Below is a series of emails between me and an Oregon Senator. I think my point in the letter below was very poignant. I do grow tired of politicians telling me what "THEY" think and how "THEY" feel - but here ya go, three emails.
Senator Prozanski,
I am an ex-military-police officer and can tell you from sad experience, police cannot respond to *ANYTHING* as quickly which is life-threatening to a citizen as a citizen who is carrying their own self-defense - i.e. a firearm.
I've sadly seen people killed by unarmed mobs and arrived only to clean up the bodies or blood.
Oregon also has one of the lowest police-per-capita ratios in the US as I understand it. This in mind, citizens who can defend and protect themselves help us "ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
Oregon has an amazing record of defending and supporting individual rights, the right of self defense - should be no different. Please support any and all measures that promote the ability of citizens to protect themselves - namely allowing citizens with concealed carry permits from other states (like my family) to carry concealed legally in the state of Oregon, and keep the records of those who do carry concealed from those who would exploit the info.
Thank you.
~Signed yadda yadda
From Senator Prozanski:
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 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.
- 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.
Very truly,
Very truly,
Wow, thank you for your informative response.
From me:
I'm sorry for your horrific loss - I lost a child of mine this weekend too but due to other circumstances.
If I can, one thing I notice from politicians, and maybe if we critically think about it as we go our separate ways, we may come to an answer:
I'm really troubled how many politicians I write to tell me "I believe that....." or "I believe" or "my position is that..." to explain what they are thinking and how they are going to vote.
Seeings how a representative government is supposed to represent the people, I'm troubled by how often I hear this phrase.
While I don't believe that a politician is to be mindless, or surrender their morals, I believe there's a balance between service and upholding a personal constitution.
I would rather politicians/representatives instead told me what the majority of their correspondents have said/views are, and how that impacts what the politician/representative's responsibility to the public is.
Do you think that would be better? More appropriate?
What was the majority of the letters you received? What was the voice of the people? Were we simply misinformed?
Otherwise, my feelings about our wonderful federalist, democratic, constitutional republic is - why bother? If they are only going to do what they feel? If we don't matter......why write?
I am sorry you received hostility and incivility on this issue. Clearly profanity didn't sway you, but what impact did the correspondence and the majority communicated view from the citizens of Oregon have on you and how does that impact the legislation?
Thank you for your service.
