SB 941 Now in House Committee

[tkdguy]

CLEVELAND CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT: GUN CONTROL NEEDED WHETHER IT WORKS OR NOT

1771
52
64


REUTERS/TAMI CHAPPELL
byAWR HAWKINS21 Apr 2015236


Cleveland's new gun law approved by city council
WEWS - Cleveland, OH





On April 20, the Cleveland City Council passed a sweeping body of gun control measures supported by Mayor Frank Jackson (D), although there is a great deal of concern about whether the measures are effective or even enforceable.
City Council President Kevin Kelley (D) made clear his belief that the effectiveness of the measures ought not become a litmus test. Rather, he asserted that the gun control should pass because it is a "reflection of [the] council's values and is good public policy."

According toCleveland.com,Kelley went so far as to admit "the legislation was not designed to stop gun violence" to begin with. Instead, he hopes it will "encourage responsible gun ownership."

Here are the myriad new gun control measures that were passed on April 20 to reflect the council's values:

• Prohibits carrying a concealed deadly weapon or handgun, unless the person is a police officer or a person who holds a license to carry a concealed weapon.
• Requires a person who sells or transfers a gun, and who is not a licensed gun dealer, to report such transactions to police
• Requires an owner to report a lost or stolen gun to police.
• Creates a gun offender registry, requiring people convicted of gun crimes to register their names with Cleveland's Safety Director.
• Prohibits the display, marking or sale of a facsimile firearm and prohibits brandishing a facsimile firearm in the presence of law enforcement or with the intent to frighten people.
• Prohibits the negligent transfer of a firearm to a felon or intoxicated person.
• Sets restrictions for firearms in the hands of minors and restricts discharging firearms in public areas, including schools, churches, cemeteries, playgrounds, and parks.
• Requires owners to safely store firearms to keep them from being stolen or out of the hands of children.

Note the gun offender registry. It will ensure that people who commit a crime with a gun, and do time, will remain under police watch and have to check in with the government once released from jail or prison. In other words, it is post-prison prison.

Note also the requirement barring any gun sales and transfers, save those about which the police are informed. Does this mean criminals and gang members will no longer sell or transfer guns without talking to police, or is it really just another law that will burden law-abiding citizens?

Cleveland Safety Director Michael McGrath is a proponent of the new gun laws, although he admitted they might not do any good. McGrath said, "But at least we're in the batter's box swinging the bat, instead of doing nothing."

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at [email protected]

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

The individuals of the majority party who serve on the Rules Committee.
That Committee will address this bill on Wednesday, April 22, 2015. You can still call and make your point of view known. Call today.

Member Representative Phil Barnhart

Chair <broken link removed>

Member Representative Rob Nosse

Member Representative Dan Rayfield

Vice-Chair Representative Barbara Smith Warner

 

[papahepcat]

If you're coming to testify, it'll be downstairs in Hearing Room 50. The folks who run hearings and stuff are putting up big signs to point people in the right direction. And the plan is to let everyone testify who wants to, regardless of how late it runs. People in the building are planning on the meeting running well into the evening, like 10pm. The meeting starts at 1, but the public testimony part starts at 3. You can start signing up to give testimony at 11:30am.

This is just my very humble opinion, but I think it's more important to submit testimony than send out emails. Emails are easy. Showing up, looking people in the eye while sharing takes more.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Email, call AND best yet, show up if at all possible. Nothing says stuff your anti-gun Bill like doing all three!

 

[PiratePast40]

To those of you who can, please do everything possible to get there and submit testimony. I'd be there if I could, but the wife had open heart surgery last week. Obvious priority is to take care of her.

 

[bolus]

Here is the excuse that Hayward's office gave me on why they ignored my request to consider the C&R FFL with SB 941

"Sen. Steiner Hayward does not sit on the committee that the bill was heard in and because of that she was not allowed to introduce amendments to the legislation and therefore we did not have the power to make the requested changes. "

See everyone? Its totally not her fault she voted for the bill

 

[Jim Colvill]

Here is the excuse that Hayward's office gave me on why they ignored my request to consider the C&R FFL with SB 941

"Sen. Steiner Hayward does not sit on the committee that the bill was heard in and because of that she was not allowed to introduce amendments to the legislation and therefore we did not have the power to make the requested changes. "

See everyone? Its totally not her fault she voted for the bill

Gee, Liz. I don't have a choice either. No vote for you.

