Oregon OFF Strategy to stop SB 978

[DivCurlGrad72]

What I sent to every Oregon state legislator today:

Most of the letter is addressed to the legislators that are supposed to have voted for SB 978. Sounds good. Then comes:

If we cannot remember how you voted on these specific bills that's OK.

I don't quite understand this part. We want them to vote against SB 978, and if they do, we should reward them with our vote. If I then tell them I might not remember how they voted, where's their incentive?

The fact that you are an incumbent is good enough reason to vote for someone else, regardless of party.

But this legislator might have voted against SB 978. Again, I'm confused.

Just thought I'd give a little feedback, but since the email is already sent, maybe it wasn't worth critiquing? I don't know. Others seem to like it, so maybe it's just me.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Most of the letter is addressed to the legislators that are supposed to have voted for SB 978. Sounds good. Then comes:

I don't quite understand this part. We want them to vote against SB 978, and if they do, we should reward them with our vote. If I then tell them I might not remember how they voted, where's their incentive?
But this legislator might have voted against SB 978. Again, I'm confused.

Just thought I'd give a little feedback, but since the email is already sent, maybe it wasn't worth critiquing? I don't know. Others seem to like it, so maybe it's just me.

The Republicans need to know that if this passes it is at least a little bit on them. They need to get their act together and offer us some decent candidates who can win. They also need to keep their own party in line. Republicans have been crossing over to support the forced vaccination bill, and we can't even be sure that some of them won't support SB978. They all need a warning.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I did not get a single form letter back. Here's a sampling:

Thank you for voicing your concerns with HB 3063 and SB 978. Representative Hayden agrees with you on both of those bill. Representative Hayden appreciates your input and support.
Have a great day,
Austin Parrett
Legislative Assistant
Representative Cedric Hayden

Thank you for your email regarding HB 3063.
As the bill is written at this time, Rep. Barreto is a NO vote.
He will continue to monitor the bill and any amendments that are offered. He supports individual rights, parental rights, and limited government.
Vicki Olson
Legislative Assistant
Rep. Barreto
HD 58

Not only am I opposed to this bill, but I've been VERY outspoken against it both on my FB page and at the rallies and hearings.
Please learn more at my FB page: Bill Post for Oregon.
Representative Bill Post
House District 25

I hope and pray you do remember what votes were given here in the Oregon Legislature, at election time. And I also, pray you remember which political party stood together against the diminution of individual rights.
Former Democrat,
Peggy Boquist
Legislative Assistant to
State Senator Brian J. Boquist
Senate District 12

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

I did not get a single form letter back. Here's a sampling:

Looks like you've got better political instinct than me.

 

[arakboss]

For those of you on FB, stop by OregonPushBack page and drop a message for Sen. Roblan and his constituents.
I just left this one:
"Sen. Roblan will have one of the most important committee votes this session when SB 978 comes up for a vote. They have continuously watered down this bill as a result of your calls, letters and capitol visits. Let Arnie know that is not enough. He needs to ignore the metro area antis and uphold his oath. Ask him to kill this bill or hang up his Senator hat for good. He will not be reelected for another term if he votes yes to move SB 978 out of rules committee. It doesn't matter if he votes no on floor, if he votes yes in committee. A no vote for this awful bill is the only acceptable vote in committee and on the floor. Sen. Roblan has accepted over one million in campaign contributions much of this from antis to which he now feels beholden to. Guess what Arnie money doesn't vote but your constituents do. Do the right thing and kill SB 978 in committee"

Oregon Push Back

 

[OldTengu]

For those of you on FB, stop by OregonPushBack page and drop a message for Sen. Roblan and his constituents.
I just left this one:
"Sen. Roblan will have one of the most important committee votes this session when SB 978 comes up for a vote. They have continuously watered down this bill as a result of your calls, letters and capitol visits. Let Arnie know that is not enough. He needs to ignore the metro area antis and uphold his oath. Ask him to kill this bill or hang up his Senator hat for good. He will not be reelected for another term if he votes yes to move SB 978 out of rules committee. It doesn't matter if he votes no on floor, if he votes yes in committee. A no vote for this awful bill is the only acceptable vote in committee and on the floor. Sen. Roblan has accepted over one million in campaign contributions much of this from antis to which he now feels beholden to. Guess what Arnie money doesn't vote but your constituents do. Do the right thing and kill SB 978 in committee"

Oregon Push Back

Thanks for all your hard work. While many of us (including myself) have attempted correspondence with the senators, you and a few others have really been putting in the face time. I owe you a beer and a cigar, at least, however it goes.

