New firearm bills in Oregon

[OLDNEWBIE]

Perhaps Rep. Frederick should participate in a police use of force training event as well.

Here is an article that was linked to his facebook page.
http://www.theskanner.com/opinion/commentary/22294-commentary-laws-law-enforcement-and-our-community

" in officer's or person's circumstances"
I think Frederick is using the current anti-Cop craze to stick it to all gun owners. This Bill stinks for anyone who has the misfortune of having to use deadly force.
I think it's an "obligation to retreat" Bill in disguise.

 

[bnsaibum]

I am sure he is using public sentiment to push his anti-gun agenda. I made my comment assuming that is the case. I doubt he would even consider it, but it would be beneficial.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

I read the whole article, seemed like the same drivel Sharpton and Holder are peddling about disproportionate stops, arrests and outcomes for blacks vs whites. Also when a black does a crime it's usually poverty driven etc., etc....... Then it finally briefly mentions 2705 but doesn't flesh out how exactly it will change things or stop the indiscriminate killing of these poor innocent young blacks by evil white officers.

Finally, I have re-introduced several bills having to do with how we train for, investigate and resolve incidents of the use of deadly force by police officers, because it is crucial that all of our communities be able to expect justice under the law, before, during and after encounters with police officers: HB 2699, HB 2705 and HB 2702. I am likely to introduce additional concepts before I'm done.

My big problem is why drag civilian deadly force law into this. This Racist is wanting to tie the hands of LEOs when dealing with black criminals who resist or attack an officer.

Whatever this law is going to be shouldn't weaken deadly force laws for civilian vs civilian. They are weak enough IMO and don't need watering down!

 

[PiratePast40]

I have a real problem with SB106. I just don't trust our state government enough to have more bureaucrats giving out rules on firearms. There is nothing in the bill about curriculum, costs, staffing, class sizes, etc. Who is going to decide all this, the Khitzhaber appointed DPSST heads? OFF says they helped Kim Thatcher write this bill, but I feel like this is exactly the kind of weak legislation that Courtney is looking for to screw us all with.

I know OFF has an issue with the NRA and if we lived in a state like Utah (that has the BCI to run all their CCW stuff) then it would be a different story. We live in the state of Portland though and Portland hates guns.

Some states have quite onerous courses and requirements for concealed carry licenses. I've heard of 40 hour courses plus marksmanship requirements. Since we've had zero issues with concealed carry in Oregon, what is the purpose of this? I see absolutely nothing wrong with an NRA certified instructor and course. They are a known and expert entity. No need for some unknown person making up new rules. Someone could (weakly) make a case that this would make it easier for reciprocity with other states, but the bill says nothing about the subject or Oregon accepting any other states.

Unfortunately, I've heard people on this forum argue that we need to do something to placate the antis. I look at this the same as feeding one of your children to the wolves in hopes of them not coming back later to eat the rest of the family.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

SB 86
Authorizes establishment of firearms training facility on lot or parcel that is in exclusive farm zone, forest zone or
mixed farm and forest zone, and that is not within city or urban growth
boundary.
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB86/Introduced

Setting us up for no more target shooting just anywhere you want on public lands??? Something is fishy here with these Bills that seem O.K. on the surface.
Look for a follow up Bill about Target shooting on designated firearms training facilities only.

 

[bnsaibum]

I am sure people won't forget, but just to reiterate -

Gut and Stuff

 

[Norm0931]

It's pretty obvious that they are gonna pull the same tactic they've been using over the last few years. They'll keep their bill undercover until they decide to vote on it, release the bill and instantly demand a vote. They did it with Obamacare, they did it with the NY Safe Act. When they want controversial legislation passed, they always announce and pass the bill within a few hours so no one can convince those on the fence pols. Most of them writing and pushing the legislation don't care about moderate seats. Ginny Burdick and Peter Courtney aren't losing an election anytime soon. So if they lose a moderate and gain their ban legislation, that's a fair trade to them.

Just wait, we'll go to sleep and wake up with an assault weapons registry if not outright ban. And Peter Courtney will be out there saying, "Well I own a .22 rifle and I support the Second Amendment because I'm a gun owner. This bill really only denies military weapons that slaughter children. Here are the pictures of the bodies from Sandy Hook as my proof. If you disagree with me you endorse dead children." "oh, and George Bush is the reason these kids are dead. Thank you."

 

[bnsaibum]

I have a question about bills with the same text but different numbers. My suspicion is that these are the bills that will be the gut and stuff travesty of legislative process bills. As an example, take a look at HBs 2529 and 2533. Both have the exact same summary and text as far as I can tell.

Exempts certain transferors of firearms from requesting criminal history record check if purchaser or recipient has concealed handgun license.
Requires county sheriff to request that Department of State Police perform criminal records check with National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Requires sheriff to obtain certain information from noncitizen applicants before issuing concealed handgun license.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB2529
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB2533

The only difference I see is that one is presession filed and there are multiple examples of this with other bills. Does anyone know the real purpose for the different numbers for the same text?

 

[solv3nt]

They all look pretty good but so does the ulgy chick at the bar after a few rounds

Why are you shooting the ugly chick at the bar with a few rounds? Ammo is expensive, liquor is so much cheaper.

 

[BanjoGeek]

am I having a stroke or do not all these seem bad? Perhaps I was expecting the worst

SB86- so I can set up a public range on some farm land? Hot damn Im going to start shopping for land.
SB 173 - dont have to surrender a firearm when going into a public building, just show them the CHL? what, no automatic tazing?
SB170 - firearm training in school? I think I would be up for that kind of homework.

If you recall, kitzhaber vetoed the Eddie Eagle program in his previous life. If that bill were to pass, I'm sure he would follow suit. Might have to consult with his bed wench first-)

 

[PiratePast40]

Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I'm seeing something else emerge. I'm thinking that some of these bills are ways to appease the objections we voiced 2 years ago when it came to the bills concerning Prozanskis' proposed "Texas test". Doesn't take much of a stretch to draw out a line of action. More areas for ranges, take the NRA safety course out of the equation and substitute a state course with state approved instructors, and you have cleared the way for new CHL requirements.

Yes, yes, I know, with the makeup of this sessions legislature, they can pretty much do as they please, and we should look at this as compromise. I suppose so, but I look at it more like a promise to put chocolate sprinkles on the crap sandwich they're feeding us.