Prozanski Recall:

[sdlsaginaw]

It's sad that we've already lost the fight in the media. For all the BS that Prozanski does which should anger everybody, the media has already portrayed the recall as gun owners angry about background checks. That will not get the signatures.

 

[RW-Ore]

sdlsaginaw , yes there are a lot of angry gun owners but there also a bunch of people that are angry, that are fed up with his attitude.
The people of the state voted his firearms laws down before so to stop it from happening again he put the emergency clause on it this time stopping a vote of the people.
He does not answer his phone and does not return e-mails, in his committee meeting he gave the people two hours to testify knowing that there was far more people against his bill than there were for it. I was there, I seen his total disregard for the people's voice.
Val Hoyle's rules committee hearing was the same there were more people against SB 941 than there was for it but to Val's credit she gave everyone a chance to speak even though their minds were made up.

 

[Koda]

there are more reasons to recall Prozanski than gun control....

 

[Mr.B]

One question. Where do I sign?

 

[RW-Ore]

<broken link removed>

 

[RW-Ore]

Koda, that is so true.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Floyd has written a response to those that want him recalled. He throws in a few lies about online sales and never mentions the tyrannical, IMO, misuse of the Emergency Clause that doesn't allow a vote.

Also never mentions what a pita this law is if you want to hold a gun for someone for safekeeping and all the other crap in this law designed to harass gun owners.

Gun law vote not valid recall issue, lawmaker says
<broken link removed>

The purpose of recall is to hold accountable an elected official who has committed an ethical violation, committed a crime or breached the public trust. According to the Secretary of State's office, this recall will cost taxpayers $100,000 to $134,000 if it goes forward.

Do taxpayers really want to spend that amount of money because someone disagrees with my legislative votes?

 

[Koda]

one could argue he violated all three reasons he listed for recall....

 

[41Slinger]

Do taxpayers really want to spend that amount of money because someone disagrees with my legislative votes?

YES, best use of taxpayer money in a long time, 941 times better than was spent on SB941.

 

[bolus]

Yeah, how about the lying? purposeful attack on collectors? Piles of out of state money? Having your backers harass signature gatherers? we all know you are the typical lying sack of crap politician so who gives a crap what you think about the recall. Oh Polanski, the poor victim. You forget you work for us

Also, keep dragging your dead sister's body in front of you to overwhelm the smell if the BS you are dumping behind you.

 

[DuneHopper]

Prozanzki is the only State Representative to introduce common sense background checks. we should all commend him for doing such a great job.

How did he do such a great job you may ask?

1. He showed us our votes do not matter.
2. He showed us what a whining biotch he truly his, he wants respect why he ignored and
insulted the opposition time and time again, in all but saying gun owners are morons.
3. As has been said, look your sister died, sorry that sucks. But even he has said in interviews that background checks would not have saved her life. So one asks WTF, are you insane ?
4. I would like to thank him for really closing the door on me ever trusting the word of any elected official, state local or federal.
5. And lastly, I think he should get a atta-boy, for using every slime ball tactic to bypass the legal process in Oregon. Way to go and remove all doubt the slimeball you are.

Politicians come and go and this voter will always remember the biggest fraud presented to gun owners by this POS. And yet he asks why, after all don't recall this poor victim ? Just re-read 1-5 its clear we are all just garbage to him.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Also, keep dragging your dead sister's body in front of you to overwhelm the smell if the BS you are dumping behind you.

You should see if the RG will print that in their comments section in response to his asinine article!
Very well worded bolus.

 

[Hawaiian]

Being bought and paid for by Bloomberg is reason enough for a recall. 20 oz soda's are next.

 

[Koda]

The purpose of recall is to hold accountable an elected official who has committed an ethical violation, committed a crime or breached the public trust. According to the Secretary of State's office, this recall will cost taxpayers $100,000 to $134,000 if it goes forward.

Do taxpayers really want to spend that amount of money because someone disagrees with my legislative votes?

<broken link removed>

>abused the emergency clause to push a personal political agenda funded by out of state money: ethical violation plus a breach of public trust
>infringed upon the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms, a crime
>ethical violation/breach of public trust: lied about where criminals get their guns from private sale transfers to push the universal "background" check law... ethical violation and breach of public trust. Evidence supports his claim a lie: <broken link removed>


someone should copy/past this to the register guard comments for the public to see this (I dont have a log in there)

 

[B5Ben]

Out of curiousity, does anyone know where the signature count is at (approximately) to get this heap off the public payroll?

 

[ConcreteJungle]

Also, keep dragging your dead sister's body in front of you to overwhelm the smell if the BS you are dumping behind you.

Wasn't his sister killed in Texas? Isn't that his home state?
Why is he trying to push his agenda here??? Go back to Texas and try that...oh, wait...you'd probably be taken to the outhouse and made an example of.

 

[Norm0931]

<broken link removed>

>abused the emergency clause to push a personal political agenda funded by out of state money: ethical violation plus a breach of public trust
>infringed upon the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms, a crime
>ethical violation/breach of public trust: lied about where criminals get their guns from private sale transfers to push the universal "background" check law... ethical violation and breach of public trust. Evidence supports his claim a lie: <broken link removed>


someone should copy/past this to the register guard comments for the public to see this (I dont have a log in there)

Not to mention ORS 162.415 Official Misconduct in the First Degree. He knowingly and willfully added the emergency clause to the bill despite the fact that it violates Oregon law on the use of the emergency clause.

Emergency Clause as defined by Oregon Law:
A statement added to the end of a measure which causes the act to become effective before the accustomed date. An emergency clause either sets a specific date or is effective immediately, which means that the measure will take effect on the date of its signature into law. NOTE: emergency clauses may not be attached to bills which would raise revenue.

They left off a Revenue statement on the bill to get the Emergency Clause added on. However, if you read the Fiscal Impact Statement from OSP it says, "OSP anticipates an additional 20,000 private party background checks are likely to occur per year."

20,000 x 10 = $200,000 to the Oregon State General Fund.

$200,000 extra per year sure sounds like revenue to me.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Backers of an effort to recall state Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Eugene Democrat, said they have submitted enough signatures to potentially trigger a vote.

Chief petitioner Patricia Duffy-Michaelson of Cottage Grove submitted almost 8,700 signatures to the secretary of state's office this week, and said she plans to enter another batch on Friday — the campaign's deadline.
http://registerguard.com/rg/news/lo...athered-enough-signatures-to-trigger-vote.csp

I think he should now resign to save the taxpayers the money he was so worried about!

 

[Koda]

what does it mean by "potentially"?

I though enough signatures "automatically" triggers a vote

 

[etrain16]

what does it mean by "potentially"?

I though enough signatures "automatically" triggers a vote

Those signatures first have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. Any thoughts as to whether they'll actually be fair in that review? She was appointed by Gov. Kate after all.