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

[tkdguy]

May 2013 Report from DOJ: "Firearm Violence, 1993-2011". Findings: Firearm-related Murders down 39 % since 1993, also see page 1 highlights item 10: In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gn at the time of the offense, less than 2% bought ther firearm at a flea market or gun show and 40 % obtained their firearm from an illegal source.

Firearm Violence, 1993-2011. bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

 

[boarder4life81]

I just copied and pasted the message using my regular e-mail. We'll see if that works. Funny thing is I used the automailer to send the message to my Senator (Chris Edwards) and it appears to have went through fine.

 

[boarder4life81]

That's where I found 5 of the original 6 I emailed with the automailer. It appears the one sent to Chris Edwards made it through as I did not/have not received any notice of failed delivery. I emailed all 6 on either Friday or Saturday (crazy couple of days and I don't remember which).

 

[capdek]

My wife and I have been hammering this bill on it's registration elements which have nothing to do with checking the background of a potential buyer but are obviously the real reason for this bill.

However, we also wanted to make sure the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee see clearly that the background check elements of SB 1551 are pretty useless as well, and so we sent them the following email. We think it succinctly drives home the complete absurdity of this bill.


Hello,

Certain politicians claim that SB 1551 is solely intended to stop the transfer of firearms to prohibited persons.

Let's consider that in light of the following realistic scenarios.

Scenario 1:
Jack and John are law-abiding citizens. Jack owns a lever-action .22 caliber rifle. John owns a farm and discovers a skunk has been raiding his chicken coop. Jack visits John one weekend and John mentions the skunk problem. Jack offers to lend John his rifle to take care of the skunk problem.

Scenario 2:
Bill and Bob are criminal drug dealers. Bill has a stolen lever-action .22 caliber rifle. Bob is out of drugs and needs to rob a convenience store to get money for drugs. Bill visits Bob one weekend and Bob mentions the planned robbery. Bill offers to lend Bob his rifle to help with the robbery.

Before SB 1551 becomes law...

Scenario 1:
John borrows Jack's rifle. A few days later, John uses the rifle to shoot the skunk raiding his chicken coop. A week later, Jack visits John and John says he got rid of the skunk, and so John returns the rifle to Jack.

Scenario 2:
Bob borrows Bill's rifle. A few days later, Bob uses the rifle to rob a convenience store. A week later, Bill visits Bob and Bob says he got away with robbing the convenience store, and so Bob returns the rifle to Bill.

After SB 1551 becomes law...

Scenario 1:
Jack and John decide that the insanity of Jack having to do a SB 1551 background check on John to lend him the rifle along with the added insanity of John having to do a SB 1551 background check on Jack when he returns the rifle makes lending the rifle too problematic, and so Jack and John decide it would be better if John found some other way to handle his skunk problem.

Scenario 2:
Bob borrows Bill's rifle. A few days later, Bob uses the rifle to rob a convenience store. A week later, Bill visits Bob and Bob says he got away with robbing the convenience store, and so Bob returns the rifle to Bill.

And now please tell us again what transfer was actually stopped by SB 1551?

 

[Audrey]

Reply today from Boquist's rep:

Audrey,

Thank you for your email regarding now what is SB 1551. As I cannot speak for the Senator or tell you how he will vote on any bill as it is illegal for me to do so, but I can say he is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. He does believe that the issue might not be gun control but a flawed mental health system that need a lot of work. The bill probably will not come out of the committee in its current form. We are watching all committees very closely as this is a short session and do not want any bill to be muscled through for passage.

Can I file your email in the bill folder for the Senator's review as is? Or would you like to expand on your opinion on the bill for the Senator to review?


-Ashten Rich-
Legislative Assistant to
Senator Brian Boquist (R)
900 Court Street NE , S- 305
Salem, Oregon 97301
503-986-1712
[email protected]

 

[U201491]

I just slammed the entire list as you never know what influence some have on others.
This one was fairly interesting.
Keep the pressure on all members of the State legislators, both reps and senators.
Most responses if any are canned, but the comment here Is good to see.
even if they are not on the rules or judicial committees send a letter to them all.

On Feb 3, 2014 3:27 PM, "Rep Barker" wrote:

Thank you for your email.

I am opposed to any new restrictions on law abiding gun owners, including expanding background checks. As both a retired cop with 31 years in law enforcement and a Democrat, I frequently remind my legislative colleagues that law abiding gun owners pose no threat to public safety.

Thanks again for your email and please feel free to contact me again on this or any other issue.

Jeff Barker

 

[bnsaibum]

I received several Senate Judiciary Committee alerts by email and not one mentions SB 1551 that is supposed to take place on Thursday. It seems someone is playing games. Anyone receive an update from Ceasefire? I signed up a while back, but haven't had an email from them yet.

 

[bnsaibum]

New OFF Facebook update

 

[U201491]

I received several Senate Judiciary Committee alerts by email and not one mentions SB 1551 that is supposed to take place on Thursday. It seems someone is playing games. Anyone receive an update from Ceasefire? I signed up a while back, but haven't had an email from them yet.

