Updates - IT'S SHOWTIME -SB 1551 - OFF ALERT - Floyd Prozanski's anti-rights bill

[U201491]

Oregon Firearms Federation
01.15.13


We now have the draft of Floyd Prozanski's promised anti-rights bill.

This bill is intended to expand the failed background check system to guns you give to your best friend, your great-grandson or even your cousin!

Punishment for doing this without "permission" from the State Police (who routinely delay and deny without justification) can get you a possible 5 years in the slammer and a fine of $125,000.00!

And these people call us "extremists."

The proponents of this nonsense like to brag about how many people were denied gun purchases through dealers and offer this as "proof" that the system is "working." Nowhere do they address all the people who are denied without justification. Nowhere do they address that when real prohibited persons are "denied" they simply leave the store and buy or steal guns elsewhere.

Nowhere do they address that this bill will do nothing to change that. They don't address that it is nearly unenforceable except against good people who may accidentally run afoul of this absurd mandate.

Nowhere do they address the reality that the State Police have shut down background checks altogether when their "systems were down," meaning that no transfers could take place, or the fact that all transfers could be ended by simply closing down the background check system for as long as the State Police or the politicians want.

Make no mistake, this is the bill the anti-gun militants and Michael Bloomberg want to create the list they need for confiscation. Don't believe it? Look at the news from New York where lists of guns have been used to confiscate them from the very people who OBEYED the law!

We must stop this now.

Contact info for the entire Senate Judiciary Committee is here.

Individual contact info and a sample message follow:

Senator Floyd Prozanski
Democrat - District 4 - South Lane and North Douglas Counties
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1704 District Phone: 541-342-2447
Email: [email protected]



Senator Betsy Close
Republican - District 8 - Albany
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1708
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-303, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]


Senator Michael Dembrow
Democrat - District 23 - Portland
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1723 District Phone: 503-281-0608
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-407, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]


Senator Jeff Kruse
Republican - District 1 - Roseburg
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1701 District Phone: 541-580-3276
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-315, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]


Senator Arnie Roblan
Democrat - District 5 - Coos Bay
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1705
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-417, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]

___________________________________________________________________

Dear Senator,

The current background check system for gun purchases is a total failure. Qualified buyers are often delayed and denied. I strongly urge you to reject any expansion of this failed system to private transfers.

We have seen how these policies lead to confiscations as they have in New York and now California.

Vote against any restrictions on private transfers.

Yours,

Read More

 

[Dunerunner]

My email, FWIW

Senator Prozanski,

It should be obvious to you, by looking at Chicago, that strict gun control laws are only followed by the law abiding citizen. Criminals don't buy at a gun store or from a private party, they buy from other criminals. Those transactions are never going to be able to be eliminated, tracked, controlled or restricted.

All that is accomplished by adding new laws is to further impose another hurdle for responsible firearms owners. They are ineffective in combating crime if those so inclined refuse to obey the law.

I urge you to consider the futility of further restricting those rights of firearms owners in Oregon under the guise of curtailing crime.

Sincerely,

 

[drew]

Sounds like the same trash from last year. I'd send thank you letters to Close and Kruse. Dembrow is probably a lost cause.

Roblan and Prozanski come from diverse districts and didn't enjoy massive margins in their elections. Maybe recall petitions or a fight at the ballot box will be in the future. I'd be sure to mention it in communications.

 

[bnsaibum]

Perhaps we should start cc-ing media outlets when we email the representatives. I haven't done so yet. Anyone else? Anyone see a down side to that?

 

[U201491]

Perhaps we should start cc-ing media outlets when we email the representatives. I haven't done so yet. Anyone else? Anyone see a down side to that?

I do this ALL the time. Most put you in a spam filter, but they get them anyway.
Also send to NRA,(at least 5 of their addresses) Talk radio people, OFF, GOA, OSSA, USCCA, and anyone you can muster from your email list.
It keeps the issues in front of them whether they want to see them or not. Fill the politicians mailboxes, clog their phones and never forget to thank the representatives that take our side.
NO ONE can write and call too much. Saturate them from now til hell freezes over.

 

[Lebowski]

Voicemails and emails every day. Unfortunately just having the constitution and our inherent rights as humans is not enough.

Our presence must be felt to maintain our freedoms.

 

[U201491]

01.17.14


Today the Senate Judiciary Committee held a work session on LC 154. This is Floyd Prozanski's new gun registry bill.

Well maybe it's an old gun registry bill since it is largely a copy of last year's gun registry bill.