 

[arakboss]

I sent a letter to Sen. Prozanski asking about getting an amendment for unserialized home built firearms put in to SB 978. His LA replied that an amendment is in process to address this issue:

Here is my letter:

Sen Prozanski,

How can amendments be submitted for SB 978-5? I have numerous home built firearms I have assembled over the last few years. The receivers and frame I used are not serialized. I would like to propose that the bill be amended to grandfather in existing lawfully owned firearms. I have a substantial investment of time and money tied up in these firearms and would not want to lose that investment.

My understanding is Section 17 (2) will criminalize possession of home built firearms that are not serialized in accordance to the federal regulations required by Section 17 (1) (b). These home built firearms are currently legal to build and possess. They do not require any serialization unless they are transferred. In that case the feds offer a method for the builder of the firearm to add a serial number so the firearm may transferred legally This serialization method would not be in accordance to the federal regulations laid out in the bill. SB 978-5 offers no grandfathering of these firearms or method for serializing them to comply with SB 978-5.

I am not alone there are many thousands of these firearms in this State. This is a very popular method of getting a custom firearm without paying thousands of dollars to a custom firearm maker. I know many Oregonian's have invested a lot of time, labor and money in to these custom built firearms. It should not be acceptable that legislators criminalize the possession of these firearms we worked hard to create.

Washington State just passed a similar "untraceable" ban law (HB1739) but they grandfathered in all untraceable firearms manufactured before July 1, 2019. While I also disagree with that ban, this was a more appropriate method to prevent criminalizing previously lawfully owned firearms.

Will you please share with me, my options to propose a grandfather amendment that will cover my and others home built firearms.

 

[bunnybunny]

Grandfather is a step in the right direction but the felony penalities for carrying in school or airports is insane.

 

[WoodsPlinker]

Yeah the home built firearm thing is destructive to the defense industry. I mean how many guns started out as a concept by some guy fiddling around in his basement and creating a zip gun. I know I've heard numerous stories of wildly successful designs starting out that way.

In fact John Moses Browning himself got his start tinkering and fixing guns in his dad's blacksmith shop if I remember right.

Grandfathering is nice but the government should be fostering technology not putting a damper on it. Samuel Colt started the industrial revolution not Ford.

 

[arakboss]

Grandfather is a step in the right direction but the felony penalities for carrying in school or airports is insane.

I agree. I know some will call me paranoid but I think the decision to include felony penalties with so many of the laws in this bill is to whittle down those who can own firearms. I am still hoping for a defeat of the bill but as some others here have brought up it's better that a watered down version is up for vote than the -5 version in case it dose pass.

 

[OldTengu]

Just like the title says, looks like some good news.
Anti-gun laws take hits in two states from three courts
Anti-gun laws take hits in two states from three courts ⋆ Conservative Firing Line

 

[bunnybunny]

I agree. I know some will call me paranoid but I think the decision to include felony penalties with so many of the laws in this bill is to whittle down those who can own firearms. I am still hoping for a defeat of the bill but as some others here have brought up it's better that a watered down version is up for vote than the -5 version in case it dose pass.

Of course their goal is disarmament. If they had a magic wand they would disarm us all. Felony penalties are about disarming law abiding people. Felony penalties for illegally concealed carrying a handgun with a concealed carry license serves no other purpose. Clearly that person isn't doing it maliciously and if they intended on doing harm a permit is meaningless. The ONLY goal here is punish tax paying, law abiding citizens because guns.

I spend 80% of my time between a college campus and hospital. When I walk my dog I have to walk in between two hospital buildings three-four times per day. Yes, I am technically on the sidewalk, but does that mean I would be guilty of a felony because I am on grounds adjacent to a hospital? It sounds like it. A HUGE step in the right direction to watering down this bill would be to prohibit carry in buildings with clearly marked signs. Once you start talking about the "grounds" of a college campus or hospital, it becomes impossible to tell. PSU splits in the city in 8 blocks and owns buildings near the campus, for example one of their classrooms is an old movie theatre. They own waterfront property where they have science classes as well. If I got off on the Max at the waterfront campus in order to transfer to the street car, I would be committing a felony. Making this about buildings remove the ambiguity greatly. Which by the way is more proof they are out to punish law abiding citizens not criminals.

If this law does pass I am considering moving down to a subcompact handgun that is more concealable or carry off body.

