Oregon First Anti Gun Bill Gets Hearing (HB 4145)

[Kruel J]

Anyone else get a reply today?

Thank you for sharing your concern about HB 4145 which relates to firearms. I will pass this information on to Representative Sprenger.

I am attaching a link to the HB 4145 so that you can watch its progress during Session. HB4145 2018 Regular Session - Oregon Legislative Information System

If you have any further comments or concerns, please contact us at: [email protected] or 503-986-1417.

Sincerely,
Taylor Dick
Representative Sherrie Sprenger

Yeah, I got the same response.

 

[jp1985]

I was not able to make it to the meeting. How did it go?

 

[GOG]

I have no idea yet. BTW, I got the same reply.

 

[Sstrand]

Gog
If they want your opinion they' give it to you!?!?!?!?

Sheldon

 

[BillGabby1]

I just got this in my email today.




View attachment 428577


Action Alert


Tomorrow the House Judiciary Committee will hear an egregious gun bill HB 4145 was at the request of the governor and is another attack on our 2nd Amendment rights. Even more, it erodes Oregon's Constitution under Article 1 section 27 right to bear arms.


The advocates who support this law refer to it as "closing the boyfriend loophole." Currently the law allows the state to confiscate firearms from people who are the subject of "extreme risk protection orders."


This bill seeks to expand the list of people who are ostensibly "protected" by a restraining order to "family or household members."


"Family or household member" applying for a restraining order may seem to make sense, until you look at the definition they use for "family or household member." Here it is:


"Family or household members" means any of the following:

1. Spouses.

2. Former spouses.

3. Adult persons related by blood or marriage.

4. Persons cohabiting with each other.

5. Persons who have cohabited with each other or who have been involved in a sexually intimate relationship.

6. Unmarried parents of a minor child.

As you can see, this definition is breathtakingly broad. Anyone you ever had a sexual relationship with, or who claims to have had a sexual relationship with you, would be considered your "family member" and could request an order that forbids you from having firearms. This includes vindictive and bitter ex's.


Furthermore, the bill employs even more subterfuge by purposefully encouraging people not to contest the order. If a court issues a restraining order against you under current law, you have the option to contest it to attempt to "prove" your innocence The problem is that under Federal law, if you contest this order, and it is upheld, you will lose your gun rights under Federal law.


If you don't contest it, and the court has not ordered a gun prohibition, you will not lose your gun rights. In other words, if you agree to comply with the order, no matter how false the accusations are, you may not automatically lose your gun rights.


Please act now. The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear HB 4145 tomorrow at 1pm in Hearing Room 50. Hearing Room 50 is in the basement of the Capitol Building. If you can come to the hearing and testify, that would be the best thing, but just showing up helps and shows solidarity in protecting your Constitutional right. If you cannot come, please take five minutes tonight and write a paragraph in opposition to this bill. You can upload your testimony against the bill via email by clicking here. Or by sending your written opposition to this email: [email protected]


Freedom isn't free. Make your voice heard.

Sincerely,


Senator Kim Thatcher

Senate District 13

[email protected]

 

[nwslopoke]

I attended today. I did have an opportunity to speak but I did not. I would have been last on the list and the only gave 2 mins each except for the Governor and a few Reps or "distinguished" guest. They got what seemed like 5-10 mins. Brown had personal security following a few feet at the most behind her. I'm sure he was packing. Everytown and Moms Against Everything were there in their red shirts, 75-80% of the crowd.

Kevin from OFF was there. He goes after them in his usual way. They actual had questions and he took them to task in a short concise manner. Most points were raised by those in opposition but not really by one individual. Impossible in 2 mins. Those supporting had sad tales for sure but there was noting in this bill I saw that would have prevented them.

 

[N Monty]

The advocates who support this law refer to it as "closing the boyfriend loophole." Currently the law allows the state to confiscate firearms from people who are the subject of "extreme risk protection orders."​

Remember, today's compromise is tomorrow's loophole. That quote above was a bigger bummer because one year ago, the law didn't allow the state to confiscate firearms from people who were subject to "ERPO's."

Then they passed the ERPO confiscation act.
Now they want to pass this. It's never, ever enough for them, and the ride never seems to end.

I miss those days when Oregon was sane.

 

[nwslopoke]

They are taking written statements through Friday for what it's worth. pretty much most sane statements opposing the bill were made. However those supporters were influential and liberal pillars of the state.

 

[peternov01]

anyone know anything about this? i just got it this morning from the NRA ILA

House Bill 4145 would expand the class of persons in Oregon that could be prohibited from possessing firearms. This legislation would add stalking to the list of offenses that would result in the removal of Second Amendment rights, and would change existing law so that a broader definition of "family and household members" would be applied to firearm prohibitions for certain misdemeanor offenses and protective orders. In doing so, this expansion would go well beyond existing state and federal law. This legislation was filed at the request of Bloomberg supported Governor Kate Brown, who accepted a quarter of a million dollars from former New York Mayor Michel Bloomberg during her election in 2016. It is no surprise that she is again pushing new gun restrictions for 2018 as she heads into her re-election campaign.

here is a link to the NRA ILA Take Action! - NRA ILA

I did find this :https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2018R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB4145
but tbh i'm not sure if it says that the family or household of the victim is prohibited or if the stalkers family and household is prohibited? Or is it just saying that a stalker can't be near any of their family or household members?

any thoughts?

