With the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee, apparently allowing public hearings on 4 senate bills, which one is the most worthy of opposition? I ask because I believe that people will be required to only address a single bill during their time at the microphone. And even then, only for 3-5 minutes, if that. Here's the quick summary from the OFF Alert: • SB 347 – Removes the exemption for Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders to carry a firearm on K-12 school grounds. • SB 699 – Removes the exemption for CHL holders to carry a firearm in the Capital Building unless given written permission by Legislative Administration. • SB 700 – Requires criminal background checks on all gun purchases and transactions except those between immediate family members. • SB 796 – Requires all persons applying for a CHL permit to pass a firing range test. My personal opinion, is that the UBC (SB700) will be dropped on the state level since it's being taken up on the federal level and will require federal legislation because of interstate involvement in internet sales. I believe that the issue of concealed carry exemption in schools (SB347) will have quite a bit of support from the anti-gun crowd. I also believe this one could set a precident to allow any group being given legal authority to prohibit concealed carry. This bill has a companion in the House to allow universities to also prohibit concealed carry. The concept of SB699 is also a precident setting bill in that it's not just the Capital but ANY legislative body, state or local. Again, would allow local restrictions over-riding State law. I don't think the concept of gun handling experience is a bad one (SB796), it's just that it's a matter of personal responsibility and should not be a requirement of the state. I can see a positive side of this, IF it was written to provide a more positive view of CHL holders, so the idea of carrying in schools and state buildings was more palatible to the anti-gun people. That's a big IF, but wanted to throw it out there. There would also need to be clarification as to the qualification of existing CHL holders. I think we have a responsibility of providing legitimate and persuasive arguments. Opinions as to which one is more important?