Yeah I think about 20 came in today same story here. Busy lil ____
Aren't they. :-/

 

[bnsaibum]

tiggers97 came up with an EXCELLENT parallel that should be used in emails.
http://www.northwestfirearms.com/legal-political/161692-demand-better-sen-floyd-prozanski.html#post1052205

 

[pokerace]

here it is just got an email note room change.


Feb. 6 room HR 50 8:00AM

invited testimony

public testimony

 

[bnsaibum]

Too strong, or not strong enough? I put "78% of Oregonians agree with SB 1551" in the subject line to give it a better chance of being read.

Senator Prozanski,

I am contacting you as an Oregon resident to tell you to be mindful of which bills you put forth and support. The highly biased, leading and flawed poll by Public Policy Polling shows that Oregonians support your travesty of a bill. Are you aware that the same company did a similar poll in Colorado and found similar results with PPP reporting that 73% of Colorado residents supported background checks for private sales? How did that end up for 3 of the bills supporters? In many respects Oregon and Colorado are similar. Both have citizens who are responsible, independent and thoughtful, both have one major city, a few medium sized cities and many smaller towns, and both have State governments lead by Democrats.

As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, I am told that it is not illegal for you to tell anyone, including your supporters, of your plans to hear any particular bill before you tell the rest of the committee, but it is HIGHLY unethical to say the very least. You disgrace the political institutions of this great state by following these base behaviors. While I do not believe that the Democratic Party endorses these types of actions, their silence does point to complicity. If your bill cannot stand on its own merit in the light of day it should NOT be heard or considered in the first place.

I will send the same to Roblan and Dembrow. I think Roblan may be the most receptive to this and susceptible to consequences. I could be wrong as I don't know a whole lot about him or his district.

I am contacting you as an Oregon resident to tell you to be mindful of which bills you support. The highly biased, leading and flawed poll by Public Policy Polling shows that Oregonians supposedly support the policies that are in SB 1551 which is a travesty of a bill. Are you aware that the same company did a similar poll in Colorado and found similar results with PPP reporting that 73% of Colorado residents supported background checks for private sales? How did that end up for 3 of the bills supporters? In many respects Oregon and Colorado are similar. Both have citizens who are responsible, independent and thoughtful, both have one major city, a few medium sized cities and many smaller towns, and both have State governments lead by Democrats.

I am told that it is not illegal for the Chair to tell anyone, including his supporters, of his plans to hear any particular bill before he tells the rest of the committee, but it is HIGHLY unethical to say the very least. He disgraces the political institutions of this great state by following these base behaviors. While I do not believe that the Democratic Party endorses these types of actions, their silence does point to complicity. If his bill cannot stand on its own merit in the light of day it should NOT be heard or considered in the first place.

 

[RicInOR]

Did someone mention this bill is racist?

Page 1, line 22
(c) The name, date of birth, race, sex and address of the recipient;

Why would the Senate need the race of the person, unless the Senate would need to restrict sales to some race?

 

[tkdguy]

Closing deadline for Written Testimony is 5 pm TODAY. Please send in additional emails to [email protected] and see the details required above. I have sent in about 7 detailed and documented emails within the last 4 days. Please fire more emails. Thanks. tkdguy

 

[Steve M]

I got a reply from a staff member of Senator Hass regarding my most recent e-mail claiming that SB-1551 serves no purpose but gun registration.

The reason for noting the gun's information is to be able to trace it to the owner in the event of a crime.

Oh that's much better, they're only noting the info and not "entering information about something in a book or system of public records" which is the definition of registration.

 

[bnsaibum]

A version of the 'it's for your own good' ploy

 

[bnsaibum]

SB 1551 will be in a work session Wed. Feb 12 at 8 am with the possibility of being moved to <broken link removed> .

 

[tiggers97]

The reason for noting the gun's information is to be able to trace it to the owner in the event of a crime

The first question back to them should be "so then if my gun is stolen, and it gets recovered a year later, then I can get my gun back?" (play naive first !)

If they respond "YES"; Oh, ok. So how can they do that if they only hold onto the information for 10 days?

 

[Steve M]

Here is my latest e-mail letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Hass:

Senator <name>,

The Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report in 2001 detailing where inmates obtained the firearm they used in their crime.[1]

Purchased from a retail outlet 13.9 percent
Obtained friends or family 39.6 percent
Got on the street/illegal 39.2 percent

Of the 39.6% obtained from friends or family only 12.8% were purchases or trades that constitute a “transfer”. If we assume half were from friends and therefore subject to a SB 1551 background check then the most that SB 1551 could ever hope to do is shift 6.4% of gun purchases by violent criminals from private parties to other sources. Note that nearly 14% could have purchased from a retail store and passed a background check so the number drops to a maximum of 5.5%. If we read further in the report we might conclude that the 1994 Brady Bill caused retail outlets as a source to drop from nearly 21% to about 14%, or a 33% decrease. Therefore a reasonable estimate is that 1.8% of criminals attempting to buy a gun will be halted by SB 1551 and forced to shop elsewhere.

The cost of SB 1551? The registering the guns of 100% of law-abiding citizens and forcing them to seek government approval to exercise their Constitutional rights.


Sincerely,
<my name>
<my address>

[1] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

 

[01rednavigator]

SB 1551 will be in a work session Wed. Feb 12 at 8 am with the possibility of being moved to <broken link removed> .

Is the public allowed to attend this one?