00 on every gun sale. No way they will ever give up that money.

Then it's time to demand $10.00 for EVERY vote cast! Use Alinsky rules and make them do what they demand we do! May not pass but may make people think and realize they are both RIGHTS!

 

[etrain16]

For all of you who automatically respond with "Why try?" or variations on that theme, because we need to push back and keep pushing. Keep at it long and loud enough and we'll get our exemption. Some politician will notice that it costs money to process unnecessary BGCs and they can make points with their constituency by being fiscally responsible. And yeah, of course we couldn't get it in SB941. That would have been a public cave-in by the Dems. A quiet exemption after the fact is a whole lot more likely, especially in an off year.

Don't interpret my response as "don't try", it wasn't intended that way. Rather it's a realistic response based on what we've already experienced during the SB941 debacle. Unless something changes in their heads, there isn't a way to bypass it in this session, we simply cannot get the votes. But, I do agree, keep the pressure on them, keep these things in front of them. And hopefully, OFF will be doing the same, perhaps taking the charge on this so we can rally behind their banner.

But I will say yet again, the November 2016 election is critical for gun rights in Oregon. If we can't eliminate their majority hold on the senate and the house, we are surely screwed in the 2017 long session.

 

[papahepcat]

For what it's worth, I heard back from my State Senator's office yesterday. Senator Girod. They said that deadline is past for getting a draft from Legislative Counsel (these are the lawyers that actually write the bills at the Member's request). But they would add it to the list of bills he intends to to file in 2017.

I'll reply to thank them and ask if they could see about adding an amendment to a bill that might be going through.

So, as I said before, it's not a lot, but it's not nothing, either.

Side note: Rep Gilliam is Vice-Chair of House Rules Committee, which had SB941 last year. So maybe he'll actually be able to add something to a related bill that might take an amendment.

At worst, if everything absolutely goes to crap, at least I'll be able tell myself I didn't just piss and moan and do nothing about it. I tried the right channels and attempted to be reasonable vs just whining and posting pithy memes on facebook or whatever. And I can tell myself that while I'm reloading. And I mean at a bench, of course.

 

[bolus]

For what it's worth, I heard back from my State Senator's office yesterday. Senator Girod. They said that deadline is past for getting a draft from Legislative Counsel (these are the lawyers that actually write the bills at the Member's request). But they would add it to the list of bills he intends to to file in 2017.

I'll reply to thank them and ask if they could see about adding an amendment to a bill that might be going through.

So, as I said before, it's not a lot, but it's not nothing, either.

Side note: Rep Gilliam is Vice-Chair of House Rules Committee, which had SB941 last year. So maybe he'll actually be able to add something to a related bill that might take an amendment.

At worst, if everything absolutely goes to crap, at least I'll be able tell myself I didn't just piss and moan and do nothing about it. I tried the right channels and attempted to be reasonable vs just whining and posting pithy memes on facebook or whatever. And I can tell myself that while I'm reloading. And I mean at a bench, of course.

View attachment 272857

You still have to be vigilant. My rep sent me replies like this around 941. First, she was going to ask the judicial committee around the C&R. Then a reply that she was not able to influence the judicial committee since she was not on it. When the bill passed committee I asked for an amendment. She said it was too late to submit an amendment (but then 2 weeks later a different legislator submitted a completely different amendment). The second lie. Then a promise to meet with me over the summer to discuss a 2016 amendment for the C&R. Then during the summer there are no replies to any requests.

I add up all the replies I got where nothing but smoke blown up my butt to shut me up. What hurt the most is she is a fellow physician and she knows Im a physician. Lied to a peer and colleague even. If she did that over a patient I'd have her license revoked.

So my warning is dont accept what any politician says. Their word is worth nothing.

 

[Sstrand]

How do you spell politician? . . . L I A R!!!!

Sheldon