OFF Alert - Oregon speaker decides to not act on house bill 2605

[PiratePast40]

Here's the link to the Alert: 02.11.13 Let the Games Begin - Oregon Firearms Federation

Tina Kotek is one of the liberal Portlanders who thinks that they deserve control over the Oregon sheeple. Call, email, or write her to let her know what you think of the liberal Portlanders deciding how the rest of Oregon should act.

I called her office and let her monkey know that I though it was despicable that she alone should decide that retired law enforcement officers shouldn't have the same rights as CHL holders. Also let her know that she has no right to make decisions for the rest of the people in the state. We can't let this kind of crap stand. We have to keep up the fight.

You don't need to be a member of the Oregon Firearms Federation to sign up to receive the alerts and it doesn't cost you anything.

 

[Stomper]

Hoo boy, I just gave the office monkey an ear full as well. I said its very hypocritical to say how important our "democracy" is on her legislator home page, yet strangle off any proposed pro-2A bills for debate and a vote by other citizens' represenatives, what kind of "democracy" is that? I also told the office monkey that I make a nice six-figure income and have plenty of money to donate towards defeating her in the next primary, and if need be general election, that we pro-2A citizens WILL NOT be silent, that we will take all anti-gun politicians and legislation head-on, that we are watching them, are in communication with each other as a community, we're keeping track of them and scoring them on their actions and in-actions.

The office monkey said she would definately pass that along... We'll see, won't we?

 

[1stIDFMP]

Called, got an answering machine - did not leave a message, as I will call later and speak to someone in person.

 

[billyinfinity]

Maybe I don't understand.. retired law enforcement officers don't have to have a CHL to CC? They don't have to go through the same trouble and fees as the rest of us because of their past employment? I used be USMC intel and had a security clearance and I still have to jump through the hoops for my CHL. This isn't sarcastic, I'm honestly curious about this. It just struck me as odd.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Here's the email I sent:

Your action to remove HB2605 from committee goes against the democratic process to which we all subscribe. I notice that no anti-firearm bills have been treated similarly. This action is unfair to the rest of the citizens of Oregon who depend on fairness and integrity from their elected representatives. When you take on legislative roles and assignments beyond the one to which your own constituents elected you, you have an obligation to consider the wishes and welfare of all of Oregon's voters, not just those who live in urban NE Portland. I am thoroughly disgusted with the methods by which this legislature operates, including your recent actions in this regard. Though I don't live in your district I will support and work for anyone with integrity who should run against you.

 

[beavertonbuck]

If they want the same protections then they should get a CHL. We have to get over this idea that the police or retired police or somehow different from us. They are us, and we are them. Seriously their is no reason that they should not have to go thru the same process that a non-police officer citizen has to, I mean its not like police officers are perfect angels that would ever abuse their power or commit a crime right?

 

[Redcap]

Retired LE should have to get a CHL, just like anyone else.

 

[PiratePast40]

If they want the same protections then they should get a CHL. We have to get over this idea that the police or retired police or somehow different from us. They are us, and we are them. Seriously their is no reason that they should not have to go thru the same process that a non-police officer citizen has to, I mean its not like police officers are perfect angels that would ever abuse their power or commit a crime right?

They've allready gone through the BI process we have and have also had training equivelant to the training required by the law for a CHL. It's just common courtesy.

But the point is, that the far left speaker has the power to decide which bills will be presented and she has chosen to reject a pro gun bill as one of her first actions. It's up to us to let her know that the rest of the voters in this state are watching and paying attention.

 

[billyinfinity]

Yeah, sorry PiratePast40..didn't mean to hijack your thread, I was surprised by the subject matter and not the message. I agree that the speaker needs an adjustment.

 

[beavertonbuck]

They've allready gone through the BI process we have and have also had training equivelant to the training required by the law for a CHL. It's just common courtesy.

But the point is, that the far left speaker has the power to decide which bills will be presented and she has chosen to reject a pro gun bill as one of her first actions. It's up to us to let her know that the rest of the voters in this state are watching and paying attention.

