• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

HB 2792 passes, please contact Senator Prozanski and Senator Courtney Now!

therealcombat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
160
Location
Lolo, MT
Why not? As a resident of a state bordering Oregon, you're eligible for an Oregon non-resident concealed-carry permit.

Because it's extra money we have to pay and extra hoops to jump through when we shouldn't have to. If they want to make me jump through extra hoops I'll just go around their state lol.
 

xxx.jakk.xxx

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
467
Because it's extra money we have to pay and extra hoops to jump through when we shouldn't have to. If they want to make me jump through extra hoops I'll just go around their state lol.

That pretty much sums it up. I'd have to take the time to go through a training course accepted by Oregon, find a Sheriff that would like to give a non-resident license and then spend the money in hopes of getting the permit. This would be a lot of time and money to just be able to carry on roadtrips and vacations that I take a few times a year.


So, any updates on this one?
 

therealcombat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
160
Location
Lolo, MT
That pretty much sums it up. I'd have to take the time to go through a training course accepted by Oregon, find a Sheriff that would like to give a non-resident license and then spend the money in hopes of getting the permit. This would be a lot of time and money to just be able to carry on roadtrips and vacations that I take a few times a year.


So, any updates on this one?

Keep an eye on the progress here
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
I'd have to take the time to go through a training course accepted by Oregon, find a Sheriff that would like to give a non-resident license and then spend the money in hopes of getting the permit.
Oregon is a shall-issue state. Hope doesn't enter into it.

I am sympathetic to your complaints about the cost.
 

therealcombat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
160
Location
Lolo, MT
Oregon is a shall-issue state. Hope doesn't enter into it.

I am sympathetic to your complaints about the cost.

Actually, Oregon is only shall issue for residents. It's a MAY issue for residents of contiguous states and DOES NOT issue to other non residents.
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
It's a MAY issue for residents of contiguous states and DOES NOT issue to other non residents.
You're right. However, since non-residents can apply to any sheriff in the state it's functionally shall-issue for them, much like what would happen in California if residents of LA or San Francisco could apply for a permit in San Bernardino or Humboldt counties. xxx.jakk.xxx would have no problem getting a permit.
 

therealcombat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
160
Location
Lolo, MT
That means I've gotta drive a couple hundred miles to do the paperwork, and I've gotta PAY for a firearms class that Oregon accepts. Then I've gotta PAY for the license and PAY to renew it every few years.

Screw that crap. I'll just not go to Oregon.
 

district9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
73
Location
usa
So the OR Senate hasn't voted on it yet? When is that expected to happen, and how are things looking?
 

eddallen1958

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
39
Location
Idaho
I was told by the Kim Smith at the Malheur County Sheriffs office that the Senate is supposed to be voting sometime in June. She is the one that issues CWP's for that county.
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
My anti-virus software blocked your link. Can anyone give some details? Thanks.
Odd, usacarry.com is hardly a spam site. Anyway, here's the first post in the thread:
Got this email today from State Senator Kruse on the state of 3 pro gun house bills on the state senate floor.

I had already emailed the 5 senators on the committee telling them that I strongly support these bills.

WEEK SEVENTEEN

I have received a massive amount of emails this week on two issues. The first issue was Senate Bill 525 dealing with the eventual elimination of phone books. Three interesting points; first the bill is dead, second 98% of the emails were from out of state, and third it is a really stupid idea.

The other issue is actually an important one as it deals with Second Amendment rights . A few weeks ago the House passed three gun bills. House Bull 2797 defined the ability to carry a gun on an ATV or motorcycle and passed the House 58 to 0. House bill 2787 clarified what we already thought was in law prohibiting agencies from disclosing information about concealed carry permit holders and passed the House 42 to 18. House bill 2792 would have allowed permit holders from other states to legally carry in Oregon and Oregon residents to legally carry in other states (reciprocity) and passed the House 40 to 17. Three well thought out bills, fully debated and passed with large majority (bipartisan) votes.

At this point the story turns bad, as these bills now had to go before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is well known that Floyd Prozanski (who chairs the committee) and several others in the Senate Democratic Caucus are very much anti-gun people. They may attempt to deny it, but their voting record over the years is very clear.

