AK and AZ issue permits for reciprocity. They're generally not needed in state (I think AZ still has a clause where you need it for bars). Vermont residents just get screwed as far as reciprocity goes. They also wouldn't allow felons to carry but minor details like that apparently don't matter when constructing a survey. I thought the survey stunk and picked on the first response in it.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
prozanski (sentor) at it again email rec.
- Thread Starter pokerace
- Start date
AK and AZ issue permits for reciprocity. They're generally not needed in state (I think AZ still has a clause where you need it for bars). Vermont residents just get screwed as far as reciprocity goes. They also wouldn't allow felons to carry but minor details like that apparently don't matter when constructing a survey. I thought the survey stunk and picked on the first response in it.
- Messages
- 513
- Reactions
- 217
Yeah, Prozanski's an odd one. He seems to honestly believe that he is "pro gun" while promoting obviously anti-gun laws. My point was that there are plenty of pro-gun liberals, including myself, who answered that questionnaire in exactly the OPPOSITE of what Mr. Prozanski wanted.
You know, I have absolutely no problem with "pro-gun liberals", as long as they don't vote "anti-gun liberals" into office, but you'll have to admit, "somebody" is putin' them in there ..............
- Messages
- 513
- Reactions
- 217
You know, I have absolutely no problem with "pro-gun liberals", as long as they don't vote "anti-gun liberals" into office, but you'll have to admit, "somebody" is putin' them in there ..............
The problem is when I get a choice between someone who is for 95% of what I agree in, but against me on gun rights and someone who is against me on 95%, but with me on gun rights.
Gun rights count for a lot, but not 95%/5%. I will not vote for someone who wants to completely abolish abortion, make homosexuality a crime, and remove all environmental protections just because they're pro-gun-rights. I *WOULD* likely trade a more moderate view on one of those than I would like for gun rights, though (for example someone who approves of civil unions but not marriage, or approves of all but late-term abortions.)
In my state house and senate districts, there hasn't been a close race in years - there hasn't been much of a real choice. Heck my state senator didn't even have a serious competitor last time around 70/30 (although I am trying to work on getting her to understand that gun rights are a "liberal" right to defend.) My state house representative was even more lopsided, and she was one of the most anti-gun members of the house! (I wrote *MANY* annoyed letters to her.) While I'm happy she's not running for re-election to the house, she is running for city council now. <shudder> I've met a couple of the people running in the primary, and one looks very promising.
Really, in certain districts, a Republican has essentially zero chance of getting elected. In those districts, it is in everyone's best interest to get a gun-friendly Democrat in! And that's what I'm trying to do.
We have to face facts: Oregon politics is dominated by Democrats. Both of our US Senators are Democrats. Four out of five US Representatives are Democrats. Every major statewide office from the governor down is held by a Democrat. The Democrats have a majority in the state senate and share control of the state house. Oregon's largest city is completely controlled by Democrats.
If gun owners put all of their eggs in the conservative/Republican basket we will be powerless and marginalized. Our rights will be slowly eroded away. We will turn into another California with a legislature that is both permanently Democratic (Democrats have controlled the California legislature for the past 40 years, with no sign of that changing in the future) and anti-gun rights. Since Oregon is likely to continue to be dominated by Democrats we will have to do what (little) we can to make more of those Democratic politicians pro-gun-rights, or at least not so anti-gun rights as seems to be their natural tendency. We have to encourage our fellow gun owners who are Democrats to do what (little) they can, rather than ostracizing those Democratic gun owners. We don't want to turn into another California.
If gun owners put all of their eggs in the conservative/Republican basket we will be powerless and marginalized. Our rights will be slowly eroded away. We will turn into another California with a legislature that is both permanently Democratic (Democrats have controlled the California legislature for the past 40 years, with no sign of that changing in the future) and anti-gun rights. Since Oregon is likely to continue to be dominated by Democrats we will have to do what (little) we can to make more of those Democratic politicians pro-gun-rights, or at least not so anti-gun rights as seems to be their natural tendency. We have to encourage our fellow gun owners who are Democrats to do what (little) they can, rather than ostracizing those Democratic gun owners. We don't want to turn into another California.
