Oregon HB 3118 2023

[Member 5605]

Thx! Now I finally know what this thread is about.

Yea but no.
801 in 2019 was the first attempt. The second is named in the thread title.

 

[Yarome]

SB801 | Oregon 2019 | Authorizes public schools to provide firearm safety and accident prevention class to all students in first grade. | TrackBill

Oregon SB801 2019 Authorizes public schools to provide firearm safety and accident prevention class to all students in first grade Declares emergency effective on passage

trackbill.com

First attempt.
Notice section 4.

I saw the link but when I click it... all I see is a blank page:


Either defunct or it's being blocked by my ad blocker(?) and... didn't seem worthwhile google-fu'ing it if it's a non-issue anyway.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Yea but no.
801 in 2019 was the first attempt. The second is named in the thread title.

Hmmm What group is behind it/where did it originate I wonder. Is it an "anti gun violence" group behind it at its start or beyond? Do the leaders/proponents of it have ties to those types of groups I wonder?

 

[Member 5605]

Hmmm What group is behind it/where did it originate I wonder. Is it an "anti gun violence" group behind it at its start or beyond? Do the leaders/proponents of it have ties to those types of groups I wonder?

Neither. None.

A Pro-2A advocate in Oregon wrote it and introduced it. Aside from the OP, I have full knowledge of both of the bills, intent of introduction and organization that would love to be teaching the class in schools.

Spoiler

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB3118

@solv3nt

 

[sobo]

SB801 | Oregon 2019 | Authorizes public schools to provide firearm safety and accident prevention class to all students in first grade. | TrackBill

Oregon SB801 2019 Authorizes public schools to provide firearm safety and accident prevention class to all students in first grade Declares emergency effective on passage

trackbill.com

First attempt.
Notice section 4.

Are you referring to this amendment?

 

[Member 5605]

Are you referring to this amendment?

View attachment 1355166

That was the 2019 version. Some individuals here had a hard time comprehending the words prior and current.

It's not an amendment.

 

[sobo]

That was the 2019 version. Some individuals here had a hard time comprehending the words prior and current.

It's not an amendment.

OK, I read your earlier Post #59 (that I quoted and provided the screenshot of the amendment) in chronological order before getting to this page and seeing your later posts. It seemed to me when you said "Notice Section 4" (in Post #59) that you were referring to the Amendments dialog box on the website (which I clicked in your same post), since there are only two named sections in the bill. Not knowing what other "Section 4" it could be, I snipped and pasted the amendment from the "Section 4" dialog box and asked the question. There's no need to be dismissive of me (and others) for looking at the earlier version to which you had provided the link.

I have now read both bills, and the newer House version of the bill (HB 3118) appears nearly identical to the older Senate bill (SB 801) with the major differences being 1) who is allowed to teach the class, and 2) a new Paragraph 10, which requires the DoE to collaborate with an entity specifically qualified to teach children about firearm safety. I assume that Paragraph 10 envisions something like the NRA's Eddie Eagle or something similar. Great!

Given what I have now read, I do not view this bill as an attempt to indoctrinate our youth into anti-gunnership any more than it is an attempt to indoctrinate them into pro-gunnership. I think it's a valid, non-partisan, firearms safety education bill, explicitly prohibiting any discussion of pro- or anti-gun possession and/or ownership, as explicitly stated in Section 1, Paragraph 4.

I support this bill, even though I'm prohibited from voting in Oregon. I would encourage Oregonians to actually read the text of the bill and get on board with it.

Flame suit on...

 

[Member 5605]

I assume that Paragraph 10 envisions something like the NRA's Eddie Eagle or something similar.

Actually, notice it says that it requires the group to be based in Oregon. This eliminates the NRA and many other national organizations from trying to get in on this.

There is curriculum already being taught every week right now in Oregon that covers all the requirements of this bill. Kids even have the chance to do additional classes that are on the range, hands on with real firearms.

Liberals cry when they hear NRA, that's why it was specifically targeted for a group based within Oregon.

I apologize that I misread earlier from you, the full text of the 2023 was combined with lessons learned from 2019 and improved upon to be more palatable to most of the public in Oregon.

 

[sobo]

Actually, notice it says that it requires the group to be based in Oregon. This eliminates the NRA and many other national organizations from trying to get in on this.

Ah ha! I see that now upon closer inspection. I didn't read past the "...firearms safety organization..." part before skipping to Subparagraph a. Good point!

There is curriculum already being taught every week right now in Oregon that covers all the requirements of this bill. Kids even have the chance to do additional classes that are on the range, hands on with real firearms.

Wow! How did you guys get that through the Oregon DoE?

Liberals cry when they hear NRA, that's why it was specifically targeted for a group based within Oregon.

True. Another strong move on you guys' part...

