Oregon Antis One-Up the Rest _ Merged Threads

I wrote out a quick letter in response to this, feel free to use/modify if you wish. Also, let me know if I need to edit anything, I'll send it after my shift.

Dear Senator,

I am writing to you to let you know that I strongly oppose any further restrictions on Oregonians' Second Amendment Rights.

As one of your constituents, I am asking you to vote against the following legislation:

- SB 699:
This bill makes the state capitol building a gun-free zone. Gun-free zones did not work in the Aurora, Sandy-Hook, or Clackamas Mall shootings, and will only punish law-abiding citizens. As well as creating a place full of unarmed targets for further tragedy.

- SB 758:
Requires gun owners to purchase liability insurance. Again, this only punishes the truly law-abiding as criminals will definitely NOT buy said insurance. It also creates a class right, meaning the poor will not be able to exercise the same right to self defense as a wealthier person.

- SB 760:
Modifies ORS 161.225 requiring that a homeowner attempts to retreat when confronted with a life-threatening situation. On the surface, this seems like a good idea, after all human life is extremely precious. And I wholeheartedly agree that if a person can avoid taking another person's life, without risking their own, they should do so. HOWEVER, forcing someone to retreat from their HOME is both extremely dangerous and impossible in many situations. When an intruder is in the home, Police and experts recommend that the homeowner stay put or "fortify" a room while calling the police. Forcing a homeowner and his/her family to retreat into an unknown situation (i.e. dark house/yard full unknown number assailants) is expressly NOT recommended by any and every expert on the subject. This law will place the lives the criminals over those of the victims.

- SB 796:
Requires a firing range test in order to get a concealed handgun license. This is redundant as an applicant is already required to demonstrate "competence with a handgun" under ORS 166.291. After reading the bill in question (SB 796), I can see no purpose for it except to create more hurdles and make the system fiscally onerous.

I strongly oppose these bills and will do all in my power to support those who vote against them. Oregon gun owners have an outstanding track record for being law-abiding citizens and do not deserve to be punished for the actions of criminals.

Regards,
Click to expand...
 
Good job Oregonians! Your letters and phone calls are having an effect, several of the signers of HB 3200 are backing off.

This is a letter from the Democratic Whip and sponsor of the bill:

Thank you for writing me with your thoughts on House Bill 3200. I understand your passion for the issue and appreciate your perspective. I signed on to the bill because I'm hearing considerable interest from my constituents in reducing gun violence. Since then, you and others have pointed out valid concerns with a number of specific provisions of the bill. I cannot see myself supporting the bill in its current form, but I am glad that its introduction has stimulated discussion. My hope is that we will be able to come together on smart policies that keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, while respecting the second amendment rights of law abiding Oregonians. Increased background checks and an increased commitment to mental health care are among the things I think we should consider. I welcome your thoughts, and will keep them in mind as the session progresses. Please keep in touch.

Best, Tobias Read

P.S. I have taken the liberty of adding you to our electronic newsletter. We send out updates on our district and our work from time to time. Please let us know if you'd like to be removed.

Representative Tobias Read, HD 27 Democratic Whip 900 Court Street NE, H 286 Salem, OR 97301 Capitol: 503.986.1427 District: 503.641.6800 Rep.tobiasread@state.or.us http://www.leg.state.or.us/read/
Click to expand...
 
This is what I just sent the 20 sponsors/co-sponsors, (i.e. morons) of H.B. 3200.

Good Morning,

Can you explain to me how House Bill 3200 doesn't violate Article IV of the Bill of Rights? Let me refresh your memory.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Would you freely allow access to your home for inspections by law enforcement or others for any reason?
Would you freely allow the confiscation of your private property?

If your answer is yes you are violating your oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter so help me god."

I find this bill not only extraordinary in it's scope but it sets a dangerous precedent. No sane man can proclaim that this and other current legislation isn't about making firearms possession as onerous and restrictive as possible. That the inherent intent of these laws is to register and confiscate private property is without question. This legislation is outrageous in the extreme.

"As the patriots of 1776 did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and laws let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor. Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children's liberty..." --- Abraham Lincoln

I await your response.


Cordially,
 
Dear Senator,

I am writing to you to let you know that I strongly oppose any further restrictions on Oregonians' Second Amendment Rights.

As one of your constituents, I am asking you to vote against the following legislation:

- SB 699:
This bill makes the state capitol building a gun-free zone. Gun-free zones did not work in the Aurora, Sandy-Hook, or Clackamas Mall shootings, and will only punish law-abiding citizens. In addition, this creates a location full of unarmed targets for further tragedy.

- SB 758:
This bill requires gun owners to purchase liability insurance. Again, this only punishes the truly law-abiding as criminals will definitely NOT buy said insurance. It also creates a class right, meaning the middle and lower classes will not be able to exercise the same right to self defense as a wealthier person.