 

[arakboss]

Of course their goal is disarmament. If they had a magic wand they would disarm us all. Felony penalties are about disarming law abiding people. Felony penalties for illegally concealed carrying a handgun with a concealed carry license serves no other purpose. Clearly that person isn't doing it maliciously and if they intended on doing harm a permit is meaningless. The ONLY goal here is punish tax paying, law abiding citizens because guns.

I spend 80% of my time between a college campus and hospital. When I walk my dog I have to walk in between two hospital buildings three-four times per day. Yes, I am technically on the sidewalk, but does that mean I would be guilty of a felony because I am on grounds adjacent to a hospital? It sounds like it. A HUGE step in the right direction to watering down this bill would be to prohibit carry in buildings with clearly marked signs. Once you start talking about the "grounds" of a college campus or hospital, it becomes impossible to tell. PSU splits in the city in 8 blocks and owns buildings near the campus, for example one of their classrooms is an old movie theatre. They own waterfront property where they have science classes as well. If I got off on the Max at the waterfront campus in order to transfer to the street car, I would be committing a felony. Making this about buildings remove the ambiguity greatly. Which by the way is more proof they are out to punish law abiding citizens not criminals.

If this law does pass I am considering moving down to a subcompact handgun that is more concealable or carry off body.

You should share that story with legislators. I agree this is an important area of the bill that needs to be amended.

 

[bunnybunny]

I have the three important ones some variation of that, and without getting into details I score high on the intersectional scale of "victimized" individuals so I included that too. Would it be worth sending more emails?

 

[arakboss]

I have the three important ones some variation of that, and without getting into details I score high on the intersectional scale of "victimized" individuals so I included that too. Would it be worth sending more emails?

I don't think we can send too many emails. If this makes it through the Senate we will have a similar but abbreviated battle in the House. Was Sen. Prozanski one of the legislators you emailed? If not try emailing him but put "Attn: Kevin Moore" in the subject line. I would bcc all of the legislators in both the House and Senate. Somebody around here must have a handy list of all the legislators that can be copied and pasted.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

A HUGE step in the right direction to watering down this bill would be to prohibit carry in buildings with clearly marked signs. Once you start talking about the "grounds" of a college campus or hospital, it becomes impossible to tell. Making this about buildings remove the ambiguity greatly.

I would still hate to see any local CHL regulation, but indeed, this would be a major improvement. Clearly, it would otherwise be extremely difficult to impossible to know which grounds belong to whom, and hence where it is legal to carry and where not.

Although it's possible that this "compromise", only buildings, is what they were after all along, I would still tend to believe the original hypothesis about their calculated goals being intimidation and (essentially) entrapment. As an elected representative of the people, how depraved to you have to be to craft such laws?

 

[arakboss]

I would still hate to see any local CHL regulation, but indeed, this would be a major improvement. Clearly, it would otherwise be extremely difficult to impossible to know which grounds belong to whom, and hence where it is legal to carry and where not.

Although it's possible that this "compromise", only buildings, is what they were after all along, I would still tend to believe the original hypothesis about their calculated goals being intimidation and (esentially) entrapment. As an elected representative of the people, how depraved to you have to be to craft such laws?

Very depraved!

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

I agree this is an important area of the bill that needs to be amended.

OK, just fired-off an email addressing this issue to the Senate Committee On Rules.
Is there anyone else to whom I should send a copy?
Bcc all of the legislators in both the House and Senate as you suggest above?

 

[arakboss]

OK, just fired-off an email addressing this issue to the Senate Committee On Rules.
Is there anyone else to whom I should send a copy?
Bcc all of the legislators in both the House and Senate as you suggest above?

For some reason Sen. Prozanski seems to be continually involved in shepherding this bill through the Senate process. You might direct an email to his office and then bcc everybody else. Kevin Moore is Sen. Prozanski's legislative aid who emailed me this morning about the other amendment for home built firearms being in process. If you address it to Kevin and ask him to raise the issue with Sen. Prozanski it may or may not help?

 

[WoodsPlinker]

For some reason Sen. Prozanski seems to be continually involved in shepherding this bill through the Senate process. You might direct an email to his office and then bcc everybody else. Kevin Moore is Sen. Prozanski's legislative aid who emailed me this morning about the other amendment for home built firearms being in process. If you address it to Kevin and ask him to raise the issue with Sen. Prozanski it may or may not help?

Prozanski has always been one of the leaders of pushing more gun control. In the past he's mostly focused on concealed carry permit holders and making their lives more miserable.

I'm surprised Ginny Burdick is being fairly quiet, I remember the one year she tried to ban all semi autos.

I will always remember.