SB 941 Now in House Committee

[tkdguy]

CHL'

"administrative network" Sounds like a job for the OFF. BTW.....Where is Kevin Starett these days ?

I'm guessing he is very, very busy; I am in touch with him here and there and I believe he is working very hard. tkdguy

 

[tkdguy]

Floyd Prozanski is on Youtube c/o Laughing at Liberals, published March 26, 2015. Floyd seems to have stated "Someone who wants to get a gun will get it through illegal means...Someone who wants to steal a gun will not be stopped by this legislation". Floyd admits further that criminals will bypass the universal background checks. fyi--this may help against sb 941

tkdguy

 

[Solved]

Another interesting thing. I don't know if this has been mentioned already.

The case of Haynes v. U.S. (1968).

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration. The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem.

Or in other words, if a prohibited person is caught with a gun, they can't even charge him with the contents of SB 941 because getting a background check in the first place would be self incriminating.

So who is left to charge with this law? Only the people who are legally allowed to own a gun.

 

[tiggers97]

Is there anyone here, or know of, someone with artistic talent? I have a couple of ideas for some editorial political one-panel cartoons, but no talent past stick figures to draw it!

 

[tkdguy]

Rep. Neurman just sent me and email on 941. He is opposed as are all the repubs house. He stated that they will need all the help they can and specifically stated to KEEP ALL PRESSURE ON THE LEGISLATORS. PLEASE, READERS KEEP THE PRESSURE ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANKS. TKDGUY

 

[ob1]

He he he....

Just called my district Rep's office. After giving my name and phone number the staffer immediately, as if by reflex motion, asked me if I was "in support of the bill". I paused, and then said uhhh. She responds by saying "oh I'm sorry, what can I help you with"?

Whether or not calling a Dem's office will change anyone's mind could be debatable, but it doe's seem the phone calls are having an effect on their staffer's.

tkdguy is right....keep it up

 

[tkdguy]

I just received an email form Rep. Post who receives my emails to the entire House. He assures me all Repubs are on board BUT A PERSONAL EMAIL TO YOUR RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVE IS MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE. I WILL FOLLOW-UP WITH MORE INDIVIDUALIZED EMAILS. TKDGUY

 

[diagoras]

OFF alert out on contacting "vulnerable" DemonRats:
http://www.oregonfirearms.org/we-are-very-close
There is contact information for them down the page.

At this point, it's probably pointless to argue the content of the bill. They've already heard all the arguments - they just need to be convinced that there will be "Unintended Consequences" if they vote for it, no matter what.

My suggestion is, don't make threats - make promises. Don't threaten a recall, promise that if one occurs you will support it in every way you can and work to defeat anyone who votes for this abomination *no matter whether it passes or fails*.

 

[Mikej]

OFF alert out on contacting "vulnerable" DemonRats:
http://www.oregonfirearms.org/we-are-very-close
There is contact information for them down the page.

At this point, it's probably pointless to argue the content of the bill. They've already heard all the arguments - they just need to be convinced that there will be "Unintended Consequences" if they vote for it, no matter what.

My suggestion is, don't make threats - make promises. Don't threaten a recall, promise that if one occurs you will support it in every way you can and work to defeat anyone who votes for this abomination *no matter whether it passes or fails*.

Recall, in PDX? Suuuure.

I didn't make a threat in my letter. I made a promise. When this law goes into affect I'm changing affiliation to republican! I can't say for sure how I'll vote in national elections, but local elections no Democrat will get my vote!

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Oregon's Only No Compromise Gun Rights Organization
.
04.27.15



The email we just sent out had the wrong address for Brent Barton. The corrected address is below

Rep Brent Barton 503-986-1440 [email protected]



Rep Deborah Boone 503-986-1432 [email protected]


Rep Brian Clem 503-986-1421 [email protected]

Rep Betty Komp 503-986-1422 [email protected]

Rep Caddy McKeown 503-986-1409 [email protected]



Please Act Now.

 

[Jim Colvill]

Recall, in PDX? Suuuure.

I didn't make a threat in my letter. I made a promise. When this law goes into affect I'm changing affiliation to republican! I can't say for sure how I'll vote in national elections, but local elections no Democrat will get my vote!

I would think staying a registered D would be more effective during the primaries. I know that is my plan.

 

[diagoras]

"emergency clause"...Kind of like "executive order". (or sign it quick before it's challenged).

