Recap of the 2009 Legislative Session
As advocates for basic gun rights in the State of Oregon, we involve ourselves in government affairs both at the policy level and by supporting like-minded candidates in their respective elections.
During the 2009 Legislative Session, which is the most recent session that adjourned at the end of June, we were vigilant to protect Oregonians against anti-gun legislation.
Even in a relatively small state like Oregon, tracking legislation is no small task: In this last session alone, there were 1,600 House bills introduced, 1,100 Senate bills, and 4,400 amendments drafted and submitted into the public process.
Of these bills, about 21 would have had a direct impact on gun owners or potential gun owners.
Unfavorable Legislation
There were several unfavorable bills introduced. For example, Senate Bill 953 would have would have imposed a 14-day waiting period for the purchase of firearms from gun dealers. This is completely unnecessary when one considers that it takes a very short time to do a thorough background check of someone purchasing a firearm. Today, a person pays $10 and submits their personal information (including fingerprints), which is checked against Oregon’s Law Enforcement Data System and the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background System. A recent development from the 2009 Legislative Session also checks the name against a list provided by the Oregon Psychiatric Security Review Board of persons who have been court-ordered institutionalized. This was in response to the Virginia Tech situation. Needless to say, checking one name against these lists does not take 14 days.
Of the several anti-gun bills this session, not a single one passed. This was a significant accomplishment for gun rights advocates.
Favorable Legislation
In addition to playing defense against these unfavorable bills, OGO submitted several bills that would protect gun rights.
One note about the legislative process: When the Legislative Fiscal Office drafts a fiscal impact statement to a bill, it requests that the relevant state agency determine the impact on its budget. In the case of pro-gun legislation, the Oregon State Police (OSP) calculated large fiscal impacts, citing loss of fees and extra work. With a $4.2 billion state budget deficit, bills that resulted in negative fiscal impact were difficult to pass. This is important to keep in mind when discussing the fate of pro-gun legislation.
We had 5 priorities going into the session:
Reciprocity (HB 2463): This bill would have granted reciprocity to persons holding concealed handgun licenses or permits issued by other states.
Not only did this bill have no affect on the state budget, it also received nearly unanimous support from both Republicans AND Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee. The bill was likely to pass, until an unpopular amendment was introduced by other gun-advocacy groups.
Currently, Alaska and Vermont do not issue concealed handgun licenses and, so, under our bill, they would have no license to grant reciprocity to and could not carry in the State of Oregon. This was unacceptable for some advocates who amended the bill to include Alaskans and Vermonters, so ANYONE from those states could carry in Oregon. Of course, this lost Democrat support for the bill and it died in committee.
CHL and Background Check (HB 2991): This bill would have exempted the transferor of a firearm from performing criminal history record check if the purchaser or recipient had a concealed handgun license.
OSP was asked by Representative Andy Olson (R-Albany) to draft amendments that would permit the CHL to be a valid alternative to the NICS check when purchasing a firearm. OSP provided the amendments, but included a $42.25 CHL fee increase (a 65% increase from current fees). This would have been painful to the pockets of those pursuing CHLs, thereby losing the support for the bill.
Destruction of Records (HB 2645): Requires Department of State Police to destroy records obtained during criminal records check within 24 hours of approval for qualified firearms purchasers.
OSP stated that it would need $55,000 a year to abide by this policy. This number effectively killed the bill given the current budget situation, which was essentially a $4.2 billion deficit.
Castle Doctrine (HB 3179): Authorizes persons engaged in lawful activity to stand ground and use force in self-defense. This is also known as the “castle doctrine.”
This bill did not go very far because the Democrats did not like it at all. However, the same concept is currently being pushed in the form of an initiative. This means that Oregonians may have the chance to vote on this issue in the 2010 election. It is initiative #44 and its details are being worked out. It will require 82,769 signatures to place it on the ballot.
Voter Registration (HB 2846): Requires that voter registration cards be made available to eligible persons at offices where agent of State Fish and Wildlife Commission issues licenses, tags or permits.
This bill did not pass because of the supposed cost of training Fish and Wildlife associates in voting law. This was not a significant loss because most legal gun owners follow government actions and vote at a higher frequency already.
Another issue that we were following closely was CHL records and whether the public can request to see those records. This issue emerged when the Medford Mail Tribune requested the list from the Jackson County sheriff and he refused. HB 2727 would have kept those records private except in very specific and significant circumstances. CHL holders, sheriffs, and many legislators supported this bill. However, Sen. Richard Devlin, Chair of the Senate Rules committee, did not support the bill and so it died in his committee.
Looking Forward
We are currently working with Representative Jeff Barker (D-Aloha), who is the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to hold what they call an “interim workgroup”- essentially a taskforce charged with hammering out legislation to exempt the transferor of a firearm from performing a criminal history record check if the purchaser has a concealed handgun license. Bills created in these interim committees usually carry momentum into the following Legislative Session that’s derived from the amount of work and compromise that goes into them. This interim committee will also provide a venue to scrutinize OSP’s fiscal impact claims and to strategize the best approach moving forward.
We will also be looking at the voting records of legislators from this past session and determining who we should support for the next session.
Federal Issues
H.R. 45 (”Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act”): At this time, it is not a credible threat to gun owners; it has not received a single hearing since it was introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary (Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security) in January 2009. It was sponsored by Rep Rush, Bobby L. (D-IL-1) and has no cosponsors. The bill is a threat because it would 1.) require all handgun owners to submit to the federal government an application that includes personal information, including fingerprints; 2.) require the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer, and owner’s address in America; 3.) make it illegal to own or possess a “qualifying firearm” — defined as “any handgun; or any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device…” and 4.) make it illegal to transfer ownership of a “qualifying firearm” to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or collector (with very few exceptions).
HR45 is a rehash of HR2666, which Rush introduced in 2007. With no cosponsors and no hearings since introduction in January, this bill does not seem to be going anywhere.
There is an interesting debate heating up in several states that are trying to make federal gun laws not apply to firearms produced in their own states. They feel that this gets them out of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Eventually, the courts will make the final decision.
