House
Bill 2463, a bill that would have recognized the concealed
handgun licenses of other states, is in serious trouble.
As originally crafted, the bill would have allowed persons with
concealed handgun licenses from any other state to carry firearms
in Oregon. To our surprise and pleasure, the Oregon Sheriffs
approved of the bill and it passed out of committee with an
amendment to also allow persons who could lawfully carry in
their home states WITHOUT LICENSES, to carry here.
The bill passed out of committee, but, as you know, House Democrats
attacked it and it was returned to committee. That bill was
due to have a "work session" today where it would
have been voted on again.
However, amendments demanded by Democrats would now require
that we would only accept licenses from states that accept ours
or states which have "substantially similar" requirements
to ours.
Because the State Police would be required to determine which
other states had "substantially similar requirements"
they would have to be funded to do the research. In the current
environment anything that has a cost will be far more difficult
to pass, especially since so much of the State Police budget
is on the chopping block. (Staffers at the State Police ID unit
have been contacting gun dealers to warn them that the ID unit
may be closed, turning background checks over to the Feds.)
As a result of the fiscal impact the new bill would have, and
because the committee did not yet have the fiscal impact reports,
the bill was pulled from the schedule today.
In addition to the obvious financial roadblocks created by the
proposed amendments, it should be noted that when the CHL law
was first changed in 1989, it had very similar language. At
that time, Oregon could recognize any state's license that was
"substantially similar." Guess how many the State
Police approved of. If you guessed zero, you would be
right.
The State Police concluded that not a single state
had provisions for a license that were good enough for Oregon.
Not even New York City's license was good enough.
Subsequently, as a result of the complete capitulation on the
part of people claiming to represent gun owners in the 90's,
even the possibility of accepting other states' licenses was
removed from law. The position of some gun groups at the
time was, "well they won't accept other licenses so we
may as well let them take it out of the law." And so, here
we are again.
There is no question that the amendments were intended as a
poison pill for this legislation. Not only will the fiscal impact
almost certainly doom it, but history has shown that the State
Police will not be inclined to accept a single other state's
license.
The Oregon Sheriffs have taken the position that they supported
the original bill as the easiest, fairest way to deal with non-resident
licenses. The Judiciary Committee could have simply allowed
gun owners from any other state the option of applying for an
Oregon CHL. Then, not only would it not have COST the
Police money, it could have MADE them money. Instead, they chose
to write an amendment which will torpedo the intent of the bill,
even in the unlikely event the fiscal impact does not doom it.
This is political game playing at its worst. Please contact
the House
Judiciary Committee and urge them to vote on the original
bill with no "poison pill" amendments.
The proposed "dash 2" amendments to HB 2463 are little
more than a disguised attempt to kill the bill.
At a time when the State Police budget is so in jeopardy that
the ID unit itself may be forced to close, it's highly unlikely
that they will be able to fund the necessary research to determine
which other states have requirements for CHL's that are "substantially
similar" to ours.
But even if money were not an issue, you should know that, in
the past, Oregon law allowed us to recognize other states' permits.
At that time, it was the State Police who were to decide which
licenses to accept. They refused to accept a single one.
I believe that the "dash 2" amendments are simply
an effort to kill the bill. I urge you to vote "no"
on the amendments and "yes" on the bill.
On another note, for those of you who may have subjected yourself
to the preposterous ABC anti-gun screed "If
I Only Had A Gun" you may want to have a look
at some of the reprehensible methods ABC used to create their
fantasy anti-gun piece.
Send this Page to a Friend
