Oregon SB 941 - Email addresses for the house rules committee

[XManSV]

I don't think this requires ATF 4473. From what I read it is only the call to the Oregon State Police. I could be wrong, does anyone know for certain? I don't support it either way of course, but that is an important point.

 

[tkdguy]

I've sent 15 emails to demoncrats against this 941 since yesterday.

 

[Ed Guinn]

Very nicely crafted.

my contribution:
Respectful Greetings, Honorable Committee Members,

Please ask yourself if enacting a divisive, misleading and costly experiment like SB 941 is the best you can do for Oregon and her Residents.

Carefully crafted to favor extreme emotional opinions over well documented facts, SB 941 was the creation of an out-of-state superpac with an Agenda. Do you want to be linked to that legacy?

Overwhelmingly, local and regional Governments and Law Enforcement are on record in strong opposition, along with Oregonians represented within their jurisdictions. Opposition is growing as awareness spreads.

There is no reason to vote in favor of this Legislation, except to create a feel good experience for a very loud and well funded minority of misinformed people.

The un-foreseen consequences of enacting this debacle stagger the imagination.

Expenses to administer, enforce, and defend it in Court will divert already short revenues from other much more pressing needs within the State, that our appointed Governor has directed you to address.

Please vote No on SB 941.
_________________________________________________________________
sent this to the Committee Members, and to the House exhibit link - with an altered greeting: Members of the Oregon House of Representatives,
respectful greetings.

 

[Ratfink]

When California enacted this law, it did absolutely nothing to deter criminals from procuring or possessing firearms. Gang violence and assault with firearms did not dramatically change or drop in stats.
In almost 100% of these cases of homicide, the weapon, if located, was stolen.

 

[Dave Workman]

REMEMBER WASHINGTON!


Marathon hearing today on Oregon gun control measure

A marathon public hearing will kick off this afternoon in Salem as legions of gun owners are expected to descend on the Oregon state capitol to oppose a controversial gun control measure, disguised as a "universal background check" bill that one Republican state senator has said flatly will not accomplish a thing.

<broken link removed>

 

[tkdguy]

"If guns could kill people, then pencils spell!".

 

[Timothy Callahan]

My submission to the committee, also cc'd to my Rep, the much friendlier adjacent Rep, and my useless Senator.

My name is Timothy Callahan, and I am submitting this written testimony to urge the Committee in no uncertain terms NOT to support or pass SB 941.

The background check system that SB 941 puts into place is a waste of time and money. It will place an undue burden on the citizens of Oregon and an additional burden of time and effort on the part of the Oregon State Police. It will have no material effect on the crime rate, nor the ability of criminal actors to obtain firearms, which has been shown in other places that have enacted similar legislation, and it will cost Oregon additional amounts of money when it is contested. Oregon will be worse off upon passage than we were before.

At a time when we are scrambling to make the best use of our public funds, when the more rural Sheriff's offices are relying openly on volunteers and goodwill, it would be foolish for us to throw good money after bad. That money can absolutely be better spent on other, more effective, programs.

Around the nation, there are example of states which have passed very similar background check systems. None of them have had the wanted effect of reducing the level of arms possession by felons or criminal actors. Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts all have similar legislation in effect, yet Chicago and Baltimore are consistently dangerous cities, or at the least portions of them are consistently dangerous, and all the vaunted background checks in place did not stop people like the Tsarnaev brothers from obtaining firearms.

Washington state recently passed very similar legislation, and I know that many of you, as legislators, have looked at it and its effects very closely; I know this because you have used their example to avoid certain clauses or concepts that remain objectionable in Washington. However, it appears that, despite having such a dire warning in our own back yard, the decision was made to proceed with this legislation anyway. It WILL be contested, and it WILL be expensive, and that is money poorly spent. It will be money REMARKABLE ill spent if Washington loses that case, and the law is struck down- at the very least, I would council delaying action on this subject until the matter is settled.

