JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Guys, Floyd Prozanski is trying to get the Bill passed to protect CHL holders.

It sounds like Rosenbaum, the chair of the Rules Committee, has authority to schedule HB 4045.

Please write her to put the Bill on the schedule for hearing, or it will likely die.

<broken link removed>
 
Guys, Floyd Prozanski is trying to get the Bill passed to protect CHL holders.

It sounds like Rosenbaum, the chair of the Rules Committee, has authority to schedule HB 4045.

Please write her to put the Bill on the schedule for hearing, or it will likely die.

<broken link removed>

Didn't floyd put an amendment in there to allow disclosure of names, ages, and county of residence, just not home addresses & phone numbers? I heard that somewhere. If he's still in favor of it I'm skeptical.
 
Guys, Floyd Prozanski is trying to get the Bill passed to protect CHL holders.

It sounds like Rosenbaum, the chair of the Rules Committee, has authority to schedule HB 4045.

Please write her to put the Bill on the schedule for hearing, or it will likely die.

<broken link removed>

Protect CHL Holders my ***. He wants to win votes by pretending to be for the bill when he made a ton of amendments, https://www.oregonfirearms.org/, that essentially gut the bill of all protections. It puts the bill right back in to the public records statutes with very limited protections and almost no enforcement. Floyd Prozanski is lying snake and he needs to get thrown out like the garbage he spews.
 
Didn't floyd put an amendment in there to allow disclosure of names, ages, and county of residence, just not home addresses & phone numbers? I heard that somewhere. If he's still in favor of it I'm skeptical.


Protect CHL Holders my ***. He wants to win votes by pretending to be for the bill when he made a ton of amendments, https://www.oregonfirearms.org/, that essentially gut the bill of all protections. It puts the bill right back in to the public records statutes with very limited protections and almost no enforcement. Floyd Prozanski is lying snake and he needs to get thrown out like the garbage he spews.

Yeah, Prozanski hasn't exactly endeared himself to firearm owners. He has been extremely disingenuous and lied. I don't trust him at all.
 
What we REALLY need to do if we are going to have to go through hoops to exercise our rights is to make the cards that we carry the only record of the transaction. Then there would be no public record to debate. As long as we carry all the information ourselves, what is the need to have it anywhere else. Of course keeping the card from being lost or destroyed would be just that more important to us to avoid reapplying.
 
This is from Floyd; it's sounding more and more like Starrett is refusing to understand:

In case you have not heard, HB 4045B passed the Senate yesterday on a 24-5 vote and the House concurred with the amended bill this morning, 54-6. As such, it will become law upon being signed by the Governor.

It was my pleasure to carry the bill on the Senate floor and to work with Rep. Thatcher in drafting the amendments to ensure HB 4045B's passage in the Senate. One of the most important revisions was to add a retroactive clause to protect sensitive personal information from being released and requiring a higher threshold for the release of other information under the pending requests from the Oregonian and New York Times newspapers. The bill that passed the House did not include this important clause. (Ironically, this was the version Kevin Starrett supported until the bitter end!)

Kevin continues to claim HB 4045B completely rewrote and did not maintain the same provisions as the House version. Once again he is trying to fool you. The first three disclosure provisions are exactly the same in both versions. The last four disclosure provisions were mutually added to HB 4045B by Rep. Thatcher and me. The bill was not "gut and stuffed" as he stated; it only added additional provisions to HB 4045A.

Based on my work with Rep. Thatcher on the final version of the bill, I added my name as a co-sponsor. Again, if you look at the original bill, you will not find my name. It was Rep. Thatcher and Rep. Barker's bill with numerous other House members co-sponsoring it. That is why I stated on the floor that it was not my bill, but I am proud of the work Rep. Thatcher and I did to ensure greater privacy for CHL holders. If you are interested in seeing the actual e-mail and changes that Rep. Thatcher put forth and she and I discussed, I am happy to send you individually an e-mail with the attachments. (The PDF is sizeable and I do not want to overload your inbox.)

It's unfortunate that Kevin Starrett continues to misrepresent the facts. Despite his allegations to the contrary, Oregon's sheriffs understood the bill just fine when they announced their support for HB 4045B, as did the NRA when they announced their support. Both Rep. Thatcher and I are thankful for their support.

Now, Kevin is trying to confuse the provisions of SB 1550 and SB 1594. Even though the bills were similar, SB 1594 included an important "opt-out" clause that allowed local communities to decide whether they wanted to permit guns on school campuses. (It should be noted that prior to the state pre-empting most local gun regulations in 1995, these decisions were made at the local level.) SB 1550 did not include this local option. I decided to support SB 1594 because it had the "opt-out" clause. The bill failed on the Senate floor (14-15-1).