 

[papahepcat]

There's an Amendment, A13, proposed to that would give an exception to folks with a CHL. Maybe that'll make it in at least. Here's the link to the bill in that committee:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Committees/HRULES/2015-04-22-13-00/SB941/Details

I don't know if they'll address the amendment today, or during the work session tomorrow

 

[Biped]

So, if the CHL amendment is included, then by their logic, a CHL holder should not need a background check for a dealer/FFL. If they say a CHL is good enough to waive BC for private sales it should be good enough for commercial sales. The perceived risk is the same. I say get rid of BC for CHL holders for all transactions.

 

[Arne K]

The reason that amendment's not likely to stick is because it will accomplish the opposite of what the anti's want by encouraging more people to get CHL's. The same amendment was tried and shot down in the Senate committee.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Call me crazy but I got the impression that the Panel was trying to "act" objective. Maybe they're a bit scared?
I feel they will throw gun rights people a bone or two to get on our good side.
Another barrage of calls and E-mails is in order, and make sure your Testimony is in. Just in case someone is counting for vs against.
It ain't over quite yet.

 

[Arne K]

Call me crazy but I got the impression that the Panel was trying to "act" objective. Maybe they're a bit scared?
I feel they will throw gun rights people a bone or two to get on our good side.
Another barrage of calls and E-mails is in order, and make sure your Testimony is in. Just in case someone is counting for vs against.
It ain't over quite yet.

Yes, it was very touchy-feely, we are so happy to hear your thoughts type of display. Now they can check a box on the public comment part and still vote yes on the bill. Hopefully there are some truly thoughtful members of the legislature who might have been on the fence that were paying attention.

 

[Gator Monroe]

The reason that amendment's not likely to stick is because it will accomplish the opposite of what the anti's want by encouraging more people to get CHL's. The same amendment was tried and shot down in the Senate committee.

Far Left & Left are going to really work on undermining CHL/CWP/CCW ... state by state Nationally , its really heating up so watch for MSM to start assisting them with daily stories against CHL/CCW/CWP...

 

[Asp]

I sent another email to specifically the house rules committee. Their addresses are :
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

I wrote :
SB 941 is a gross misuse of Oregonians taxpayer dollars, we can't justify reaching even deeper into the pockets of hard working Oregonians to fund the outrageous language of SB 941, it would be absolutely irresponsible and frankly dishonest to your constituents. To be responsible stewards of the purse you must enforce the laws that are currently on the books that forbid felons and those with criminal intent from possessing firearms. Without enforcing laws currently on the books there is no justification for expanding them especially when all reliable statistics show background checks on private sales are not the issue here. In all recent public shootings the murderers have either stolen the firearm from a friend or family, or they've bought the firearm from a licensed dealer PASSING a background check because up to that breaking point they have had a clean record. Passing this horrible piece of legislation will not attract the criminal element into suddenly following the law, it would incriminate them, why would a criminal sign a paper notifying the federal & state government that they are attempting to obtain a firearm illegal for them to possess, of course they won't. Can you name one mass killing where the murderer bought a firearm from a private sale and turned around and used it in the killing? Of course not because every single time they've either stolen it, or bought it legally because typically those murderers are mentally ill with a clean record until their illness gets so severe they finally snap. Please understand SB 941 is far off base and is an over reach into our privacy, our limited resources are already spread thin and I know mental health is an area our funds would be better spent. Many thousands of Oregonians enjoy their 2nd amendment freedoms daily without injury to others, please don't let the actions of so few strip so many of the freedoms our forefathers and foremothers worked so tirelessly to gain, please say NO to SB 941 Oregonians can see it for what it is, the bloomberg backed scheme to reach deeper and deeper into our pockets to line theirs, speak for liberty, and speak for Oregon and say NO to SB 941.

Thank you.

Eric W. Oregon city 97045

I wrote one too:

Please consider voting "no" on SB941.
Perhaps the house and all citizens can consider the most important thing about Oregon's sovereignty, which is freedom from outside political and business influence trying to damage Oregonians' rights.
I am a law abiding citizen who loves Oregon,
and I do not understand why people who already following the law have to walk on egg shells for "rights".
These are rights citizens are entitled to have from being a resident, native or not.