- SB 760:
This bill modifies ORS 161.225 requiring that a homeowner attempts to retreat when confronted with a life-threatening situation. On the surface, this seems like a good idea because, after all, human life is extremely precious. I wholeheartedly agree that if a person can avoid taking another person's life, without risking their own, they should do so; HOWEVER, forcing someone to retreat from their HOME is both extremely dangerous and impossible in many situations. When an intruder is in the home, Police and experts recommend that the homeowner stay put or "fortify" a room while calling the police. Forcing a homeowner and his/her family to retreat into an unknown situation (i.e. dark house/yard full unknown number assailants) is expressly NOT recommended by any and every expert on the subject. This law will place the lives the criminals over those of the victims.

- SB 796:
Requires a firing range test in order to get a concealed handgun license. This is redundant as an applicant is already required to demonstrate "competence with a handgun" under ORS 166.291. After reading the bill in question (SB 796), I can see no purpose for it except to create more hurdles and make the system fiscally onerous.

I strongly oppose these bills and will do all in my power to support those who vote against them. Oregon gun owners have an outstanding track record for being law-abiding citizens and do not deserve to be punished for the actions of criminals.

Regards,
Click to expand...

See my suggested changes in red to improve grammar, syntax, and flow.

Just my opinions, others may feel free to edit as needed.
 
Over reaching laws

Maybe I'm missing something, but I just can't see why any police forces are seemingly OK with all these over-reaching laws which I hear are being proposed in various anti gun states, and even the Federal gov't.
From bans on sale of hi capacity magazines and semi automatic weapons to outright confiscation of guns, it seems to me that passage of these extreme restrictions would suddenly make the currently law-abiding gun owners into enemies of the state, by changing the rules mid-game.

All the gun owners I know are currently on the same side as the police, and we're opposed to the same 'bad guys', namely those who break the current set of laws we have in place.

But passage of these new restrictions would suddenly create thousands more 'criminals' needing to be brought to the new level of 'justice'.

I just can't see why police departments are OK with this.
 
^A lot of Oregon Sheriffs aren't OK with it.

In case anybody missed the latest, there are three new bills to look at:

House Bill 3114 gives colleges and universities the right to ban CHL holders from their property. In order to see the actual ban language you must scroll all the way to page 65 of this 66 page bill. This bill is a response to our successful lawsuit against the Oregon University System. On the other hand, House Bill 3009 does the exact opposite, specifically granting CHL holders the right to be there.

House Bill 3412 “Establishes Task Force on Reducing Gun Violence.” What a waste of time and money. As though the “task force” is going to learn anything new.

House Bill 3413 creates mandatory lock up laws for your firearms. If you’re not home and your 17 year old daughter uses one of your guns to defend herself against a home invader you can spend a year in jail and pay a fine of $6250.00.
Click to expand...

The article can be found here: http://www.oregonfirearms.org/even-more-anti-gun-bills

Things are looking good otherwise, with our two gun-friendly Democrats, we will have the majority in the Senate. Please email/call Senator Roblan (http://www.leg.state.or.us/roblan/) to encourage him as he is waffling under the pressure.


You can contact your legislators on these new bills here: http://www.leg.state.or.us/writelegsltr/
 
^A lot of Oregon Sheriffs aren't OK with it.
Click to expand...

Well, that doesn't always matter.
On the front page of today's paper is a local Sheriff and his deputies testifying in committee against silly gun laws in Colorado. Guess what happened next in the committee vote? Next we go to a senate vote.

Keep fighting for sense, Oregon.
 
Response from Floyd Prozanski, chair of the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee

A bit late in coming, but interesting; he seems to be riding the fence on the validity of an AWB, but prefers to leave that up to Congress.

Thank you for your e-mail pertaining to HB 3200. I would like to set the record straight. HB 3200 was proposed in the House by Rep. Mitch Greenlick and I do not support it. As I have previously stated, if an assault weapons ban or high capacity magazine ban is to move forward this year, I believe it should be addressed in Congress. Accordingly, I do not plan on taking up any such legislation this session. I also understand that Chair Jeff Barker does not plan on hearing HB 3200 in the House Judiciary Committee. So it should be dead!

I am a supporter of both the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution. As a gun owner for over 40 years (I bought my first gun when I was 15 years old), I believe an individual has the right to use a firearm to for self-defense and the defense of others. At the same time, I believe Congress and the states have the authority to establish reasonable regulations on firearms.

Thank you for your views on this issue. I look forward to an open discussion on your concerns and greatly value your input when making these kinds of decisions.

Floyd Prozanski
Senate Judiciary Chair
Click to expand...
 
Folks, I merged the two Oregon threads.

Good luck! Lived in OR for a third of my life and don't want to see gun rights go down the drain there.

Glenn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top