 

[IOM]

I'm getting sick and tired of Bloomberg's financial influence being exerted to other states, strictly to push an agenda...

 

[mrblond]

they don't call her Corrupt Kate for nothing

 

[nwslopoke]

Today is the final day. There was a hearing or open comments on Wednesday. They expanded written comments until today.

 

[Chee-to]

Oregon's Only No Compromise Gun Rights Organization
View attachment 429623
02.10.18

As you know, the House Judiciary Committee has passed the amended HB 4145 to the full House.

The committee, which is controlled by Democrats, was assisted by two Republicans who voted to move the bill forward. They were Andy Olson and Richard Vial.

Republicans Sherrie Sprenger and Bill Post stood up for your rights and voted "no."

Duane Stark was excused, but that counts as a "no" vote as well.

It is hard to overstate the danger this bill presents, just as it is hard to overstate how deceitful or ignorant its proponents are.

The bill as passed out of committee extends the definition of "family member" to anyone you have ever had an "intimate relationship" with in your entire life.

This was done to create a larger universe of people whose gun rights can be taken if someone requests a protective order against them. The bill also calls for firearms confiscation of anyone "convicted of stalking under ORS 163.732". This does not mean someone who has violated a "stalking order" this means anyone who had an order sworn out against them no matter what they had done or not done.

Of course, the bill contains not one single word of protection for people who are falsely accused, and there are plenty of them.

The proponents of the bill claim that existing law protects the accused because making a false report is a crime. Tell that to Shane Morgan.

On Feb. 9 the Bend Bulletin published a lengthy story about the hell he went through when a girlfriend, Kambria Armstrong, created an elaborate web of lies to destroy his life.

The story reminded readers of past headlines. "Bend man accused of forcing teen into sex work" and "Court records detail deranged, illegal relationship."

According to the Bulletin; "The fallout was swift and severe, he told The Bulletin through his lawyer, Jamie Gerlitz. He lost a job. His roommates kicked him out. He felt scared everywhere he went. But it became clear the stories told by Morgan's accuser, Kambria Armstrong, were not believable."

After months of torment and legal nightmares the truth came out. So what happened to his accuser? What happened to the woman who fabricated these vicious lies?

According to the Bulletin:

"(DA) Hummel said his office considered charges of filing a false police report against Armstrong. He said he decided against it in part because it would have been difficult to prove her misstatements were intentional. He also said he worries doing so could have a chilling effect on survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, who might worry no one will believe their accounts and they'll be charged with a crime."

This is an outrage and exactly what we have been warning the legislature about. Domestic violence, like any violence, is a deadly serious issue. People who are victims of abuse or who are genuinely in fear for their lives deserve all the protection they can get. But this bill is a charade. This is not about keeping women safe. And the people pushing this travesty know it.

Time after time we hear stories of the victims of abuse and violence. And time after time it is clear that this bill would have prevented virtually none of it. The backers of this bill keep perpetuating the dangerous fantasy that a piece of paper will keep a woman safe from a dangerous and violent attacker. Yet, from the supporters of this bill, we keep hearing stories of people who either violated protective orders, or were never subject to them in the first place.

Even the Chairman of the Committee, Jeff Barker, justified his support for the bill by recounting an incident of domestic violence he responded to as a police officer. What he did not mention was this bill would have had no effect whatsoever on that incident or its outcome.

HB 4145 protects no one. If the State of Oregon wanted to protect women it would stop squandering millions on fiasco projects and failing agencies and spend more on services and shelters for victims of abuse.

If it wanted to safeguard women it would not prohibit them from having the means to protect themselves or subject them to indefinite delays to acquire self defense tools. It would not require them to wait a month and a half to be allowed to armed when they leave their homes. But the Democrats in the legislature have rejected efforts to provide those tools for at risk women.

What HB 4145 does is create new and more dangerous tools for vindictive people to steal the rights of those who have done nothing wrong, because there are already plenty of laws to address people who have done something wrong.

Please use this link to contact the members of the Oregon House and tell them in no uncertain terms that you strongly oppose HB 4145 and the damage it will certainly do.

 

[jp1985]

done

 

[Flymph]

Done!

I know way too many people who have had bad luck with relationships to allow this to pass.

 

[jp1985]

Agreed.

 

[jp1985]

Got a reply today from my letter from Representative Mike Nearman he said.

"I share your concerns about false accusers and empowering people to defend themselves. This is not good legislation and I will be opposing it."

 

[DuneHopper]

About the same as last year and the years prior. It will pass, as there is simply no reason for them not consider doing this as there is no real opposition. They barely blinked at anything anyone said that opposed it.

 

[John Gault]

I added this.....

My Constitutional rights don't end because someone has an opinion based on a feeling or belief.. My property cannot be forfeited or held by the state based on someone's whim..

You folks might want to look at the document some people call the Constitution and Bill of Rights..

I recommend getting a real job so you people have less time to come up with some of this crappy legislation

Got responses back from 2 reps today..

 

[jp1985]

Nicely stated. I wish i could've thought of something like that.
Were they auto reply's?