Gold Supporter
- Messages
- 24,888
- Reactions
- 37,786
This could be a concern as Sen. Beyer is likely open to voting yes on this with amendments. Sen. Roblan may be in the same boat. I think we should put a laser focus on Sen. Roblan and hope he doesn't cave to a few amendments and let this get out of committee. We need to hit up Sen. Roblan with other sections of the bill we don't like and with concerns that wouldn't be easy to amend. Here is my letter to Sen. Roblan regarding the concealed carry prohibitions in public buildings:Just got this back from a staffer of Sen Beyer,
Hello "Dozer99", (no I didn't use my screen name!)
Thank you for contacting Senator Beyer to express your concerns about the potential impact of SB 978 on older firearms that do not have serial numbers. We have heard from several other groups and individuals about this issue and I believe that this will be included in the further amendments to the bill to be considered in the Senate Rules Committee. While Senator Beyer does not serve on the Rules Committee he is following this bill closely and will keep your concerns in mind should the bill come to the floor for a vote.
Thank you,
Senator Roblan, I would like to start off by saying that I understand you share some of the same concerns about this bill as I do, but my concerns may extend beyond yours so I wanted to share them with you.
The proposed law in SB 978-5 allowing local authorities to decide where we can or can't defend ourselves is dangerous and unnecessary. We have preemption law in this State for a good reason. It will be extremely difficult at best, to keep track of where we can or can't legally protect ourselves. While attempting to comply with this patchwork of places where we can and can't legally carry, many honest folks will be caught up in felony crimes for unknowingly possessing a firearm in newly prohibited or poorly marked places.
The law states that public buildings and adjacent grounds must be marked with "a sign", "visible to the public" and "identifying all locations" where concealed carry is prohibited. Is one sign going to be sufficient to warn people in buildings with multiple entrances? Will the sign be visible to people from a place where they haven't already committed a felony. If the entire grounds are excluded is the sign going to be placed at the border of the property so people don't unknowingly walk on the sidewalk (owned by public building entity) and violate the law. There are so many situations that couldn't possibly be addressed with "a sign" that this law is essentially a felony trap.
Those who conceal carry will have to leave their firearms in their vehicles much more often and that will lead to more theft of stowed firearms, false alarm calls to police when bystanders see people stowing or un-stowing their firearms. It could lead to more accidental discharges as people will likely be removing and re-holstering their firearm numerous times a day.
Worst of all it will lead to more soft targets and victims of crime including women and elderly who may in some cases be more dependent on concealed carry to defend themselves. People who work in public buildings and grounds at night will be especially vulnerable. The criminals will find that these new gun free public spaces are a variable buffet of victims.
I saw nothing that would prevent these regulations from applying to parks, campgrounds and State and County forest areas if buildings are on these grounds, publicly owned stadiums, public owned parking lots, private buildings that house public agencies, etc. The list could go on and on.
It will be a nightmare for those who conceal carry if this bill passes as written and for what?
Concealed Carry permit holders are some of the most vetted and safest citizens in the State.
Persons carrying with a concealed carry license are not a problem in need of a solution.
These regulations will not prevent any crimes but will certainly increase crime by leaving formerly protected Oregonians unprotected, caught up in felony traps and creating new opportunities for criminals.
I understand you got the message regarding my opposition to the criminalization of pre-1968 firearms but this entire bill is awful and I don't believe any amount of amendments can fix this bill.
Thank you for taking note of my concerns with this terribly destructive bill. I hope you will maintain a strong resolve and hold to voting no on SB 978-5.
Last Edited: