1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

"Legislative Concept 154". It is now an official Senate Bill, SB 1551

Discussion in 'Oregon Firearms Federation' started by U201491, Jan 24, 2014.

  1. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:

    Two gun related bills were officially posted on the Oregon Legislative website today.

    One is the "bill" version of Floyd Prozanski's gun registration expansion legislation which we had seen as "Legislative Concept 154". It is now an official Senate Bill, SB 1551.

    As you will see, it has been introduced as a "committee bill" because Prozanski wants to attack your rights, but lacks the courage to put his name on the bill. But make no mistake, it's his bill. While there is little doubt he introduced it to further the agenda of Senator Ginny Burdick, he is the committee chair, he requested the bill and we are going to make sure he takes ownership of it.

    The other gun bill that was introduced today is HB 4068. This bill, while far from perfect, is well intentioned.

    Its purpose is to allow people who have had convictions for small amounts of marijuana in other states, or persons who had those convictions in Oregon before the law reduced the penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana, to apply for Oregon CHL's.

    Currently persons who had convictions in Oregon and after 1973 may apply for CHL's but persons whose convictions were from other states or who were convicted before July 22, 1973 can not.

    We think this bill could be improved. A bill with the same intention was introduced last session by House Rep Kim Thatcher and was somewhat better. We'll work to make this bill better but in any event support its intent.

    Floyd's gun registration bill is still the biggest danger so we urge you to keep the pressure on to kill it. The bill will go to the Senate Judiciary Committee, so please use the contact info and suggested message below to let them know how much you oppose this dangerous legislation.

    You can track all gun bills here.
    2014 Gun Bills

    Thank you for your activism.

    Contact info for the entire Senate Judiciary Committee is here.

    Individual contact info and a sample message follow:

    Senator Floyd Prozanski
    Democrat - District 4 - South Lane and North Douglas Counties
    Capitol Phone: 503-986-1704 District Phone: 541-342-2447
    Email: Sen.FloydProzanski@state.or.us

    Senator Betsy Close
    Republican - District 8 - Albany
    Capitol Phone: 503-986-1708
    Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-303, Salem, Oregon 97301
    Email: Sen.BetsyClose@state.or.us

    Senator Michael Dembrow
    Democrat - District 23 - Portland
    Capitol Phone: 503-986-1723 District Phone: 503-281-0608
    Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-407, Salem, Oregon 97301
    Email: Sen.MichaelDembrow@state.or.us

    Senator Jeff Kruse
    Republican - District 1 - Roseburg
    Capitol Phone: 503-986-1701 District Phone: 541-580-3276
    Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-315, Salem, Oregon 97301
    Email: Sen.JeffKruse@state.or.us

    Senator Arnie Roblan
    Democrat - District 5 - Coos Bay
    Capitol Phone: 503-986-1705
    Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-417, Salem, Oregon 97301
    Email: Sen.ArnieRoblan@state.or.us


    Dear Senator,

    SB 1551 is one of the most poorly crafted pieces of legislation I have ever seen.

    Under this bill a uncle can give a gun to his nephew but the nephew cannot return it without subjecting his uncle to a background check!

    Under this bill I could not give a hunting rifle to my own father-in-law!

    If my gun club allows someone taking a safety class to use one of our club owned guns, we'd be required to run a background check on the student and transfer the gun for the duration of the class. The student would than have to do the same to return it! This is lunacy.

    Vote against any restrictions on private transfers.

    simon99 and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Boomerang

    Boomerang Portland area Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Thanks for posting this, and thanks for the activism. It helps.

    I think this sample letter can be improved. "most poorly crafted piece of legislation" is not only not true, it's also attacking the people instead of the issues. You gain a lot more by addressing the issues.

    The examples for uncle/nephew and father-in-law are good. Also, no gifting to great-grandchildren or great-grandparents or inlaws.

    The bit about lending guns for a safety class is not true as far as I can tell. "Transfer" is defined as sale, gift or lease. Lending temporarily doesn't fit any of those, unless I'm reading it wrong.

