Below is a copy of what our beloved Sen. Prozanski sent out to all of the folks who contacted him about the ongoing legislation in Oregon. Take a read and let me know what you think about his "Pro-Gun" attitude. Feel free to let him know what you think about his views and recent actions in the Oregon Senate.
I want to thank everyone who sent me their comments on the various gun bills that were assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. I especially want to thank the vast majority of individuals who discussed the merits of those bills with civility and respect.
Unfortunately, many of you have received inaccurate "alerts" and other correspondence, including allegations that I am against keeping Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders’ and applicants' personal information confidential. That is not true. In fact, I support keeping such information confidential. You also have been told that I am "anti-gun." That is also inaccurate.
Let me first set the record straight about myself. I was born and grew up in Texas. I lived there for almost 30 years. I purchased my first gun when I was 15 years old and have continuously owned firearms ever since. My sister was murdered with a handgun in 1973. I believe the state has the right and duty to place reasonable restrictions on whom can possess guns and where they can be carried. I have been a prosecutor in Oregon for 24 years. As a gun owner for more than 40 years, I support both the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution.
Now let me set the record straight about the firearms legislation pending in this year's Legislative Session. To maximize (really? this is the poison pill) support, I amended a bill in the committee to incorporate several changes into one firearms bill. As amended, HB 2797 includes these major points. It:
- Prohibits the disclosure of personal information of CHL holders and applicants, Clarifies when and how ATV operators and motorcyclists can carry firearms,
- Prohibits certain felons from petitioning the court for restoring gun rights,
- Prohibits guns on public school campuses,
- Requires a report from the State Police on compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Amendments Act of 2007,
- Includes provisions limiting police authority to arrest or charge a CHL holder,
- Limits prosecution of CHL holders to state (not federal) law violations, and
- Repeals the law requiring an individual to allow police to examine a firearm to see if it is loaded or not.
Many of you have received information from Kevin Starrett of Oregon Firearms Federation, who has used scare tactics, misinformation and "photo shopped" pictures to berate the bill or me. He seems more interested in drumming up contributions than discussing the merits of the entire bill. In fact, it seems he only disagrees with only two points of the bill.
Kevin has previously testified that he believes all felons including murderers and rapists should be eligible to petition a court to restore their gun rights. I disagree. I have spoken to numerous OFF and NRA members who agree with me that certain felons should be prohibited from restoring their gun rights.
Kevin also believes that a CHL holder should be able to carry a firearm into any public building including schools. Again, I disagree with him. I believe certain public buildings including courthouses and schools should be off limits for guns, except for ROTC programs and gun safety classes.
Some of you may have also received an e-newsletter from Senator Jeff Kruse making inaccurate claims about the bill, the committee process, and my intentions and position on these gun bills. It is unfortunate, because misinformation does a service to no one. Even though Jeff claims that I am "anti-gun" (I am not) he in fact voted with me and the three other committee members to amend another firearms bill, HB 2792, to pass it to the Senate floor with a "do pass" recommendation.
I've heard from constituents who have two significant issues with HB 2797. Some support making CHL holders and applicants' personal information confidential, and some support prohibiting CHL holders from carrying weapons on public school grounds. Many individuals support only one of these provisions, but not both. I support both, along with the other provisions of the amended bill.
I hope this letter clarifies what is actually included in HB 2797 as well as my personal beliefs and history regarding gun rights. I understand that we may not always agree, but I am open to hearing your point of view. Again, I want to thank everyone who contacted me and was civil in expressing their views.
What Prozanski has done is attach an anti-gun legislation amendment to a pro second amendment bill. The part where he wants to ban firearms from public schools and courthouses. Oregon law already regulates the carrying of firearms on federal and state facilities. There is no need for this amendment. Creating a gun free zone at a school will only create a shooting gallery for the insanely crazy folks who choose to assault our schools. Additionally, the banning of certain felons to ask for their gun rights back is just ridiculously insane. There are instances where some people may have an opportunity to change their life and redeem their rights to vote and own firearms, this is commendable and the opportunity for them to have their rights back is up to the courts, not some guy in the legislature who doesn't agree with current policy. There should not be a limit on this, because if a murdering rapist is applying for his gun rights, shouldn't we first ask ourselves, "what the hell is this person doing back on the streets?"
No comments:
Post a Comment