How else can I say, "No" without having my blood boil. This is SB is just trying to distract the public from the out of state corporations trying to bring in damaging coal trains, so China can have coal.

 

[shibbershabber]

We can provide all of the song and dance we want. They have made up their minds and are just going through the motions.

The sad part is, they wont be voted out. Simply because people vote for the party, not the person. Not that there is really a difference. Its Oregon. They arent going anywhere.

We need to be pumping gun friendly ballot measures. We are spending all of our time and energy on the defensive. We need to be pro-active, if for no other reason than... they are.

Our rights are under attack from all sides... the federal level, state, local... legislative and the initiative process... we HAVE to get out there more

 

[Koda]

We need to be pumping gun friendly ballot measures. We are spending all of our time and energy on the defensive. We need to be pro-active, if for no other reason than... they are.

The problem with proposing pro gun laws is the anti gun majority in the senate will amend it in the legislative process into a gun control law.
Until we start electing gun rights senators and politicians we will always be on the defensive.

 

[shibbershabber]

If we run an initiative to amend the constitution to alter the language surrounding gun rights, its a hell of a process to undo that (provided that we actually pass it), if at all.

We have nothing to lose. Otherwise you may as well trade in your guns now and take up bird watching... or move out of state. Assuming its a foregone conclusion that they will eventually succeed in whatever they want to do... save yourself the hassle and future headache and throw in the towel now!

If Lon Mabon was able to get all of the crap on the ballot that he did in this state.... we have to be able to get some gun owner protections on the ballot. Pass or fail, we need to get it out there... challenge perceptions and change the conversation.

 

[etrain16]

I think at the least, we need to create a ballot initiative after all this is done to force/demand a re-work or repeal of the 'emergency' clause. Second, since we can't remove SB 941 from law if it passes, could we not create a ballot initiative that supersedes 941 to require/allow the CHL, ODL and Class 03 FFL options they refuse to consider? That, and more recalls, of course.

Maybe we could change the law to state that once you use the emergency clause, you are ineligible for re-election, and you must be replaced with a person from the opposite party. That should stop both dems and republicans from abusing it.

 

[Koda]

I think at the least, we need to create a ballot initiative after all this is done to force/demand a re-work or repeal of the 'emergency' clause. Second, since we can't remove SB 941 from law if it passes, could we not create a ballot initiative that supersedes 941 to require/allow the CHL, ODL and Class 03 FFL options they refuse to consider? That, and more recalls, of course.

Maybe we could change the law to state that once you use the emergency clause, you are ineligible for re-election, and you must be replaced with a person from the opposite party. That should stop both dems and republicans from abusing it.

Yes,yes and yes but remember until we vote in a pro gun right majority politicians we run this risk a ballot initiative will get amended in the opposite direction. It starts with the people voting for pro gun politicians, until that happens we are on the defensive and everything we would want is a risky proposition.

 

[shibbershabber]

Whatever message we send it needs to be strong and constant.

We need to take some pages from the civil rights and gay rights movements. We have to take back our image and throw it in their faces.
We are a marginalized group, a minority... a silent majority even. We are vilified, stereotyped and pigeonholed into what the ignorant, the politicians and the media want us to look like.

We need more PR campaigns. Lets get in touch with NRA and others to spend a little coin on the offense. We need to put an ordinary soccer mom, working man face on gun ownership.
I really like that NWFA is doing these clean up events too, I think it is a good first step in getting gun owners out there.

I own guns because its fun, its an interesting hobby.
Shooting is like meditation. Its an art of patience, timing, skill and self control.
I hunt with them.
I can protect myself and my family if needed.
Recreational shooters and hunters are more in tune with nature and the environment than any Prius driving, bike-to-work fool out there.

I do not have guns because im anticipating the end of the world
I do not have guns because I want to overthrow the government
I do not intend to commit crimes with my guns
I never have committed a crime at all
I am not a racist
I am not organizing an anti-government militia
Having a gun does not make me feel more masculine
I am not overcompensating for any physical shortcomings by owning guns