The 2012 session will conclude early next week. I want to thank each of you for being willing to discuss your views with me. Even though we are all gun owners, I know we do not always share the exact same views on gun regulations. I still believe that it is important to discuss these important issues openly and candidly. Thank you. I look forward to working with you in the future.

On a final note, just like last session you should expect Kevin to send you a post-session fundraising request. This is how he and most lobbying groups survive. I expect he will use me (as he did at the end of last session) as one of his "whipping posts" to make his pitch for more money. If you are a member of OFF, have you considered how much money Kevin makes as the executive director? Ask him. You just might realize why he continues to distort the facts around gun legislation such as HB 4045B and SB 1594A.

Floyd
 
This is from Floyd; it's sounding more and more like Starrett is refusing to understand:

I am quite SURE Kevin understands,you have to remember that Floyd is an anti gun politician. You should look up his background.Find out what happen to his wife in 1973.
 
This is from Floyd; it's sounding more and more like Starrett is refusing to understand:

In case you have not heard, HB 4045B passed the Senate yesterday on a 24-5 vote and the House concurred with the amended bill this morning, 54-6. As such, it will become law upon being signed by the Governor.

It was my pleasure to carry the bill on the Senate floor and to work with Rep. Thatcher in drafting the amendments to ensure HB 4045B&rsquo;s passage in the Senate. One of the most important revisions was to add a retroactive clause to protect sensitive personal information from being released and requiring a higher threshold for the release of other information under the pending requests from the Oregonian and New York Times newspapers. The bill that passed the House did not include this important clause. (Ironically, this was the version Kevin Starrett supported until the bitter end!)

Kevin continues to claim HB 4045B completely rewrote and did not maintain the same provisions as the House version. Once again he is trying to fool you. The first three disclosure provisions are exactly the same in both versions. The last four disclosure provisions were mutually added to HB 4045B by Rep. Thatcher and me. The bill was not &ldquo;gut and stuffed&rdquo; as he stated; it only added additional provisions to HB 4045A.

Based on my work with Rep. Thatcher on the final version of the bill, I added my name as a co-sponsor. Again, if you look at the original bill, you will not find my name. It was Rep. Thatcher and Rep. Barker&rsquo;s bill with numerous other House members co-sponsoring it. That is why I stated on the floor that it was not my bill, but I am proud of the work Rep. Thatcher and I did to ensure greater privacy for CHL holders. If you are interested in seeing the actual e-mail and changes that Rep. Thatcher put forth and she and I discussed, I am happy to send you individually an e-mail with the attachments. (The PDF is sizeable and I do not want to overload your inbox.)

It&rsquo;s unfortunate that Kevin Starrett continues to misrepresent the facts. Despite his allegations to the contrary, Oregon&rsquo;s sheriffs understood the bill just fine when they announced their support for HB 4045B, as did the NRA when they announced their support. Both Rep. Thatcher and I are thankful for their support.

Now, Kevin is trying to confuse the provisions of SB 1550 and SB 1594. Even though the bills were similar, SB 1594 included an important &ldquo;opt-out&rdquo; clause that allowed local communities to decide whether they wanted to permit guns on school campuses. (It should be noted that prior to the state pre-empting most local gun regulations in 1995, these decisions were made at the local level.) SB 1550 did not include this local option. I decided to support SB 1594 because it had the &ldquo;opt-out&rdquo; clause. The bill failed on the Senate floor (14-15-1).

The 2012 session will conclude early next week. I want to thank each of you for being willing to discuss your views with me. Even though we are all gun owners, I know we do not always share the exact same views on gun regulations. I still believe that it is important to discuss these important issues openly and candidly. Thank you. I look forward to working with you in the future.

On a final note, just like last session you should expect Kevin to send you a post-session fundraising request. This is how he and most lobbying groups survive. I expect he will use me (as he did at the end of last session) as one of his &ldquo;whipping posts&rdquo; to make his pitch for more money. If you are a member of OFF, have you considered how much money Kevin makes as the executive director? Ask him. You just might realize why he continues to distort the facts around gun legislation such as HB 4045B and SB 1594A.

Floyd

I was somewhat happy with the end result of the CHL privacy bill.

I was reading with interest until he defended supporting and voting for SB 1594A. He can justify it anyway he wants but he voted for a waste of a bill introduced under dubious circumstances that I despised.

I will continue to support the OFF. Floyd Prozanski is anti-gun in my book.
 