In the end, we are all concerned with safety, and I am concerned that many people will see this as a bid in favor of armed felons and domestic abusers. This is disingenuous in the extreme- I truly believe that you will find few among the ranks of pro-2a activists who have even the slightest sympathy for violent felons or domestic abusers. In fact, we are known very well for our arguments AGAINST them! One of the regular and consistent arguments that we refer to in these discussions is the fact that firearms allow an otherwise vulnerable person to defend themselves against a large, determined attacker. It is not the effect of disarming felons and abusers that we object to, it is the method. A method that has proven ineffective in it's stated goal, but which does put up barriers of hassle and annoyance to the informed, and dire legal traps for the underinformed. By any reasonable extension, the people most likely to run afoul of this law are not criminal actors, they will be honest, forthright citizens whose biggest mistake is not being properly versed in the convoluted system of exemptions that allows them to sell a treasured hunting rifle to a lifelong friend.

There are other ways. There are many more effective ways to reduce the violent crime rate, and safeguard vulnerable people. The Thatcher Amendment to 941 was introduced in the Senate Committee, but not passed; this is an example of a background check bill that might be acceptable to the people of Oregon. In case you are not familiar with it, it involves the placing of a small mark, much like an endorsement, on the drivers license of people who are 'prohibited persons', which allows anyone to check the status of a firearms buyer at a glance. There is plenty of precedence for the seizure of a driver's license and issue of a temporary replacement, as in DUI cases, which would decrease the overlap time between 'becoming a prohibited person' and having the endorsement applied. Are there kinks and details to be worked out there? Of course, there are always details to refine, but it then becomes an issue that is transparent to most of the people of Oregon and only affects people who are prohibited persons, rather than the opposite, which is embodied by SB 941.

SB 941 is a system that places barriers and pitfalls in the path of the honest citizen much more than it will impact the violent felons that it is purported to. Oregon would see a better return on our investment if those monies were invested in community engagement or education- two things which have consistently been shown to improve community safety. Please OPPOSE SB 941.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,​

 

[Ratfink]

my latest letter...

• Honorable members of the Senate,
  This onerous bill does absolutely nothing to prevent felons or the mentally ill from gaining control of a firearm. As a retired law enforcement officer of 25 years from California, I can personally testify that it has done nothing in the way of deterring criminals in that state from arming themselves. Criminals do not adhere to laws, hence their criminality status. But they still manage to gain possession through means of theft or deceit.
  I have to agree with numerous others that this bill is just one more attempt to control our 2nd amendment rights through legislation. Our American freedoms, guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, are being eroded away by such laws and bills.
  We, as a country, were founded on the beliefs that less government is good government. I don't see where "more" is better in this case. I have lived in this state for over 4 years now and left California after having been born and raised there due to the increase of over-bearing government. I watch and read the news and can find little need for such a bill as SB941 as the crime here doesn't reflect this as an issue that such a bill would resolve. Do we really have a out-of-control gun violence issue here? Would this bill resolve any threat of gun violence?
  Ask yourself those questions and if your answer isn't a definitive yes, then why are we even seeking more litigation in this area? If you are still in favor of this after asking that question than I presume it nothing more than "appearances" of concern.
  Again, in 25 years of handling crimes, almost 100% of the "firearm related crimes" were committed by criminals who either stole the weapon or obtained via illegal gains. Remember, California has had this law in place for decades and even requires a "10-day" cooling off period and it has failed to achieve it's intended purpose.
  I have to concur with my law enforcement community here on the point that all CHL holders have already been through the process of passing a background check. Why is there a need for double-redundancy here? Why not utilize what is already in place?
  Why not revoke drivers licenses of convicted violent felons? Driving is not a "right" it is a privilege and not protected under our Constitution. That would further reduce ones ability to have valid picture ID for private purchases of said firearms. If you won't arm a felon, why give him/her a vehicle? Isn't that arming them with a potential weapon?
  Again, this "bill" has nothing to do with restricting criminals, it has everything to do with restricting tax-paying citizens.
  I urge you to look deeply into the motives behind this bill and vote according to your conscience as an American citizen.
  XXXXXXXXXX
  Retired Officer, Modesto P.D.
  Waldport, Or.

 

[Dave Workman]

My submission to the committee, also cc'd to my Rep, the much friendlier adjacent Rep, and my useless Senator.

My name is Timothy Callahan, and I am submitting this written testimony to urge the Committee in no uncertain terms NOT to support or pass SB 941.

The background check system that SB 941 puts into place is a waste of time and money. It will place an undue burden on the citizens of Oregon and an additional burden of time and effort on the part of the Oregon State Police. It will have no material effect on the crime rate, nor the ability of criminal actors to obtain firearms, which has been shown in other places that have enacted similar legislation, and it will cost Oregon additional amounts of money when it is contested. Oregon will be worse off upon passage than we were before.

