Very good news on CHL bills in Oregon Senate

by In the news Thursday, March 1. 2012

by NW Spotlight

Update on two bills related to Concealed Hangun License (CHL) holders

HB 4045 (CHL privacy) passed out of the Senate today. This bill strengthens the protection of the confidential information that CHL applicants are required to provide in order to obtain their licenses.

SB 1594, a bad bill that would have taken away rights of CHL holders to legally carry on school grounds/college campuses, failed in a 14-15 vote. All CHL holders already must be at least 21 years old and must pass an FBI background check.

No Senate Republicans voted for the bad bill, SB 1594, the bill that would have taken away rights of CHL holders to legally carry on school grounds/college campuses. This was good news because there were some concerns that some might cave. Two Democrats also voted against the bad bill: Sen. Betsy Johnson and Sen. Joanne Verger.

Thanks for all your calls and emails calling for our legislature to do the right thing!

This report is based on an update provided by Kevin Starrett

Update: The NRA has an update on today’s good news. It reminds everyone to please contact Governor Kitzhaber to urge him to sign HB 4045 (CHL privacy) now that is has passed the House and the Senate:

Please contact Governor John Kitzhaber and respectfully request that he sign House Bill 4045 into law. You can contact Governor Kitzhaber by calling (503) 378-4582 and by e-mailing him through the online form found here.

Related posts:

Posted by In the news at 01:06 | Posted in 2nd Amendment, Oregon Senate | 20 Comments |

Email This Post |

Print This Post

Back to Home Page

Lori

Sweet for once they did the right thing!!!
Rupert in Springfield

Just got the notice of SB 1594 failing. The fact that the vote was as close as it turned out is a little scary, but the end result is good news for everyone!

Obviously there are 14 Oregonians that would prefer our schools be free fire zones, for those of us who prefer things a little safer this is one thing the legislature got right!
The Bill Post Radio Show

I want to thank the 1000′s of folks who cared enough to call or email all of the state senators! They did it! My sources at the capital tell me that the Dems were under an immense amount of pressure from their constituents. Thank you to Sen. Betsy Johnston and Sen. Joanne Verger for standing with their GOP colleagues in defeating this ridiculous intrusion by the government into our private lives.
Sen. Peter Courtney is in very serious trouble in his district soon.
Ardbeg

1594 was badly written and not going to have the result the sponsors wanted. Big thanks to Rep Thatcher!!! So if 1594 had passed I could no longer go to the Saturday market during the summer on the Park Blocks (PSU campus) to buy local products. I wonder if our representatives think these things through?

valley person

You couldn’t go there, or you couldn’t go there armed? Why would you feel the need to be armed at a farmer’s market anyway?

Ardbeg

V.P. we definitely are not ever going to agree on this one (unless I can talk you into getting you CHL I go ‘armed’ everywhere. Nothing illegal about it. Nobody ever knows, there are 150,000 others in Oregon like me who do just the same. I don’t feel the need to justify to anyone why I do something perfectly legal, I just do. My problem with Courtneys bill is I don’t believe the government should limit the rights of citizens who are doing something legal. Reasonable “limitations” are fine. The limitations on chl holders are they have to get a background check and take a firearm safety class. I would not be opposed to a ‘proficiency’ test as well. As I stated on another thread I’m equally (actually much more) discussed with republicans who, because they can’t overturn Roe v. Wade, try to subvert the law by passing all these ridiculous restrictions. Invasive ultrasounds!? Really!? I’d be embarrassed to even bring one of these bill to the floor. To me, Courtney’s bill was similar. If you don’t believe law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry then get a bill past the House, the Senate, the Executive Branch and pass Judicial review. Then it will be law. Until then, chl is the law of the land and I don’t appreciate people trying to subvert it.

valley person

Concealed Carry is not a constitutional right, so if a state decides its illegal to bring a loaded weapon into a particular public location, then it isn’t legal. You seem to be asserting a legal right to do something illegal.

Ardbeg

It’s not a ‘right’? Maybe? But it is the law! We can debate the 2nd amendment later. If someone can overturn it then so be it. I would not conceal carry in Oregon if was illegal, but it’s not. Currently it is LEGAL! Is abortion a right? I’d say no but it is LEGAL! My opinion, right or wrong (but it is ‘my opinion’) is legislators should not be subverting laws with this kind of stuff. Currently women have the right, constitutional right? I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer, but under the Law they have the right to an abortion. Is it the governments roll to put unrealistic restrictions on people for things that are LEGAL!!! Notice the emphasis? I say no! You said “You seem to be asserting a legal right to do something illegal”, I’m not sure I understand that. I am doing NOTHING illegal. If you do not believe law abiding citizens should be allowed under the law to carry a concealed weapon, that is your right. And I respect it. There are about 50 states that disagree with you though.
Ramalama

The government limits the right to smoke. Would you rather the government just make tobacco illegal, as it has other drugs?