I apologize that I misread earlier from you, the full text of the 2023 was combined with lessons learned from 2019 and improved upon to be more palatable to most of the public in Oregon.

I think I see now where our mutual confusion arose... I look at the bill and I see "Section 1", which is further broken down into "Paragraphs" 1 through 10, a couple of which are further broken down into lower-case lettered "Subparagraphs", and then there is a standalone "Section 2". Among many other things in my line of work, I read/write a lot of public works construction contracts. With that as my experience, I looked for something called "Section 4" and never found it in the bill. I now think the confusion arose between what you called "Section 4" and what I would call "Section 2, Paragraph 4". I'ma gonna go with that as the explanation...

 

[Member 5605]

Wow! how did you guys get that through the Oregon DoE?

Those classes of course are off site at participating ranges in Mohawk OR and Centralia WA.

Lots going on that isn't yet ready for public release. "From what I'm told"

 

[JadeFox]

Sobo and Dyjital....thank you for the clarification. Many questions answered. How can we proceed if folks flee discussion? I can't vote in OR either but 4 of my adult kids do. This has been a valuable thread.

 

[Member 5605]

Sobo and Dyjital....thank you for the clarification. Many questions answered. How can we proceed if folks flee discussion? I can't vote in OR either but 4 of my adult kids do. This has been a valuable thread.

When somebody is personally heavily invested in time and finances to see safety education brought in a state level only have it bubblegum on they quickly lose interest and find this outlet (website) as a lost cause.

From what I've gathered in text messages there will be no more posts by the OP's account again.

It's unfortunate it's gone this way. This is not an initiative so it will be debated and voted on in the senate and house if it passes committee.

Hopefully it can be brought to a vote this time around.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

When somebody is personally heavily invested in time and finances to see safety education brought in a state level only have it bubblegum on they quickly lose interest and find this outlet (website) as a lost cause.

From what I've gathered in text messages there will be no more posts by the OP's account again.

It's unfortunate it's gone this way. This is not an initiative so it will be debated and voted on in the senate and house if it passes committee.

Hopefully it can be brought to a vote this time around.

That's why OP should have been more clear I think, and more patient. Taking the time to state things clearly and where/from who it originates and it's intent is the only way to gian allies. Most of the bills we see come from the anti-gunners so people are rightly skeptical. Especially considering their sneaky tactics like in Illionois where they replaced the text of an insurnce bill with an AWB and snuck it though the legislature. It went form non existent to signed and effective law in 72 hours. Taking the time to explain what the deal is makes all the difference. Especailly if it is something "out of the blue" for folks not knwoledgeable about the past of the bill. I'm with Jade fox, your clarifications help a ton.

 

[solv3nt]

That's why OP should have been more clear I think, and more patient. Taking the time to state things clearly and where/from who it originates and it's intent is the only way to gian allies. Most of the bills we see come from the anti-gunners so people are rightly skeptical. Especially considering their sneaky tactics like in Illionois where they replaced the text of an insurnce bill with an AWB and snuck it though the legislature. It went form non existent to signed and effective law in 72 hours. Taking the time to explain what the deal is makes all the difference. Especailly if it is something "out of the blue" for folks not knwoledgeable about the past of the bill. I'm with Jade fox, your clarifications help a ton.

Exactly, OP should not have dropped from the discussion about his recently dropped legislation.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Exactly, OP should not have dropped from the discussion about his recently dropped legislation.

Maybe he is waiting for the other shoe to drop and will drop back in?

 

[solv3nt]

Maybe he is waiting for the other shoe to drop and will drop back in?

Do you suppose he will drop a line?

 

[Dust2Dollars]

At least it would be a DROP in the bucket in the right direction....

 

[solv3nt]

At least it would be a DROP in the bucket in the right direction....

OP dropping back in or successfully dropping the legislation?

 

[Cavedweller]

I would encourage Oregonians to actually read the text of the bill and get on board with it.

I actually read the entire text of the bill and asked a totally serious question in post #9. Why is it necessary to declare an emergency? The OP chose to ignore me completely. This is no way to garner support.

Although I could support the goals of this proposal in principle, I have reservations when any legislation declares an emergency without good reason. These sorts of declarations tend to grant government special extra-legislative powers of one sort or another, so I would have been interested in the OP's explanation. Since he chose not to provide one, I'm inclined to pass on this one.

Actually, notice it says that it requires the group to be based in Oregon.

Now I'm beginning to wonder if the OP's goal could be to drum up business (i.e obtain public funding for) his training program. But, since he seems to have "dropped out" of the discussion, I guess we'll never know.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Serious question:

If you can't stand up to a little grief and (mostly) good natured ribbing from people mostly on your side how will you hold up against those that are stanchly against you?