Sen. Peter Courtney tries to kill CHL privacy bill

by Bill Post

Shenanigans at the Oregon Senate – HB 4045 Moves On

Here we go again.

House Bill 4045, the CHL privacy bill has now been officially moved from Senate President Peter Courtney’s desk to the Rules Committee. Rep. Kim Thatcher had a good agreement with Sen. Floyd Prozanski, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, enough agreement to get some minor amendments put in that she could live with and that he would promise to move it to the floor for a vote. Instead, for whatever reason, Sen. Courtney moved it to Rules….. my suspicion is he knew it would go to a Senate floor vote and is trying to kill it.

So, now after putting a ton of pressure on Prozanski and Courtney, and it worked by the way, we need to contact these members of the Rules Committee and apply MORE pressure.

Rep. Thatcher is satisfied with the amendments and the CHL holder’s information will be private! It’s a good bill.

Please contact these members:

Senator Diane Rosenbaum (D) – Chair: [email protected] 503-986-1700
Senator Ted Ferrioli (R) – Chair: [email protected] 503-986-1950
Senator Jason Atkinson (R): [email protected] 503-986-1702
Senator Lee Beyer (D): [email protected] 503-986-1706
Senator Ginny Burdick (D): [email protected] 503-986-1718

You want them to pass the bill with the amendments as is to the Senate floor for a vote as soon as possible. Keep in mind that Burdick and Rosenbaum are EXTREME anti-gun, stress to her that this is all about privacy.

We have a GOOD friend and advocate in Sen. Ferrioli.

Please work hard on this tomorrow friends! We need this done this year! Rep. Kim Thatcher has broke her back on this and more! Thank you!

Catch The Bill Post Radio Show every day at noon on AM 1430 KYKN, listen live on the Internet or listen to replays at

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 02:57 | Posted in 2nd Amendment, Oregon Senate | 10 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Lemme give you a little more “inside” the shenanigans at the State Legislature.  When Sen. Prozanski and Rep. Thatcher had made the agreement posted above at about 4:50 Tuesday (the deadline to move to a committee was 5pm) they both assumed that the bill would be sent to the Judiciary Committee and Sen. Prozanski, with the amendment, would move it on.  So, why would Senate President Peter Courtney move it to Rules then?  My sources tell me that with Diane Rosenbaum and Ginny Burdick, both very anti-gun (though by his own admission, Prozanski told me personally he did not consider this a “gun bill” but rather a “privacy bill”), these two anti-gun Senators are also very highly interested in the Senate Presidency and are looking for ANY mistake by Courtney in order for a “power grab” to be made.  He knows that and he complied with these two Senator’s desire.  Unbelievable and completely spineless.  This bill was sent to Judiciary Committee both of the last two sessions, so why else would it be different this time?  What a crock!  Keep up the pressure, privacy concerned citizens!

  • guest

    Peter principle Corkney should be pie effaced and placed on gurneys before the sun sets on his arrears.

    • Guest

      Amen! Petey should have been put down long ago. He’s sour, cranky, and frankly, a tired old screw!

  • Ramalama

    Wait a minute, I thought that conservatives don’t believe in a “right to privacy.”

    Or does that only apply to matters of one’s own body?

    Want to have sex without someone getting pregnant? Sorry, no right to privacy there. Want to carry around a dangerous weapon? Then you have an inviolable right to privacy.


    • AND, likewise the liberals….just reverse…..funny that isn’t it?

      • Ramalama


        What I do with my body in the privacy of my own (or somebody else’s) home seems like an obvious privacy matter.

        Carrying a concealed weapon in PUBLIC seems to be an obvious concern to the public, and seems far less obviously a privacy matter.

  • Oregon engineer

    Why not eliminate the CHL altogether? What is the point of a CHL? public safety? against whom?  the Criminal element?  I am all for the privacy just why do we have one at all.  Look at the stats for the couple of states that have eliminated it. Arizona, Vermont, and Alaska

    •  The CHL is to protect us from the police and the selective law enforcement and over-reactive fears of such.

  • guest

    An embottlement of sloe ginny verdict, capped w’ a peter corkey should be broken over the brow of jaundiced ICUkrapper…who won’t allow a capital sentence pun be carried out nor stomp on a blight rail project in dire need of merci killing…even if CHL ‘volunteers’ are handy for carrion out executive odors.            

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)