At a time when we are scrambling to make the best use of our public funds, when the more rural Sheriff's offices are relying openly on volunteers and goodwill, it would be foolish for us to throw good money after bad. That money can absolutely be better spent on other, more effective, programs.

Around the nation, there are example of states which have passed very similar background check systems. None of them have had the wanted effect of reducing the level of arms possession by felons or criminal actors. Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts all have similar legislation in effect, yet Chicago and Baltimore are consistently dangerous cities, or at the least portions of them are consistently dangerous, and all the vaunted background checks in place did not stop people like the Tsarnaev brothers from obtaining firearms.

Washington state recently passed very similar legislation, and I know that many of you, as legislators, have looked at it and its effects very closely; I know this because you have used their example to avoid certain clauses or concepts that remain objectionable in Washington. However, it appears that, despite having such a dire warning in our own back yard, the decision was made to proceed with this legislation anyway. It WILL be contested, and it WILL be expensive, and that is money poorly spent. It will be money REMARKABLE ill spent if Washington loses that case, and the law is struck down- at the very least, I would council delaying action on this subject until the matter is settled.

In the end, we are all concerned with safety, and I am concerned that many people will see this as a bid in favor of armed felons and domestic abusers. This is disingenuous in the extreme- I truly believe that you will find few among the ranks of pro-2a activists who have even the slightest sympathy for violent felons or domestic abusers. In fact, we are known very well for our arguments AGAINST them! One of the regular and consistent arguments that we refer to in these discussions is the fact that firearms allow an otherwise vulnerable person to defend themselves against a large, determined attacker. It is not the effect of disarming felons and abusers that we object to, it is the method. A method that has proven ineffective in it's stated goal, but which does put up barriers of hassle and annoyance to the informed, and dire legal traps for the underinformed. By any reasonable extension, the people most likely to run afoul of this law are not criminal actors, they will be honest, forthright citizens whose biggest mistake is not being properly versed in the convoluted system of exemptions that allows them to sell a treasured hunting rifle to a lifelong friend.

There are other ways. There are many more effective ways to reduce the violent crime rate, and safeguard vulnerable people. The Thatcher Amendment to 941 was introduced in the Senate Committee, but not passed; this is an example of a background check bill that might be acceptable to the people of Oregon. In case you are not familiar with it, it involves the placing of a small mark, much like an endorsement, on the drivers license of people who are 'prohibited persons', which allows anyone to check the status of a firearms buyer at a glance. There is plenty of precedence for the seizure of a driver's license and issue of a temporary replacement, as in DUI cases, which would decrease the overlap time between 'becoming a prohibited person' and having the endorsement applied. Are there kinks and details to be worked out there? Of course, there are always details to refine, but it then becomes an issue that is transparent to most of the people of Oregon and only affects people who are prohibited persons, rather than the opposite, which is embodied by SB 941.

SB 941 is a system that places barriers and pitfalls in the path of the honest citizen much more than it will impact the violent felons that it is purported to. Oregon would see a better return on our investment if those monies were invested in community engagement or education- two things which have consistently been shown to improve community safety. Please OPPOSE SB 941.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,​

Congratulations Tim on a very well thought out letter. Nicely done.
Do me a favor and cut-and-paste this over to my Examiner column @ <broken link removed>

I think a lot of people would really get an understanding of how Oregon gun owners feel about this (I have readers all over the country).

 

[Timothy Callahan]

It's up, over there. I scrubbed the name, since I write and comment on disqus under a nomme de guerre.

 

[Scoop]

Letter sent to all.

 

[MikeE]

Here you go:

Dear Rep Nosse,

I am afraid SB941 will not have its intended effect of keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Attached is a post from Reddit by a former gang armorer - now out of the 'life' and in the US military - that shows clearly how feel-good legislation like SB941 would not slow down the arms flow for criminal activity. This thread was referred by an active duty police officer and seems genuine.



The former gang member's solution? After school programs, summer jobs for youth, drug intervention programs. In short, the things that we know society must do, but is trying to avoid doing by going 'cheap', with ineffective gun control measures that sound good and re-assure the middle class that safety can be had without paying for it.



http://np.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/2zinox/guns_gangs_and_the_glawk_40_a_primer_on_street/



Regards,