Senate Judiciary Hearing 4/16/13

[Modeler]

For those who couldn't make it or watch it online....

SB 347 (Firearms in Schools): Amendments are still being written. As-proposed, it banned firearms in K-12 schools but a school district could adopt a policy to allow CHL holders to carry if they want. Amendment being proposed flips that, where CHl holders are allowed to carry on school grounds but the local school district could adopt a policy prohibiting firearms. There will be signage requirements, and violation of the policy will result in criminal trespass charges (Class A Misdemeanor).

SB 699 (Concealed carry in the Capitol and public buildings): As-proposed it required that firearms be "completely concealed", amendment was adopted to remove the word "completely".

SB 700 (Background checks): Added step-parents and step-children to the list of family members who wouldn't require a background check. Senator Dingfelder referenced Newtown and suggested that transfers between family member requirements in the bill were too loose.

SB 796 (Live-fire training for CHL): Amendments are still being written. The amendment being written removes all the live-fire training requirements, instead requires that CHL classes be conducted in-person, prohibits electronic delivery of the training (internet, etc...).

No official vote on any of these bills today; I think they have to be passed by the end of the week to be considered by the full Senate or else they will be dead. There are a whole stack of bills all over the Capitol that are up against this deadline, there was reference made to bills being rolled over to tomorrow and Thursday as-needed, as well as reference to a possible meeting Thursday evening if they still had bills that hadn't been passed yet.

That's all until tomorrow!

Read More

 

[boarder4life81]

For those who couldn't make it or watch it online....

SB 347 (Firearms in Schools): Amendments are still being written. As-proposed, it banned firearms in K-12 schools but a school district could adopt a policy to allow CHL holders to carry if they want. Amendment being proposed flips that, where CHl holders are allowed to carry on school grounds but the local school district could adopt a policy prohibiting firearms. There will be signage requirements, and violation of the policy will result in criminal trespass charges (Class A Misdemeanor).

SB 699 (Concealed carry in the Capitol and public buildings): As-proposed it required that firearms be "completely concealed", amendment was adopted to remove the word "completely".

SB 700 (Background checks): Added step-parents and step-children to the list of family members who wouldn't require a background check. Senator Dingfelder referenced Newtown and suggested that transfers between family member requirements in the bill were too loose.

SB 796 (Live-fire training for CHL): Amendments are still being written. The amendment being written removes all the live-fire training requirements, instead requires that CHL classes be conducted in-person, prohibits electronic delivery of the training (internet, etc...).

No official vote on any of these bills today; I think they have to be passed by the end of the week to be considered by the full Senate or else they will be dead. There are a whole stack of bills all over the Capitol that are up against this deadline, there was reference made to bills being rolled over to tomorrow and Thursday as-needed, as well as reference to a possible meeting Thursday evening if they still had bills that hadn't been passed yet.

That's all until tomorrow!

That was a pretty pathetic "work session". Are they attempting to use delay tactics in hopes of catching a day that pro-gun advocates aren't in attendance?

The amendments to SB 347 are coming right out of the Portland/Eugene handbooks. Currently Eugene 4j schools already threaten CHL carriers with this trespassing clause despite state law saying I can carry on a K-12 campus. Prozanski is just trying to make his current illegal practice legal.

I find it funny that they are completely abandoning the original SB 796 and trying to substitute a completely new bill in it's place. Very shady work around in an attempt to avoid a full on spectical like what they had a few weeks ago.

The wordage of "transferred" kept getting used in terms to SB 700. I still find it absurd. Based on what I heard today I couldn't "transfer" my firearm to my father-in-law without a background check. But I could transfer it to my wife who then transfers it to her father. Still no paperwork trail. It is a completely BS bill.

At this point I'd just appreciate they get the up/down vote done so we know who to start kicking out of office.

 

[Modeler]

They're not using delay tactics, the problem they're running into is that there's a deadline to get bills moved out of committee by the end of this week. So every committee in the Legislature (and there are a lot of them) is using staff (Legislative Counsel) time to try to get the amendments written and the financial impact statements completed.