Several weeks ago Senator Prozanski scheduled hearings on all three bills. The House members who sponsored the bills came in and testified for about fifteen minutes on the bills and made a very good case for passing the bills without amendments. The next two hours were spent on testimony from people like State Superintendent Castillo talking about violence in schools and referring to an amendment to one of the bills. I asked the Chair if there was such an amendment and he said “no, it was just a concept”. At that point I suggested the testimony was out of order because it didn’t pertain to the subject of any of the bills, but was ignored.
I should take a break from the narrative at this juncture to point out in the history of gun violence in schools in the United States there has never been an incident involving anyone with a concealed carry permit. In the two hours of testimony we heard about the violence in Portland, not one of the incidences referenced involved a person with a legal permit and none of the cases noted took place on school grounds. When I suggested to those testifying that maybe their focus should be on criminals and not law abiding citizens my suggestion was rather rudely rejected.

Now fast forward to this week and the Wednesday hearing on House Bill 2797 (the one that passed the House unanimously). Senator Prozanski had already decided to kill the other two bills and include the confidentiality provisions of HB 2787 into HB 2797. The problem came when he also chose to put in a provision making it a C felony for someone with a legal carry permit to have a gun in their possession on school grounds. I suggested to Senator Prozanski that he should put his concept in a separate bill and not mess with the three very good bills the House sent us. His response was, in essence, he could do whatever he wanted, which was true because he had the support on the committee of Senators Bonamici and Dingfelder.

At the end of the day Senator Prozanski has found a way to kill all three gun bills, because he knows the House will not agree with his amendments. Senator Whitsett and I voted no on the amended bill and served notice of a minority report. This will allow us to bring a good gun bill to the floor of the Senate. I truly believe our bill will be one that could easily pass, but it will fail because Senate democrats never go against their leadership.

The anti-gun minority will have won again. We continue to make it harder for people who obey the law and ignore dealing with the actual criminal element responsible for the violence. Please pay attention to the vote on the minority report on HB 2797 as well as the vote on the actual bill. The bill itself with the Prozanski amendment is a Constitutional violation and should be noted.

Sincerely,

Senator Jeff Kruse
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
ARRRRRRGHHHHH :banghead:

Will send messages to them all as soon as I'm out of here.

As a college student, the school ban portion is just rediculous! We have security guards that are more concerned with trying to intimidate smokers (off campus) than protecting againt a serious threat. They couldn't even stop a knife wielding robber at the book store (who escaped and has not been captured)...how well does senator Prozanski think they'll do against an active shooter or other firearms wielding bad guy?

The schools idea of protecting us is some stupid "lockdown" system that locks the GLASS doors of the building to prevent entry but allow entrance.....a lot of good that does if the BG is already in the building....or is an acctive shooter and wants in...those glass doors should take him at least 10 seconds to breach. That's enough time for the security guards (who's responsibility is to observe and report) to get out another door and call it in to the police.
 

Dogbait

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
155
Location
Oregon
OFF ALERT 06.15.11

GUT AND STUFFED BILL SAILS THROUGH SENATE.

House Bill 2792, which passed the House with 40 votes, started life as a bill that recognized other states’ concealed handgun licenses.

After passing in the House, it was sent to Floyd Prozanski’s Senate Judiciary Committee where he stripped out all the language dealing with recognition and replaced it with language dealing with a lawful way to transport handguns on motorcycles, snowmobiles and ATVs. The bill which originally contained that language was gutted and turned into a bill to ban licensed carry on school property, including colleges.

The new “stuffed” version of 2792 also includes dramatic new restrictions on restoration of gun rights by persons with felony convictions.

Only Senator Larry George voted “no” on 2792. We commend him.

While we support (and in fact wrote) the language on transport, we believe that the new restrictions on rights restoration is unwise, unneeded and counterproductive.

The bill now goes back to House for a vote on concurring with Prozanski’s amendments. Please contact your House Rep and urge that they not concur with the Senate amendments.

They still have the opportunity to take the bill to a conference committee and strip out the bad parts of the gutted bill and only leave the good parts.

You can use the following link to write to your House Rep :

http://www.leg.state.or.us/writelegsltr/

Remember, the person you want to contact is your State House Rep.

............
 
Last edited:

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
As best I can decipher from the Legislative site, this i the CURRENT version of 2792.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/hb2700.dir/hb2792.b.pdf

I don't see the offensive language about barring CHL holders from carry on schools and it APPEARS TO ME that they've sort of fixed the ATV tranport and DONE SOMETHING with motorcycle transport (defining "readily accessible") and all of that SEEMS okay to me on a first reading.

HOWEVER, according to Oregon Firearms Federation (I trust Kevin there) the procedures for petitioning for restoration of rights are "unwise, unneeded, and counterproductive".

So when you contact your HOUSE representative don't say you want the whole thing killed, just that they "Not concur with the Senate Amendments".

You can use this link to find and write your representative:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/writelegsltr/

That link look a bit strange here in the draft so I'll try to check it and correct it if it doesn't work.
 
Top