Reminds me of Nancy Pelosi on Christmas Eve with the 'bamacare' vote.

I still think a picket line at Kate's house would be in order. The time for "good manners" is over.

Here, try THIS!

https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/campaign-contribution-information.196250/#post-1262574

I just called my cockroach again and it was FUN! Scared the bejeezis out of 'em!

 

[etrain16]

I can't find any word about when this will actually go to the floor - it's not on the state legislative site. I'm only hearing speculation from sources like OFF. Anyone heard anything different? I'm going to be at the capitol on Thursday and if it hasn't gone to the floor yet, I want to see my rep in person before this vote happens.

 

[Jim Colvill]

Not directly firearms related but a side effect of statements made during 941 discussion
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/senaterepublicans/Documents/042815 Senate Republicans Call to Censure Senator Chuck Riley.pdf






Oregon Senate Republican Office | 900 Court Street
NE | Salem, OR
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 28, 2015
Contact: Caitie Butler
(503) 986-1955
(503) 680-6944
Senate Republicans Call to Censure Senator Chuck Riley
Call Senator Riley's statement conceding slavery "was right for the time" unacceptable

Salem, OR - Today, Senate Republicans called upon the Oregon Senate to immediately
censure State Senator Chuck Riley (D-Hillsboro) following offensive comments he made at a
constituent meeting on April 25, 2015. Under pressure to defend his stance on gun rights to
constituents in attendance, Senator Riley responded to a question regarding the Supreme
Court's decision to uphold slavery in the nineteenth century by saying, "They were right for the
time."
"As President Lincoln said, 'If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong,'" said Senator Jackie
Winters (R-Salem). "It is unacceptable to treat slavery as a distant memory when hundreds of
thousands of women and children are enslaved in human trafficking worldwide and racial
tensions still erupt in communities across America.Senator Riley's constituents deserve better
and he should be held accountable."The constituent coffee came shortly after Riley vot
ed to limit the Second Amendment rights ofOregonians. In 2014, Everytown for Gun Safety, a national organization promoting tighter gun
laws, contributed $75,000 to Riley's election campaign. Senate Republicans noted that
multiple out-of-state special interests, including environmental radicals and gun control
activists, funded a significant portion of Riley's Senate race.
"The Senate cannot allow offensive, irresponsible comments made by one of our members,"
said Senate Republican Leader Ted Ferrioli (R-John Day). "The Senate must take swift action
to let Oregonians know they can expect better from their elected officials. We hope that our
colleagues across the aisle will join us in upholding the standard of decorum that has long
defined the character of the Oregon Senate. Silence from Senate leadership on this matter is
unacceptable."
###
www.oregonlegislature.gov/senaterepublicans
facebook.com/ORSenateRepublicans
@ORSenateGOP

 

[ob1]

Not that I anticipated much more more than this canned response from my District representative, Rob Nosse...here it is:



Thanks so much for writing to me. I know this is an important issue with passionate advocates on both sides, and I spent a lot of time on it before making a decision.


I first began studying this in depth when a few groups of constituents requested to meet with me in person urging me to support this type of bill. I also received a number of handwritten letters urging me to support it, and had folks at my church do the same. I wasn't sure what my personal position was, but several things I learned had an impact on me.


First, the support this policy received from prominent public safety officials in Portland meant a lot to me. Lt. Wendi Steinbronn, President of the Portland Police Commanding Officers Association testified that we in the Legislature "…have the opportunity to help reduce crime and save lives by passing criminal background checks on all gun sales. Nothing can stop all gun violence, but background checks are proven to help prevent crime and save lives. In states with background checks on all handgun sales, 48% fewer law enforcement officers are killed with handguns in the line of duty."


Mike Reese, Former Portland Police Chief, testified as well, saying that "I believe one of the best ways to make sure that a person buying a gun, has a legal right to own a gun, is with a simple, straightforward background check. Current law rightfully prohibits certain dangerous people from having guns, such as felons, domestic abusers, and people with severe mental illness. Background checks, combined with rigorous enforcement, are the surest way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But right now it is far too easy in Oregon for a prohibited person to avoid a background check by simply buying a gun from an unlicensed seller."