The purpose of the "work session" was to have a vote to determine if the bill would be introduced as a "committee bill." A "committee bill" is one where the sponsor does not want to put his name on it. So instead of the gun registry bill saying "Introduced by Floyd Prozanski" it would say "Introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee." Yes, of course it's cowardly, but you know how it goes down there.

The committee is made up of three Democrats (Floyd Prozanski, Arnie Roblan, and Michael Dembrow) and two Republicans (Jeff Kruse and Betsy Close).

After Senator Jeff Kruse objected to the bill and wondered how much Michael Bloomberg's money was pushing this, Floyd decided to "set the record straight." As usual, that meant he was going to lie.

Now those of you who have been with us for a while know that Floyd will boldly lie any chance he gets. And here it is where it gets interesting.

Floyd, (reading from a prepared script) said that there was a lot of "misinformation" about the bill. When he says that, one thing is sure. It means there is some accurate info out there that he wants to lie about.

Floyd went on to say that this bill is NOT a "gun registration" bill, something he would never support!

So, just to be sure, we looked up "register." Here's what it said:

Noun:
An official list or record, for example of births, marriages, and deaths, of shipping, or of historic places.

Verb:
Enter or record on an official list or directory.

So let's review. Floyd Prozanski's background check bill requires that when you give a gun to your best friend, or your cousin, or your uncle, that the State Police record the recipient's name, address, sex, (and social security number if they choose to give it) AND the MAKE, MODEL, CALIBER and SERIAL NUMBER of the gun!

So the question is how is this NOT a registration bill?

It takes a special kind of person to lie about something so boldly. But Floyd is a special kind of person.

If history is any indication, people writing to Floyd will be told that OFF is "misinforming" people. He may throw in a few personal accusations.

Until you ask him exactly what we have "misinformed" about. And then Floyd will crawl back into his hidey-hole.

Oh, he may send out a blast email accusing OFF of "raising money" but he will NEVER tell you what we said that was "untrue."

Because he can't. Because he is ...a liar.

It's interesting to note that when Senator Kruse suggested that the bill might be motivated by Bloomberg money, Prozanski claimed that the bill was almost the same as last year's and, moments later, Democrat Dembrow said the bill was very different from last year's. Do you suppose any one of these people ever actually read them?

If they do, ask them to explain this, why can I give a gun to my nephew, but I can't give a gun to my uncle? If I give a gun to my nephew, why is it illegal for him to give it back? (Really, that's the bill.)

Kudos to Betsy Close and Jeff Kruse for saying NO to this nonsense. Of course they were outvoted by the Democrats, so the bill will be introduced without Floyd's name on it, but at least Kruse and Close are on record saying they didn't want to be associated with it.

Here's a prediction we are happy to make. No matter what happens with this bill as it moves through the process, Prozanski will tell people we are lying about it. But he won't say how.

Keep the pressure on folks.

Contact info for the entire Senate Judiciary Committee is here.
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013I1/Committees/SJUD/Overview

Individual contact info and a sample message follow:

Senator Floyd Prozanski
Democrat - District 4 - South Lane and North Douglas Counties
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1704 District Phone: 541-342-2447
Email: [email protected]



Senator Betsy Close
Republican - District 8 - Albany
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1708
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-303, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]


Senator Michael Dembrow
Democrat - District 23 - Portland
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1723 District Phone: 503-281-0608
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-407, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]


Senator Jeff Kruse
Republican - District 1 - Roseburg
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1701 District Phone: 541-580-3276
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-315, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]


Senator Arnie Roblan
Democrat - District 5 - Coos Bay
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1705
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-417, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]

__________________________________________________ _________________

Dear Senator,

It's been claimed that LC 154 is NOT a gun registration scheme. But clearly it is!

If the State Police collect and record the personal information of the recipient of the firearm AND the make, model, caliber and serial number of the gun, that IS a gun registry, period.

We have seen how these policies lead to confiscations as they have in New York and now California.

Vote against any restrictions on private transfers.

Yours,

 

[U201491]

Prozanski's radical anti gun history.
November take him down !!!!

https://www.google.com/search?as_q=...=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

And more on his ways.
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=Marxist+Prozanski+oregon&oq=Marxist+Prozanski+oregon&gs_l=serp.12...9192.23049.0.27302.16.15.1.0.0.0.471.2198.1j13j4-1.15.0....0...1c.1.32.serp..7.9.1323.kBjMhd2LTc0

 

[U201491]

Here he tried to turn the public meeting laws upside down so they could pass bills in private with no citizen knowledge.

Senator Prozanski aims to gut Oregon Public Meeting Laws | The Oregon Catalyst



A bunch of these listings in Eugene??
http://www.spokeo.com/search?q=Floyd+Prozanski,+Eugene,+OR&sao6=t104#:5758762361

 

[U201491]

Gun control: Oregon Senate panel introduces universal-background-check bill
Mobilize everyone you can.