02.06.12 GUN BILLS UPDATE.
NOTE: AS OF 4.48 PM SB 1551 has been removed from the hearing schedule on Feb 8. Work sessions for SB 1550 and SB 1574 have been added for Feb. 13.
The House Judiciary Committee today heard HB 4045. No action was taken.
This is Representative Kim Thatcher's bill to protect the privacy of CHL holders and an issue she has been working on for gun owners for some time.
Representative Thatcher suggested an amendment to mollify the Oregon State Police and the Oregon Judicial Department who suddenly (after years of this concept being discussed) decided that it might be a burden on them to comply. But that's not why no action was taken on the bill today.
The reason no action was taken was the 10 or so anonymous amendments that got walked through the door at the last minute. While no one took "credit" for them, it isn't hard to imagine whose idea they were. (Someone certainly kept the bill writers down in Legislative Counsel busy.)
The purpose of the amendments is to ban concealed carry in public buildings and schools, or require CHL holders to give up privacy should they ever need to go into one of the buildings their tax dollars pay for. One requires that CHL holders call or email any school they will be going to 24 hours before they go to announce that they will be carrying a firearm!
Let's see, who could have requested these amendments?
The committee has scheduled another hearing and possible work session on Wednesday at 8AM. It is essential that they hear from you that you want a clean bill with NO anti-gun amendments. You can use this link to contact the House Judiciary Committee with a simple message of "NO ANTI-GUN AMENDMENTS TO HB 4045!"
Also on Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be hearing three gun bills. We told you about these bills on Feb. 3.
Two of the bills are open attacks on your freedom. (It's interesting that we have legislators who feel that it is their life's work to assault your liberties instead of protecting them.) SB 1550 and SB 1551 are nothing more than an effort to demonize people who lawfully carry firearms for defense of themselves and others. Now their sponsor, Ginny Burdick, and the Chair of Senate Judiciary, Floyd Prozanski, are working to make sure that you cannot have a firearm on school property or in any public building.
Please use the contact info in this alert to remind members of the committee that you are watching them.
The other bill that will be heard on Wednesday in Senate Judiciary is Floyd Prozanski's "Reciprocity" bill. This bill, SB 1574, is a convoluted, complicated and very flawed bill that will allow the State Police to decide if they want to recognize any other state's CHL. But only if the other state recognizes ours first. The State Police are a law enforcement body, not a judicial body. This should not be their decision. When they had this authority in the past, they refused to recognize a single other state.
Efforts in the past to move a clean, simple, easy-to-understand bill were thwarted by the sponsor of this bill.
It's interesting to note that in a mass email sent from Floyd Prozanski to gun owners on August 24th of 2011, Prozanski attacked Oregon Firearms Federation and said:
"Kevin continues to provide you with misinformation and has lost credibility with many legislators. I suggest you consider getting the facts from another gun rights organization. The NRA and the Oregon Gun Owners are two respected advocacy groups that will provide you with actual facts and that work positively with legislators. Those groups are known to advocate effectively for gun rights in Oregon."
Please note that "Oregon Gun Owners" works for gun control and has endorsed Floyd Prozanski. So we don't recommend them as a source for pro-gun information. But what of the NRA? Well, we are happy to say that we agree in this case with Floyd's suggestion that you consider the NRA's position. The NRA has come out in opposition to Floyd's "reciprocity" bill. As a result Floyd has attempted to mischaracterize their position on the bill. But, that's Floyd.
We have already asked you to take the time to contact the Senate Judiciary Committee in this alert and oppose the Burdick Bills. We strongly suggest that if you have not, you take a moment to do so and if you have, do so again.
It's important to understand that on Wednesday, Floyd will be hearing his bill which supposedly allows some states' CHL holders to carry in Oregon, including in public buildings. At the same time he will be hearing bills that forbid CHL holders from carrying in public buildings! We don't expect legislators to write their own bills, but it would be great if they at least read them!
Clearly this makes no sense and our already confusing and contradictory gun laws will get much worse if these bills pass.
Finally, as we told you we would do, we hand delivered to the two Republican Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee a simple suggested amendment designed to address the issue of residents' of other states carrying in Oregon.