    Again, thanks for the info!
    ocarolan and (deleted member) like this.
  3. Sstrand

    Sstrand La Grande OR Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    The serial number etc, requirement COULD BE a throw away clause that would be "NEGOCIATED away" in order to make the rest of the background check requirement MORE ACCEPTABLE to the opponents (that's us).


    bnsaibum and (deleted member) like this.
  4. Steve M

    Steve M Beaverton, OR Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Dear Senator Prozanski,

    I find SB1551 to be offensive and intrusive. We currently only prosecute a tiny minority of felons that are caught trying to buy a firearm so why pass new legislation aimed at jailing otherwise law-abiding citizens? I refuse to go to jail because the state is sheltering felons and persecuting lawful gun owners.

  5. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Oregon'sOnlyNo Compromise Gun Rights Organization



    Obey The Law, Go To Jail

    To illustrate just how dangerous Floyd Prozanski's gun registry billis, we needonly look toa case heardin the Supreme Court Wednesday.

    The Court heard"Abramskivs United States"a case inwhich OFF contributed to an Amicus brief filed by other statewide gun groups and Gun Owners of America.

    Bruce Abramski purchased a pistol(legally with a background check)in Virginia. Hethen took the pistol to Pennsylvania and transferred the pistol to his uncle, through a dealer, with a background check.

    As a result he was charged with making a "straw purchase" and convicted. The implications of this are breathtaking. Just imagine if they start applying this logic anytime a gun is transferred, (sold, given, traded)from its "original"purchaser. (Some of the comments by the Justices will also trouble you.)And this is why Prozanski's universal registration scheme is so very dangerous.

    Floyd wants to extend this kind of entrapment into virtually every transfer that takes place, even if you give a gun to your best friend.

    But Floyd and his cronies can't stop lying about what the billis and what it does.

    Ina Statesman Journal article published today, Prozanski said:

    "If the Legislature wanted to create a statewide gun registry it's been collecting this information on dealer and gunshow sales for23 years.It's not a registry. [The bill]extends what our current law has been since 1989; a process for background checks to be completed. All we are doing is closing a loophole."

    This does not even make sense. First he admits the state has been collecting this information for "23years" (personal info and the make, model, caliber and serialnumber of the transferred gun) then he says "It's not a registry." Really?Then what IS it?

    But the lies don't stopthere. Floyd then said:

    "In the 23years that we've had background checks in this state, it has never led to confiscation of gun."

    The absurdity of this statement can only make you wonder if Floyd is only a liaror if he is actually delusional. Perhaps he never heard of David Pyles.

    David's life was turned upside down, his home was invaded, and his property confiscated based on the Oregon State Police turning over information about his legal gun purchases to local police. David had broken no law, had been accused of no crime and there was no warrant for his arrest, yet he was taken into custody based on nothing more than the fact that he had purchased firearms.

    The State Police broke the law when they turned over this information. Their punishment? Nothing. David's punishment for having done nothing wrong? He lost his job and his home.

    And it is this very agency that Prozanski wants to take over the job of giving you"permission"to give a gun to your uncle.

    Of course, when a truly prohibited person attempts a firearm's purchase and is denied, nothing happens to him.

    According to the Statesman Journal:

    "Oregon State Police spokesman Gregg Hastings said sellers aren't told why a person was denied, and OSP doesn't notify parole or probation officers."

    If that's true, and we have every reason to believe it is, it makes this following quote from the same article all the more interesting:

    "...but Prozanski, who works as a prosecutor in Eugene and Florence, said he is working on a case where someone is facing a parole violation for trying to buy a gun."

    Now how do you suppose anyone knew? Given Prozanski's history of lies, we have noway of knowing if this statement is true.

    The Statesman Journal says :

    "If you pass your background check, OSP destroys your information after 10 days"

    But the fact is, that is only the OSP's published policy (after the David Pyles debacle)it is not the law. The law says they can keep the info for 5 years and ina conversation we had with the retired director of the ID unit a few years ago, he could not tell us how or when records are destroyed.Is it daily? Annually? Is there ever an audit to demonstrate that, in fact, the OSP is not keeping a very easily duplicated database?

    As far as enforcement of this Prozanski said:

    "We have a code of honor as citizens that you are going to follow the law,"

    If he believes that, why would he think Oregonians are selling guns to felons now?

    The Abramski case is very troubling and should make you very concerned about expanded background checks. The fact that the State Police ID unit will have complete control over virtually all lawful transfers is cause for concern as well. Please take a moment to contact the members of the Judiciary Committee and express your opposition to this bill.

    Contact info for the entire Senate Judiciary Committee is here.