I disagree with your first but agree with your second point (mostly). On your first point, they should simply be able to apply for their license show proof of their training while a police officer and pass the background check. Just because they passed a background check when they were a police officer doesn't mean that they could pass one now. Again they should have to pay just like we do. On your second point I will probably give her a call or send an e-mail but we have to understand this is how politics works. She has a certain constituency that she represents and for them this type of action is a good thing.

I would encourage members that are in her district to contact her to let them know of your displeasure. If you aren't in her district then contact your representative and advise them of your displeasure in the selection of the party leadership. This way you let them know that they will be held accountable for putting individuals like Ms. Kotek into the House Speaker role.

 

[MikeE]

How about explaining what HB 2605 says/means, for us uninitiated?

 

[hermannr]

Not a LEO, or a retired LEO. Don't live in OR anymore either...However...

As much as I do not created "classes" of people that have to abide by different sets of rules than the majority of teh citizens...

If we want to make any major arguments that there is no need for a CHL in the first place (for anyone), It does not sound right when we do not support someone from qualifying as not needing a CHL...

We lost our unrestricted rights nibble by nibble, until they were taking bigger and bigger bites....we need to get those rights back...and if it takes nibble by nibble...so be it. Don't ever buck any legislation that will make carry easier. Fight any attempt to restrict them in any way. (This includes the newest "BI for every transaction garbage")

 

[civilian75]

This bill appears to be a fix for some previous legislative snafu, and should not have a any problems passing. That this person yanks it only serves to shows that the war is on and all stops are gone.

From now on, there will be no fight too small. Not an inch!

 

[Stomper]

That's the point of my ire, not over retired cops' carrying access (for said reasons above, I don't give two squirts actually), but rather the dictatorial dismissal of giving a bill a fair hearing in committee (at the minimum)... This cuts both ways, so yes... even Sen. Dopey Burdick's submittals should get a hearing in (at the very least) committee. If it gets spanked in committee, or in a floor vote so be it.

PUSH BACK against the PROCESS! Do NOT let them be the passive aggressive, cowardly bullies that they are. Pull the curtain back, AND PAY ATTENTION TO THAT DUMBASS BEHIND IT!

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Here's the reply I got to the email I sent:

Thank you for e-mailing Speaker Kotek. HB 2605 has not been removed from Committee. The Committee meeting scheduled for today was simply canceled for other reasons. It was not scheduled to be voted on yet today either, as it still needs to be work-grouped. I hope this clears things up a little bit—and I hope you are able to correct the miscommunication with your fellow activists.

 

[RW-Ore]

Here's the reply I got to the email I sent:

HUMMM....fellow activists ? wonder how that was meant.

 

[Stomper]

LOL... we're all citizen-activists now, beatch!

I don't think politicians know what to do, nor do they actually like it when the electorate gets involved and gives them the, "what for".

I'm sick to death of these touchy-feely, little weenie-assed politicians running roughshod over the issues that affect my life.... ENOUGH!

 

[Norm0931]

nd I hope you are able to correct the miscommunication with your fellow activists.

It's a good thing CITIZENS never care about politics, otherwise she might offend someone.

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

[FONT=&amp]"166.260 Persons not affected by ORS 166.250.[/FONT][FONT=&amp] (1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp] (a) Sheriffs, constables, marshals, parole and probation officers, police officers, whether active or honorably retired, or other duly appointed peace officers".[/FONT]

Am I missing something? They are already exempt according to this.

Hell, people going hunting or fishing can carry concealed in Oregon.

[FONT=&quot] "(b) Licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from a hunting or fishing expedition".[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

While I agree that the speaker shouldn't have killed a bill, Oregon did elect her into that powerful position and we are stuck with her.

I hope more/enough conservatives vote next time.

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

HUMMM....fellow activists ? wonder how that was meant.

2A people have been maligned.