Iomatic, are you a Prozanski employee? Or do you just idolize liars? Yes, the bill passed however, it FAILED to protect our information from the pending New York Times request because of the changes put in place by your beloved leader. Also, SB 1594 does absolutely nothing except protect would be gunmen. Oregon campuses have had concealed carry for many years now and there has yet to be a VA tech style shooting. Which, btw, was a no gun campus. I guess the gunmen didn't get the memo. Good thing the police only took 12 minutes to respond. Otherwise one of the students might have had a chance to drive home and get his LEGAL firearm to LEGALLY defend himself and others.
 
Iomatic, are you a Prozanski employee? Or do you just idolize liars? Yes, the bill passed however, it FAILED to protect our information from the pending New York Times request because of the changes put in place by your beloved leader.

Uh, no. The original bill was not retroactive, and would not stop the pending NYT/Oregonian request. The amended bill (while still overly-complicated,) is retroactive, and will prevent the NYT/Oregonian release. There was worry that the amended version (which should have gone back to Prozanski's Judiciary Committee, not Rosenbaum's Rules Committee,) wouldn't get out of the Rules Committee - that it was sent there to die. If that had happened, the original version would have gone to the floor instead, and would have passed. That version would not have prevented the NYT/Oregonian release. The compromise is a compromise, but it does at least prevent the impending release.
 
Uh, no. The original bill was not retroactive, and would not stop the pending NYT/Oregonian request. The amended bill (while still overly-complicated,) is retroactive, and will prevent the NYT/Oregonian release. There was worry that the amended version (which should have gone back to Prozanski's Judiciary Committee, not Rosenbaum's Rules Committee,) wouldn't get out of the Rules Committee - that it was sent there to die. If that had happened, the original version would have gone to the floor instead, and would have passed. That version would not have prevented the NYT/Oregonian release. The compromise is a compromise, but it does at least prevent the impending release.

Actually, the bill specifically states that news agencies are exempt. Exact words from the bill as added by Prozanski,
"(b) Under subsection (1)(f) of this section provides the public body with written proof that
the person is a bona fide representative of the news media." In fact it is ILLEGAL to deny the records to the news media according to the changes.
 
Sooooo.....what are we left with? Our records protected but no CC on school grounds?
I just dont understand a one gigabite of PDF to say...CHL info not for public consumption.
 
<broken link removed>

I think you guys should read it again...there only a couple exceptions where news media can obtain CHL information. They can't just willy nilly ask for it anymore.
 
Sooooo.....what are we left with? Our records protected but no CC on school grounds?
I just dont understand a one gigabite of PDF to say...CHL info not for public consumption.

CC is still allowed on school grounds. . . but as with the court judgement in 07-09 time frame they can bare employees form carrying. These issues were two completely different bills.
 
Actually, the bill specifically states that news agencies are exempt. Exact words from the bill as added by Prozanski,
"(b) Under subsection (1)(f) of this section provides the public body with written proof that
the person is a bona fide representative of the news media." In fact it is ILLEGAL to deny the records to the news media according to the changes.

As I read the bill, it allows the release of information to bona fide news reporters ONLY as it pertains to an individual who is a CHL holder and has been charged with a crime. That would preclude the release of such information en mass.

(f)(A) The disclosure is limited to confirming or denying that a person convicted of a
crime involving the use or possession of a firearm is a current holder of a concealed handgun license; and
(B) The disclosure is made to a bona fide representative of the news media in response to a request for disclosure that provides the name and age of the person convicted of the crime involving the use or possession of a firearm;
 
As I read the bill, it allows the release of information to bona fide news reporters ONLY as it pertains to an individual who is a CHL holder and has been charged with a crime. That would preclude the release of such information en mass.

Here are the important exceptions....

(1) A public body may not disclose records or information that identifies a
person as a current or former holder of, or applicant for, a concealed handgun license, unless:
(a) The disclosure is made to another public body and is necessary for criminal justice
purposes;
(b) A court enters an order in a criminal or civil case directing the public body to disclose the records or information;
(c) The holder of, or applicant for, the concealed handgun license consents to the disclosure in writing;
(d) The public body determines that a compelling public interest requires disclosure in
the particular instance and the disclosure is limited to the name, age and county of residence of the holder or applicant;
(e)(A) The disclosure is limited to confirming or denying that a person convicted of a
person crime, or restrained by a protective order, is a current holder of a concealed handgun license; and The disclosure is made to a victim of the person crime or to a person who is protected by the protective order, in response to a request for disclosure that provides the public body with the name and age of the person convicted of the person crime or restrained by the protective order;
(f)(A) The disclosure is limited to confirming or denying that a person convicted of a
crime involving the use or possession of a firearm is a current holder of a concealed handgun license; and
(B) The disclosure is made to a bona fide representative of the news media in response to a request for disclosure that provides the name and age of the person convicted of the crime involving the use or possession of a firearm; or
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top