Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Oregon Reciprocity Bill Status

  1. #1
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Oregon Reciprocity Bill Status

    Earlier this year the House in Oregon's Legislature passed a bill allowing reciprocity for all other State's carry permits.

    Does anyone have any current knowledge as to whether it made it through their Senate?

    Someone made a comment on another forum that a Vancouver/Portland area gun store was saying that the Governor had signed this bill last week but I can find no public information on this. Anyone else have better luck.

    If this bill is now law, that will remove Oregon from the list of those that don't honor any other State's permits.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771
    As of June 30 Senate adjourned it was still sitting in Committee..

    HB2787

  3. #3
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjam2jab View Post
    As of June 30 Senate adjourned it was still sitting in Committee..

    HB2787
    This isn't the "Reciprocity Bill", it's a separate one barring the release of Permit information.

    I was hoping I could find information on the Bill regarding Reciprocity which is supposed to be a separate bill.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  4. #4
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    The bill was signed into law without the reciprocity provision. Senate goose steppers took it out and sent a non-bill to the governor, which was signed into law.

    http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2011/HB2792/

    I'll add to be a little bit of an a-hole, that it took me 30 seconds to find this information out.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  5. #5
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    Info provided by "OFF" (Oregon Firearms Federation)
    http://oregonfirearms.org/alertsarchive.html

    HB 2792, "Gut and Stuffed"

    House Bill 2792 started life as a simple measure to recognize the concealed carry permits of other states. The bill passed through the House Judiciary Committee over the objections of several anti-gun House members who claimed we should not accept licenses from other states that fail to meet our lofty requirements. The full House voted to pass the bill with 40 “yes” votes. Voting “no” were House Reps Barnhart, Beyer, Buckley, Cannon, Dembrow, Doherty, Frederick, Greenlick, Harker, Holvey, Hunt, Kotek, Nathanson, Nolan, Read, Smith J. and Tomei.

    The bill was then sent to Floyd Prozanski’s Senate Judiciary Committee. There, Prozanski removed 100% of the language dealing with other states’licenses and replaced it with language that did two unrelated things. First, he inserted language that we had created clarifying how a person can lawfully carry a handgun on a motorcycle, ATV or snowmobile. That was the good news, but many are still confused by what changes actually take place under this law, should it be signed by the Governor.

    Currently no one, not even a police officer, can carry a “loaded” firearm on a snowmobile or ATV. The problem is the current law does not define what “loaded” or “unloaded” means. Under the new language in HB 2792 the term “unloaded” now means the following:

    If the firearm is a revolver, that there is no live cartridge in the chamber that is aligned with the hammer of the revolver;
    If the firearm is a muzzle-loading firearm, that the firearm is not capped or primed;
    or if the firearm is other than a revolver or a muzzle-loading firearm, that there is no live cartridge in the chamber.


    Under the new law, even these restrictions will not apply to CHL holders, who will be allowed to carry handguns on ATV’s and snowmobiles fully loaded and concealed.

    For motorcycle riders without CHLs they now have a definition of how they can transport a handgun on a motorcycle. Since concealed handguns may not be “readily accessible” for those without CHL’s, the bill, for the first time, defines the term “not readily accessible” as it applies to motorcycles (on or off the road) and ATV’s and snowmobiles. The definition of “ not readily accessible” under this bill is:

    If the vehicle is a motorcycle, an all-terrain vehicle or a snowmobile, a handgun is not readily accessible within the meaning of this section if:
    The handgun is in a locked container within or affixed to the vehicle; or
    The handgun is equipped with a trigger lock or other locking mechanism that prevents the discharge of the firearm.

    So the short version is, if you have a CHL you can now carry fully loaded handguns on snowmobiles or ATV’s. If you do not have a CHL you may carry on your motorcycle if the gun is locked, or on a snowmobile or ATV if there is no round in the chamber or the handgun is in a locked container or has a trigger lock.

    This clarification is the good news. The bad news is that the bill greatly complicated and confused the process for having rights restored if you had a felony conviction. In 2009, Floyd Prozanski drafted a bill (at our request) to clarify how a person with a felony conviction could seek gun rights restoration. That bill, SB 603, passed both Houses without a single “no” vote. It was a simple, straightforward process. You petitioned the court for rights restoration and, if you could demonstrate that you deserved to have your rights restored, the court could do it.