While Burdick claims that Oregon CHL holders are not well trained enough to be in public buildings, Prozanski claims that other states don't have our stringent training requirements. (I guess they don't talk to each other.) So we suggested a simple amendment to Floyd's so called "reciprocity" bill. It makes a very minor change in statute and simply says that a person from any state, not just adjoining states, can apply for an Oregon CHL.
This is an easy way to put the anti-gunners on record, whether the amendment is adopted or not.
Please contact the "Republican" members of the Senate Judiciary and ask them to propose the amendment.
Senator Jeff Kruse
[email protected]
503-986-1701
Senator Doug Whitsett
[email protected]
503-986-1728
Suggested cut and paste message:
______________________________________________________________
Dear Senator,
SB 1574 is a complicated and poorly drafted bill. However, it could be significantly better if an amendment were adopted that simply allowed residents of any other state to apply for an Oregon CHL. Please consider proposing an amendment that would do this.
Thank you,
NOTE: AS OF 4.48 PM SB 1551 has been removed from the hearing schedule on Feb 8. Work sessions for SB 1550 and SB 1574 have been added for Feb. 13.
The House Judiciary Committee today heard HB 4045. No action was taken.
This is Representative Kim Thatcher's bill to protect the privacy of CHL holders and an issue she has been working on for gun owners for some time.
Representative Thatcher suggested an amendment to mollify the Oregon State Police and the Oregon Judicial Department who suddenly (after years of this concept being discussed) decided that it might be a burden on them to comply. But that's not why no action was taken on the bill today.
The reason no action was taken was the 10 or so anonymous amendments that got walked through the door at the last minute. While no one took "credit" for them, it isn't hard to imagine whose idea they were. (Someone certainly kept the bill writers down in Legislative Counsel busy.)
The purpose of the amendments is to ban concealed carry in public buildings and schools, or require CHL holders to give up privacy should they ever need to go into one of the buildings their tax dollars pay for. One requires that CHL holders call or email any school they will be going to 24 hours before they go to announce that they will be carrying a firearm!
Let's see, who could have requested these amendments?
The committee has scheduled another hearing and possible work session on Wednesday at 8AM. It is essential that they hear from you that you want a clean bill with NO anti-gun amendments. You can use this link to contact the House Judiciary Committee with a simple message of "NO ANTI-GUN AMENDMENTS TO HB 4045!"
Also on Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be hearing three gun bills. We told you about these bills on Feb. 3.
Two of the bills are open attacks on your freedom. (It's interesting that we have legislators who feel that it is their life's work to assault your liberties instead of protecting them.) SB 1550 and SB 1551 are nothing more than an effort to demonize people who lawfully carry firearms for defense of themselves and others. Now their sponsor, Ginny Burdick, and the Chair of Senate Judiciary, Floyd Prozanski, are working to make sure that you cannot have a firearm on school property or in any public building.
Please use the contact info in this alert to remind members of the committee that you are watching them.
The other bill that will be heard on Wednesday in Senate Judiciary is Floyd Prozanski's "Reciprocity" bill. This bill, SB 1574, is a convoluted, complicated and very flawed bill that will allow the State Police to decide if they want to recognize any other state's CHL. But only if the other state recognizes ours first. The State Police are a law enforcement body, not a judicial body. This should not be their decision. When they had this authority in the past, they refused to recognize a single other state.
Efforts in the past to move a clean, simple, easy-to-understand bill were thwarted by the sponsor of this bill.
It's interesting to note that in a mass email sent from Floyd Prozanski to gun owners on August 24th of 2011, Prozanski attacked Oregon Firearms Federation and said:
"Kevin continues to provide you with misinformation and has lost credibility with many legislators. I suggest you consider getting the facts from another gun rights organization. The NRA and the Oregon Gun Owners are two respected advocacy groups that will provide you with actual facts and that work positively with legislators. Those groups are known to advocate effectively for gun rights in Oregon."
Please note that "Oregon Gun Owners" works for gun control and has endorsed Floyd Prozanski. So we don't recommend them as a source for pro-gun information. But what of the NRA? Well, we are happy to say that we agree in this case with Floyd's suggestion that you consider the NRA's position. The NRA has come out in opposition to Floyd's "reciprocity" bill. As a result Floyd has attempted to mischaracterize their position on the bill. But, that's Floyd.
We have already asked you to take the time to contact the Senate Judiciary Committee in this alert and oppose the Burdick Bills. We strongly suggest that if you have not, you take a moment to do so and if you have, do so again.
It's important to understand that on Wednesday, Floyd will be hearing his bill which supposedly allows some states' CHL holders to carry in Oregon, including in public buildings. At the same time he will be hearing bills that forbid CHL holders from carrying in public buildings! We don't expect legislators to write their own bills, but it would be great if they at least read them!
Clearly this makes no sense and our already confusing and contradictory gun laws will get much worse if these bills pass.
Finally, as we told you we would do, we hand delivered to the two Republican Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee a simple suggested amendment designed to address the issue of residents' of other states carrying in Oregon.
While Burdick claims that Oregon CHL holders are not well trained enough to be in public buildings, Prozanski claims that other states don't have our stringent training requirements. (I guess they don't talk to each other.) So we suggested a simple amendment to Floyd's so called "reciprocity" bill. It makes a very minor change in statute and simply says that a person from any state, not just adjoining states, can apply for an Oregon CHL.
This is an easy way to put the anti-gunners on record, whether the amendment is adopted or not.
Please contact the "Republican" members of the Senate Judiciary and ask them to propose the amendment.
Senator Jeff Kruse
[email protected]
503-986-1701
Senator Doug Whitsett
[email protected]
503-986-1728
Suggested cut and paste message:
______________________________________________________________
Dear Senator,
SB 1574 is a complicated and poorly drafted bill. However, it could be significantly better if an amendment were adopted that simply allowed residents of any other state to apply for an Oregon CHL. Please consider proposing an amendment that would do this.
Thank you,
Yes, in an ideal world. How do you prevent a Loughner? Are you willing to accept a few Loughner's, Cho's, etc? Just curious.
- Messages
- 1,068
- Reactions
- 384
We already have. Where do you think all the democrats came here from? Up until the mid 80's Oregon's political offices were held mostly by republicans. Then we had the massive influx of our southern neighbors and their political views.
"Come visit us again and again. This is a state of excitement. But for heaven's sake, don't come here to live." - Tom McCall, Oregon Governor 1967-1975
I don't have a problem with pro-gun democrats being in office since that seems to be a guaranteed victory running for office in the population centers of the state. But where are they? Instead we've got clowns like Prozanski and Burdick.
- Messages
- 1,068
- Reactions
- 384
Lets pass more laws! After all the laws against murder (and the dozens of other laws they broke) definitely stopped those folks, right?
- Messages
- 1,527
- Reactions
- 1,774
How do you prevent muggings? How do you prevent car crashes? How do you prevent asteroid strikes?
Having a concealed carry license or not would not have changed anything about what Loughner did. Gangs in California carry pistols all the time and yet concealed carry is for all intensive purposes illegal there, what's the difference to a criminal? Do you honestly think they care they are breaking the law about concealed carry when they intend to commit murder? Concealed carry laws only affect law abiding citizens.
Yup, who are they and what is their voting record ?????? Whoever keeps voting these anti gun jokers in , is as anti gun as they are !! You reap what you sow............
- Messages
- 1,068
- Reactions
- 384
By the way, Floyd must have gotten a lot of angry responses about his so called "survey" because yesterday he sent this out:
Prozanski killed his own bill. Can't figure this guy out. Maybe it was all the responses he received on his new survey.
https://www.oregonfirearms.org/
https://www.oregonfirearms.org/
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
Smith & Wesson Model 581 no-dash .357 Magnum 4"
- Started by KylesGottaGun
- Replies: 0
-
-
Hellcat Micro-Compact OSP, 9mm, (FDE) , 3" barrel, 13 & 11 rd magazines & holster- Started by gregfisher
- Replies: 1
-
-
WTS: Winchester 97 Take Down Model 20" Barrel Made in 1946- Started by static-x
- Replies: 0
-
-