The government limits where and when you can drink alcohol. Are you opposed to the restriction against drinking alcohol while driving a motor vehicle?
Ardbeg

I never said I wasn’t in favor of reasonable limits, actually I said I agree with reasonable limits. Drinking while driving…..not reasonable. Restricting smoking to adults only?-reasonable. My opinion was the campus rule was unreasonably restrictive. Some states have no chl’s but allow open carry based on the 2nd amendment. Some states allow concealed carry with no permit, no background check and no training. I have no problem with the government legislating reasonable requirements for chl holders. Would you think it was reasonable if the government restricted alcohol to only home use? I’d be fine with that but I doubt most people or bars and restaurants would be. If you can make a case for why there should be a ‘campus’ rule I will listen. Remember some facts though: You have to be at least 21 to get a permit so most college kids cannot. No firearms are allowed in campus housing. Students don’t own their dorm room-there are restrictions like no pets, no drugs, no alcohol, no loud noise and no firearms. There is already a ‘safe school-no gun zone law’ similar to the drug law. Sell drugs within a thousand feet of a school and it’s a longer/tougher sentence. The federal law concerning guns is similar. Any firearms within a 1/2 mile of a school zone has to be unloaded and secured (locked in a rack or storage container) OR the gun carrier has to be licensed by the state. I understand when it comes to this issue there are 2 distinct sides of the fence. You may never understand ‘why’ I carry. I’m 6’5 and 240 lbs.-I don’t carry out of fear or some other delusion. I do nothing illegal and want my rights to remain as is. I don’t think that makes me a bad guy.
valley person

There is a difference between a constitutional right and a law. Where people can carry loaded weapons and where they can’t can be legislated. A woman’s right to have an abortion within the first 2 trimesters is a constitutional right, at least as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

On the issue of concealed carry, its not something I’m worked up about. But I take issue with the idea that a bunch of armed citizens, including the nearsighted, lame, old, on meds, and possibly drunk, are going to help stop crimes or shooting sprees. Cops and soldiers are well trained with weapons, and one of the things they learn is to be darn sure of who and what they are shooting at and who might be in the line of fire before they start shooting. Even with all this training they make serious mistakes and shoot the wrong people.

The few hours of gun management and training that a CWP holder gets just do not qualify them to brandish or use their guns in a public setting. Given the high incidence of gun shooting accidents, I just don’t see any up side in armed amateurs, especially those who’s motivation is fear.

And where were the citizen rambos when Gabrielle Giffords and a bunch of innocent people were shot by a madman who walked into a store and bought 30 round clips a few minutes before he started shooting? Arizona has the laxest gun laws in the nation. Where were the heroes?
Ardbeg

Unfortunate you classify all as “nearsighted, lame, old, on meds, and possibly drunk”. I resemble, I mean resent that remark! Though I’m not currently medicated. Like it or not Valley guns are not going away.
valley person

No, I don’t mean to say everyone carrying fits that description. But my point is that all I described are carrying. Case in point is my 82 year old neighbor with shaky hands and thick glasses. He carries. And a close friend who was diagnosed with bipolar well after he was well armed. He probably still carries.

I agree, guns aren’t going away. What I hope for is that someday we come to our senses and regulate firearm owners. This isn’t the wild west and we don’t need any yahoo out there who is afraid of his or her own shadow packing.
Ardbeg

Ah, some common ground. I don’t want guns in incapable hands either. Especially your bi-polar neighbor.
valley person

The bipolar guy isn’t my neighbor, the 82 year old guy is.

You would agree that keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them is “infringement” on their rights to own a gun?

Anonymous

Glad the Constitution won in Oregon. States should not have a referendum on Constitutional rights. Gun rights being taken away would be no different than states deciding 1A issues, or human rights, or any other articles of the Constitution.
In addition, the CHL types are not the ones committing crimes. If you want to look at groups that commit crimes in Oregon, I’d instead look at illegal aliens for just one example.

valley person

Its not a constitutional right to walk around armed. The Supreme Court has never interpreted the 2nd amendment in that way. Communities have a right to pass reasonable restrictions on what sort of guns you might be allowed to have, and on where you can have them.

guest

Ha! VP, you are sointanly assofftute u bereft bling ‘diot!
Ardbeg

In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit ruled in the case of Parker v District of Columbia. In the case,
the court ruled that D.C. laws that essentially prohibit the private ownership
of handguns within the District, were unconstitutional. Specifically, the
appellants, residents of D.C., were denied their 2nd Amendment rights by laws
that bar the registration of handguns by anyone except retired D.C. police
officers; that bar the carrying of a pistol without a license, even within
one’s home; and that require that lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and
disassembled unless used for “lawful recreational purposes.”

valley person

Yes, I’m familiar with this case. It made it to the Supreme Court as Heller vs DC. And in the majority opinion, Scalia was quite clear that this did not mean an absolute right to any firearm anywhere. It was about people in their homes, and specifically homes in “federal enclaves” like DC. It doesn’t apply to any states. Its the only case, I think, where the Supremes found the right to bear arms is an individual right that has nothing to do with well regulated militias. And it was narrowly decided at 5-4. Meaning it may not hold up down the road.

Within the majority opinion was this:

” Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is
not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings..”

So back to my point. You don’t have a constitutional right to being a loaded weapon onto a school campus. You may think you do, but until the Supreme Court agrees with you, you don’t.

Very good news on CHL bills in Oregon Senate

Get Email Updates:

Links of Interest

Archives

Information

Stay Tuned...

Very good news on CHL bills in Oregon Senate

Subscribe to this blog

Subscribe Via Email

Get Email Updates:

Links of Interest

Archives

Information

Stay Tuned...