As for delaying until pro-gun folks aren't in attendance? It really doesn't matter. The public hearing is over, they're going to vote how they're going to vote at this point.

I can see SB 796 passing in it's newly proposed form though.

 

[Modeler]

The Oregonlive article on today's Hearing:

Oregon legislators start work on gun bills, drop "live fire" training for concealed gun permits | OregonLive.com

An Oregon Senate committee started work Tuesday on a package of four gun bills as Senate Judiciary Chairman Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, continues to try to make them more politically palatable.
The measures were drafted in response to the Newtown, Conn., and Clackamas mall shootings last December and would tighten the state's gun laws.

Prozanski announced that he had reached an agreement to change one measure, Senate Bill 796, so that it would no longer require that applicants for concealed handgun licensees pass a firing range test. Instead, the measure would just require that applicants take a concealed handgun course from an instructor in person, instead of over the internet or by other remote means.

The committee amended a measure requiring that background checks also cover private gun transfers. Among other other things, the amendment to Senate Bill 700 specifies which family members a gun could be transferred to without a background check. There's a long list, including domestic partners.

The panel also amended a bill that prohibits concealed handgun licensees from openly carrying a firearm into a public building. Senate Bill 699 was amended so that it says only that guns must be "concealed," not "completely concealed." Prozanski said there were concerns that this could put licensees in jeopardy if someone could see the outline of a gun in his or her clothing.

The fourth measure, Senate Bill 347, would allow school districts to prohibit concealed handgun licensees from carrying their firearms onto school grounds. Prozanski plans to bring all four bills up for a vote later this week.

--Jeff Mapes​

 

[chariot13]

They're not using delay tactics, the problem they're running into is that there's a deadline to get bills moved out of committee by the end of this week. So every committee in the Legislature (and there are a lot of them) is using staff (Legislative Counsel) time to try to get the amendments written and the financial impact statements completed.

As for delaying until pro-gun folks aren't in attendance? It really doesn't matter. The public hearing is over, they're going to vote how they're going to vote at this point.

I can see SB 796 passing in it's newly proposed form though.

I wasn't aware that live fire wasn't already required? Or is it by only some counties? I had to do it when I got mine over 10 years ago. I also had to physically be there and watch the video in front of the instructor I thought. I still don't agree with it, there shouldn't be any test required prior to utilizing any right. I'm ok with the few people out there that have never fired a gun but have one that was passed down, never actually ever firing it (if they don't want to). No I don't differentiate this right in how you choose to exercise it neither, by carrying open/concealed or not carrying it at all.

 

[drew]

I wasn't aware that live fire wasn't already required? Or is it by only some counties? I had to do it when I got mine over 10 years ago. I also had to physically be there and watch the video in front of the instructor I thought. I still don't agree with it, there shouldn't be any test required prior to utilizing any right. I'm ok with the few people out there that have never fired a gun but have one that was passed down, never actually ever firing it (if they don't want to). No I don't differentiate this right in how you choose to exercise it neither, by carrying open/concealed or not carrying it at all.

Live fire is not a requirement in OR. CHL requirements are set by the state in ORS 166.291. Competence can be demonstrated through a few different sources as long as they had handgun safety as a component per ORS 166.291(1)(f).

I agree live fire shouldn't be a requirement.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Modeler Thank you for your dedication on this and keeping us informed!

 

[Ralgha]

Senator Dingfelder referenced Newtown and suggested that transfers between family member requirements in the bill were too loose.

How exactly does Dingfelder think strictly regulated family transfers would have stopped Newtown? Does she think Mom said, "here, take my guns, shoot me and then go shoot up a school"? No! He TOOK the guns. He wouldn't have been stopped by a goddamn background check, HE WOULDN'T HAVE DONE ONE ANYWAY!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus that ate your iPhone.

 

[Modeler]

Another thing to consider... whatever passes committee must pass the full Senate. The vote count shows that any gun control measures don't stand a very good chance of passing, assuming Betsy Johnson all 14 Republicans vote against the bills. Even if it does manage to pass the full Senate, it still has to make it through Jeff Barker's House Judiciary Committee.

No gun-related bills have originated in House Judiciary; I believe this to be a strategic move on Jeff Barker's part. Anything that passes House Judiciary goes next to Senate Judiciary, where they get the final say. By waiting to see what comes from the Senate, Jeff Barker maintains overall control and has the final say on what goes into the laws.

 

[osterr1999]

Well, I hope Barker can kill anything that comes his way, especially the school carry nonsense. I sometimes believe that our legislators look to hard for things to "fix" instead of focusing on the obvious problems facing our state like how do we get more employers to come here, so we can get Oregonians working again. It is simply nonsensical at best.

 

[drew]

How exactly does Dingfelder think strictly regulated family transfers would have stopped Newtown? Does he think Mom said, "here, take my guns, shoot me and then go shoot up a school.". No! He TOOK the guns. He wouldn't have been stopped by a goddamn background check, HE WOULDN'T HAVE DONE ONE ANYWAY!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus that ate your iPhone.

The lady was obviously thinking about the murder loophole that needs to be closed. How dare someone take possession of guns without going through a background check after killing the owner? There ought to be law making it illegal.

 

[Modeler]

The lady was obviously thinking about the murder loophole that needs to be closed. How dare someone take possession of guns without going through a background check after killing the owner? There ought to be law making it illegal.

I really wish I could have recorded that video... It would have made a great YouTube post.

 

[chris61182]

Modeler, thanks again for you excellent work in keeping us up to date on what's happening. Something I'm curious about is whether they've even tried to articulate a problem they're trying to solve with SB 347?

Obviously to us, it's clear as day that banning guns from schools is as completely wrong headed as it gets, but what on earth are they thinking, if you can even call it that?

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

What concerns me about SB 347 (Firearms in Schools) is the uncertainty of picking up your kids from a Gun Free School while legal Concealed Carrying or transporting unloaded firearms in your car. If I drop off my first grader before heading out to the outdoor range I have to drive on "school grounds" to make the drop off loop in front of the building. Am I violating the new law by having a locked shotgun behind the seats of my pick-up truck or by legal Concealed Carrying?

The next day I have to pick up my little guy in the middle of the day. Do I have to leave my carry gun at home or can I lock it in my car parked on school grounds? The pistol has a greater chance of getting stolen from my truck than off my person.

 

[Norm0931]

So, as an alternative you should leave it in your car in the parking lot where it has a far greater chance of being stolen and subsequently used in a crime. GENIUS!

 

[Modeler]

What concerns me about SB 347 (Firearms in Schools) is the uncertainty of picking up your kids from a Gun Free School while legal Concealed Carrying or transporting unloaded firearms in your car. If I drop off my first grader before heading out to the outdoor range I have to drive on "school grounds" to make the drop off loop in front of the building. Am I violating the new law by having a locked shotgun behind the seats of my pick-up truck or by legal Concealed Carrying?

The next day I have to pick up my little guy in the middle of the day. Do I have to leave my carry gun at home or can I lock it in my car parked on school grounds? The pistol has a greater chance of getting stolen from my truck than off my person.

Per Kevin Starrett's latest e-mail, the amendments proposed today would specifically address that issue by allowing you to carry in your car, but not in the building.

Here's the 2013 Legislative Calendar:

<broken link removed>

Dates to watch:

This coming Friday April 18th is the deadline to have all bills pass out of the first chamber work sessions. The bills that pass will then go to the Senate floor, if passed there they will go to Barker in House Judiciary. He has until May 20th to post (not have, but post) work sessions on them or they are dead. They must be passed out of second chamber work sessions by May 31st.

Next Senate Judiciary is tomorrow morning at 8:00; I plan on being there and posting from the hearing room.