These are experts in public safety in my district, and I trust their years of experience. This, combined with the fact that over half the Oregon public safety officers shot to death from 1980 to 2014 were killed by people prohibited from possessing firearms and the fact that in states with background checks on all handgun sales, 48% fewer law enforcement officers are killed with handguns in the line of duty (as stated by Lt. Steinbronn) meant a great deal to me.


Secondly, as I researched the issue it appears that it is growing. In under 2 years, the online market of guns available without a background check grew almost sevenfold. Additionally, a national investigation from 2013 indicated that 1/30 of those using this market had prohibiting criminal records which would prohibit them from owning a gun. Nearby, in Washington state, an investigation showed nearly 1 in 10 people who have want-to-buy ads on the site Armslist have criminal records which would prohibit them from having a firearm.


Third, the sponsors of the bill worked to address several concerns I had heard about it. SB 941 has clear exemptions for hunting, trapping and target shooting, firearms safety or training courses, for self-defense, and other situations the transferee and the firearm are in the presence of the transferor. Simply handing someone a firearm is not a transfer and does not require a background check.


Lastly, the calls, letters & personal requests from constituents urging me to support this bill meant a great deal to me. I believe SB 941 will help reduce crime and save lives by passing criminal background checks on all gun sales. Local public safety officials testified that it is the single most effective thing we can do to keep guns out of dangerous hands and the Oregonian newspaper reported that it is supported by 81% of Oregonians.


I believe this is a common-sense measure which will help keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, domestic abusers and people with severe mental illnesses—by closing the loophole in Oregon's law that allows these dangerous people to get guns without a background check, no questions asked.


I hope this helps explain why I've chosen to vote for SB 941. I know we may still disagree, but I hope you will stay in touch. Myself or my staff is happy to talk about any questions or concerns you have anytime.


Thanks again for writing to me & please stay in touch,


- Rob
And my reply...........................
Mr Nosse

I must say your response is exactly as anticipated, canned and full of quotes from higher ranking law enforcement officials. It has been the tactic that politicians such as yourself have used for decades. The obvious problem with this is that these people are invariably close to the political flame and must repeat the party line. Those who do not, risk their careers from their political masters.


If you were really concerned with the opinions of law enforcement, you would have talked with the rank and file police officer, not pseudo-politician police administrators. The street officer will give you a very different perspective from those who you quote. Strangely absent in your response is any of the opinions of local sheriff's, those who are directly answerable to the voting citizenry, not the politician. I am sure you are aware of recent comments coming from these individuals regarding this bill. Perhaps some day in the future, you too will come to the realization of who you are actually answerable to.

With an increasing sense of determination and disgust

 

[U201491]

The irony is almost every post in the classified section here asks for CHL, CCL, or we go through a background check. So how many here are truly against this? Isn't a CHL more stringent than a background check for a private sale?

It is A big difference between voluntary and forced. One is tyranny and the other is self responsibility.

 

[etrain16]

BTW @ob1, the 'like' above is for your response, not for that waste of space politician's poor reply.

I also noted, going through my rep, Brent Barton's list of contributors that your guy Nosse, contributed to Barton's campaign. No wonder he is willing to ignore his constituents and suck up to his political contributors.

 

[ob1]

BTW @ob1, the 'like' above is for your response, not for that waste of space politician's poor reply.

I also noted, going through my rep, Brent Barton's list of contributors that your guy Nosse, contributed to Barton's campaign. No wonder he is willing to ignore his constituents and suck up to his political contributors.

Sure......scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.....and it's tax deductible !

 

[WAYNO]

I also noted, going through my rep, Brent Barton's list of contributors that your guy Nosse, contributed to Barton's campaign. No wonder he is willing to ignore his constituents and suck up to his political contributors.

I tried visiting Brent Barton in person a while back. He was not in, or that's what he told the dweeb at the outside desk to say. Anyway, I went thru my presentation with the dweeb, asking that he share my message with the Representative. The dweeb was already on the anti-page, and just plain didn't want to listen to me. Not only will I continue to not vote for Brent Barton, I will actively work against his campaign.

WAYNO.

 

[etrain16]

I tried visiting Brent Barton in person a while back. He was not in, or that's what he told the dweeb at the outside desk to say. Anyway, I went thru my presentation with the dweeb, asking that he share my message with the Representative. The dweeb was already on the anti-page, and just plain didn't want to listen to me. Not only will I continue to not vote for Brent Barton, I will actively work against his campaign.

WAYNO.

You and me both