Gun control: Oregon Senate panel introduces universal-background-check bill | OregonLive.com

 

[ZigZagZeke]

My email:

Folks,

I thought I would ask the people responsible for LC154 about something that puzzles me. You say it's not a gun registration bill, and that your purpose is make sure the wrong people don't buy guns. If that's the case, why do you collect the make, model, and serial number of every gun sold, and who bought it, their address, and so on? It seems to me that all the paperwork and all the time, money, and manpower necessary to gather all that information could be reduced greatly by issuing a driver's license, or state ID endorsement showing that this individual isn't one of those "wrong" people. Then using that ID people could buy and sell guns with the assurance that the buyer was state approved. At the very worst you could issue a separate card with such an endorsement that would need to be renewed annually. I'm really puzzled about this. It surely seems like a lot of wasted effort unless, of course, the intent is to use the information collected in some other way, like maybe the gun confiscation programs in NY and CA. But you keep assuring me that that's not the case. Please enlighten me. Why collect all that unnecessary information, only to (as you've assured us) throw it away later?

 

[U201491]

My email:

Mine was not so kind. The rest wont be either.
I reserve reason and kindness for actual humans like Close and Kruse.

 

[U201491]

BE AT THE RALLY.
THIS IS WHAT WERE FIGHTING RIGHT NOW, Plus sending a
message for any other types of intended infringements.
There is nothing including a damned football game that takes priority over this.
Be there or be silent when they come for your guns.

Oregon gun group says senator ‘lying’ about ‘registration’ bill - National gun rights | Examiner.com
<broken link removed>

 

[tiggers97]

A recent article by Oregon Catalyst lists some good arguments for opposing the latest attempt at expanding background checks:

Oregon doesn?t need to expand gun background checks | The Oregon Catalyst

 

[tkdguy]

A recent article by Oregon Catalyst lists some good arguments for opposing the latest attempt at expanding background checks:

Oregon doesn?t need to expand gun background checks | The Oregon Catalyst

Maybe those on board against LC 154 can review this very nice article.

 

[boarder4life81]

Maybe those on board against LC 154 can review this very nice article.

The problem is our government is so polar partisan that many of the democrats will simply side with their party regardless of the facts proving what a bad bill this is. I've ran into this issue with my rep. (Chris Edwards). Our best bet is to come out in sheer numbers and force to point out that anyone voting in favor of this bubblegum bill will face hostile and painful attempts at re-election from all sides of the party spectrum.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Anybody seen this? Seems Prozanski might have a chip on his shoulder and blames guns perhaps? Article didn't say if a gun was used though.




But Prozanski says attitudes are changing and that the marijuana industry is flourishing whether it's legal or not. When asked if he used pot himself, Prozanski said no.

"Not at this point. You know, I've done it in my past. Who hasn't?" Prozanski said.

The senator says part of his motivation for the vote is to hurt street dealers and the drug cartels, this after his 21-year-old sister was killed by a member of the cartels when he was in high school.

"The individual that killed her made a decision&#8211;a conscious decision&#8211;to murder her because of her knowledge of his involvement in the drug cartel," Prozanski said.

And yes, there is also a revenue motive in play. Although numbers are hard to come by, tax revenues from the sale of pot is likely to be a cozy nine figures.

"I've heard anywhere from $100 (million) to $400 million," Prozanski said.
<broken link removed>

 

[tkdguy]

Abstract of "Oregon doesn't need to expand gun background checks/The Oregon Catalyst, by Dan Lucas, January 21, 2014.

!. Oregon already has some of the most restrictive requirements in the US for gun background checks.

2. The proposed background check expansion wouldn't have prevented the recent tragedies in Clackamus or Connecticut.

3. The proposed background check expansion would create more government records, and government has demonstrated that it's not a good steward of our private information--especially gun owner's private information.

4. Oregon is not prosecuting criminals who try to buy guns--which dramatically reduces the purpose and value of background checks.

5. Oregon is not submitting mental health records like it should be--the kind that could have prevented the Virginia Tech shooting --where the shooter used a gun he bought after after passing a background check, despite being declared mentally ill two years earlier. This greatly reduces the purpose and benefit of background checks.

6. There is a better bipartisian solution: Improving mental health treatment is Oregon.

This may help arguments against LC 154

 

[Steve M]

LC 154 is now known as SB 1551 - https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2014R1/Measures/Overview/SB1551

 

[bnsaibum]

More tripe from Prozanski.
Expanding background checks is not 'playing politics': Guest opinion | OregonLive.com