    Individual contact info and a sample message follow:

    Senator Floyd Prozanski Democrat -District 4-South Lane and north Douglas Counties Capitol phone:503-986-1704 District Phone:541-342-2447 Email:Sen.FloydProzanski@state.or.us

    Senator Betsy Close Republican -District 8 -Albany Capitol phone:503-986-1708 Capitol address: 900Court St.NE, S-303, Salem, Oregon97301 Email: Sen.BetsyClose@state.or.us

    Senator Michael Dembrow Democrat -District 23-Portland Capitol phone:503-986-1723 District Phone:503-281-0608 Capitol address: 900Court St.NE, S-407, Salem, Oregon97301 Email: Sen.MichaelDembrow@state.or.us

    Senator Jeff Kruse Republican -District 1 -Roseburg Capitol phone:503-986-1701 District Phone:541-580-3276 Capitol address: 900Court St.NE, S-315, Salem, Oregon97301 Email: Sen.JeffKruse@state.or.us

    Senator Arnie Roblan Democrat -District 5-Coos Bay Capitol phone:503-986-1705 Capitol address: 900Court St.NE, S-417, Salem, Oregon97301 Email: Sen.ArnieRoblan@state.or.us


    Dear Senator,

    SB 1551requires that virtually all private transfers of firearms receive the approval of the State Police. I find that to be offensive and intrusive. Currently qualified buyers at gun dealers are waiting weeks and even months to be "approved"by the police to exercise a basic right. I strongly oppose extending this to private transfers and gifts.

    Vote against any restrictions on private transfers.


    Forward this email

    Oregon Firearms Federation | Box 556 | Canby | OR | 97013
  6. bnsaibum

    bnsaibum Corvallis, OR Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer

    Likes Received:
    It might be helpful to include the fact that as a prosecutor prozanski should already know that the current laws are not fully utilized. Why isn't he doing his job?
  7. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    They never have. That is not their agenda. The agenda is to smokescreen and disarm us.
    It will never be allowed to happen as long as there are enough Real Americans left !
    Are all of you American enough?
  8. Boomerang

    Boomerang Portland area Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Questions / problems I see with this bill.

    • Why have an exception for transfers within the family? Criminals have family, just like the rest of us, and could use them to get guns.
    • For the background check, why do they need info on the seller, the place of the transaction, and the firearm to be transferred? Isn't it a background check on the buyer only?
    • If the goal is not to create a registry, why are they requesting information to create a registry? The only reason I can think of for asking for info about the gun is to trace it if it's ever used in a crime (or to make sure it's not stolen before allowing the transfer)
    • Maybe the reason they want all the info (serial number, seller, buyer, place where they are, and requiring both buyer and seller to be present when calling, is so that if the gun is flagged as stolen, they can immediately send someone there to arrest the participants?
    • If enacted, how exactly would this law stop criminals from getting weapons? Wouldn't they just get guns from other criminals or from out-of-state?
    • Another thing is it would be open to abuse and/or be a privacy issue for people. Anyone could call up and find out if someone else can legally receive a weapon. Kind of seems like a privacy issue, for example, if someone has a felony conviction that they don't want someone else to find out about. Also, you could probably trigger some kind of ATF/police investigation on someone else by calling up and "simulating" dozens of firearm purchases in a very short time period. Same if someone was selling too many, might trigger an investigation to see if they are acting as a "dealer" without being an FFL.
    ocarolan and (deleted member) like this.
  9. fuhr52

    fuhr52 Lane County. Oregon Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Yet another democrat showing how much he cares, look at me I'm doing something. Meanwhile criminals with still get the guns they want, violent crime will continue and law abiding US citizens will loose more freedoms. We don't enforce the current gun laws that are suppose to keep guns out of the criminals hands. How is it SB 1551 is the one that's going to make the difference? Guess it doesn't matter as long as liberal politicians can show the low information voters how much they care. Gets them re-elected and that's the goal.
  10. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    So far We have Jeff Kruse, and Just received a reply from Bruce Starr that he will be a no vote, and waiting on Betsy Close, who we believe will be a no vote, but have not heard back from her yet.
    The others may end up in a recall attempt, as they will probably be yes's.
    This is our time to fight back against anymore infringements against good people in this state.
    Keep sending letters every day and calling every day. Do not ever let up on this.