    But Prozanski, who apparently cannot even understand the bills he drafts himself, changed his mind after the Governor signed the bill. Now, he became convinced, we would not only be arming “murderers and rapists” but we would be forced to give guns to people who were still in jail.

    It does not take a legal scholar to determine that this accusation is absurd but it may be no more absurd than the false and defamatory accusations Prozanski made that the Oregon Firearms Federation was sending out “Photoshopped” pictures of him to “berate” him, a charge that is not only untrue, but borderline paranoid and delusional.

    In the 2010 “special session” Prozanski tried and failed to repeal his own bill. Now in 2011, his false charges about “arming murderers and rapists” found a more receptive audience. The very legislators (meaning all of them) who voted for SB 603 in 2009 now started fearing that it would become a “campaign issue.” This is odd, since not only was it never a campaign issue but the Oregon House voted in 2010 to prevent its repeal.

    After Prozanski “gut and stuffed” HB 2792, it passed the Judiciary Committee with the support of the only two Republicans on the committee, Jeff Kruse and Doug Whitsett. It then passed on the full Senate floor (with only Senator Larry George stepping up to vote “no,”) and was sent back to the House where the House could choose to concur with the changes or refuse to. The House voted not to concur, a seemingly positive sign. Because the House refused to concur, a “conference committee” was formed. There in the conference committee, the House members of the committee voted to accept virtually the same bill they had voted not to concur with on the floor. The only difference was a totally meaningless and minor change that had no effect on what the bill would do. It was a pointless sideshow.

    When the bill came back to the House floor, the bill’s own sponsor, Kim Thatcher, refused to support this now mangled bill. She was joined in her “no” vote by House Republicans Bentz, Conger, Huffman, Sprenger, Thompson, Weidner and Whisnant. The final bill passed the House with 45 votes and the Senate with 24 votes.

  6. #6
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Nevermind. I went back and read what was just posted.. /shame
    Last edited by VW_Factor; 09-15-2011 at 12:41 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  7. #7
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post

    I'll add to be a little bit of an a-hole, that it took me 30 seconds to find this information out.
    Perhaps your Skills are far superior to some of us mere mortals.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  8. #8
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Perhaps your Skills are far superior to some of us mere mortals.
    Your Googlefu is lacking grasshopper!

    I was able to find it pretty quick too. Search Phrase "Oregon reciprocity" got me started with every link I needed.

  9. #9
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by FMCDH View Post
    Your Googlefu is lacking grasshopper!

    I was able to find it pretty quick too. Search Phrase "Oregon reciprocity" got me started with every link I needed.
    I guess my "connection" was lacking. I did that for a couple of hours and couldn't even find the bill number. Searched using "Reciprocity, Firearms, etc" to no avail.

    Apparently others had problems finding it too. One of the responses was on a separate bill.

    Oh well, some days are just like that
    Last edited by amlevin; 09-16-2011 at 11:56 AM.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  10. #10
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by M1Gunr View Post
    Info provided by "OFF" (Oregon Firearms Federation)
    http://oregonfirearms.org/alertsarchive.html

    HB 2792, "Gut and Stuffed"

    SNIP

    [I]If the firearm is a revolver, that there is no live cartridge in the chamber that is aligned with the hammer of the revolver;

    SNIP
    Seems to me this misses their target. Empty chamber under the hammer is really only unloaded on a revolver with a cocked hammer. Pull that trigger and it falls on the empty chamber. IIRC, the cylinder revolves (hence the name) when the trigger is pulled on a double action revolver or when the hammer is cocked on a single action revolver. To be unloaded the chamber that will align under the hammer just before the trigger is fully pulled to fire the gun would need to be empty. Makes me wonder if the people writing these laws have any idea about how firearms actually function.
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  11. #11
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Lammo View Post
    Makes me wonder if the people writing these laws have any idea about how firearms actually function.
    Not just firearms.

    Of course should anyone point this out it would only trigger a series of Studies, the appointment of a "Blue Ribbon Committee", requests for funding of a "Task Force", and in the end the results would just be the same.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •