Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
my contribution:Very nicely crafted.
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,