Prozanski: Only 45 Days in Jail for DUI Killer. Gun Bills Carry a Harsher Penalty

The 2nd Amendment Action Center reports:

State Senator Floyd Prozanksi, who is in an eternal race with Ginny Burdick for the title of worst Senator, also serves as a prosecutor in Lane County. He was recently working on a case involving an underage drunk driver who ran over and murdered a pedestrian. The killer’s sentence? 45 days in jail and 2 years probation.

From the Register Guard article:Screen Shot 2014-02-18 at 7.50.55 PM

“He was only charged with being impaired when he was driving,” Prozanski said of Stewart. “This was not a trial regarding the collision.”
Lane County prosecutors previously reviewed the investigation and decided against pursuing charges related to the death of Nicholas Asher Tendick, a 32-year-old man who was crossing Coburg Road just south of the Willamette River when Stewart’s Ford Ranger pickup struck him.”

Screen-Shot-2014-02-18-at-7.50.55-PMAs if this weren’t enough to make you pull your hair out, guess what the punishment would have been for a legal CHL holder carrying in the Capitol building, had Prozanski’s SB699 passed in the 2013 session…
Maximum sentence of 5 years in prison, as a Class C Felony.

Yes, you’ve read this correctly. In Senator Prozanski’s dreamland, carrying a gun on your hip deserves 40 times the punishment than vehicular homicide would carry.

Though not sponsored by Prozanski, 2013′s SB 346 would have carried a 1 year imprisonment for transferring a magazine that held 11 rounds. SB 347 would have carried the same Class C Felony punishment as the above Capitol building ban if a CHL holder had their gun on them while dropping off their kid on school grounds. The dreaded HB3200 would have taken the cake, with a 10 year imprisonment for not registering an 11 round magazine.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the ineptitude we are dealing with amongst our elected “leaders” in Salem.

(H/T 2ndaction.org)

Advertisements

Gabby Gifford’s husband Mark Kelly Wants to Take Away Gun Rights

This photo from the Portland Police Bureau Central Precinct Range  shows Mr. Gabby Giffords firing off a few rounds – was this before or after he testified against Oregonian’s Second Amendment rights.

Mark Kelly had no compunction about coming to Salem, Oregon today to join the likes of Gov. John Kitzhaber and Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D- Eugene to speak in favor of taking away my rights and require expanding background checks to private gun sales. He has the unmitigated gall to argue that making me, a woman, defenseless is the right thing to do and sees nothing wrong with requiring me to provide all manner of  information if I buy or sell a gun privately.

ANTI-GUN BILL ANALYSIS AND TALKING POINTS

 

alertThe following bills are scheduled to be heard, on Friday April 5 at a public hearing at the State Capitol.

We encourage you to attend if you can, and if not make your feelings known to the members of the committee that will be hearing the bills.

Contact info for the committee can be accessed here.

SB 347

This bill would ban licensed concealed carry on school property. This means school buildings and the grounds adjacent to school buildings. It would “allow” a school district to adopt a policy permitting licensed carry or allow persons with CHL’s to store their guns in a safe or vault that the school controls.

(There are 175,000 CHL holders in this state. The anti-gunners cannot point to a single example of a CHL holder misusing a firearm in a school. This bill is nothing more than harassment of gun owners.)

Even the rabidly anti-gun Oregonian Editorial Board asks “what, exactly, makes license holders more dangerous in schools than in libraries, playgrounds or on crowded sidewalks?

A few points about this:

In the very unlikely event that a school provided gun safes, a person would be required to handle a gun that would otherwise not be touched at all.
CHL holders carry firearms as defensive tools. Having the school lock them up renders them pointless.
The anti-gun extremists are pushing for a ban on firearms in the Capitol because some legislators claim they were “intimidated” by the sight of guns. Prozanksi wants to amend the “no-guns-in-the Capitol” bill to allow carry, if no one ever sees the gun, yet in this bill, he is trying to create a situation where a person coming into a school would be forced to display a firearm if he’s allowed to have it at all. In the (virtually all) schools that will NOT allow firearms, a parent would not even be allowed to pick a sick child up from school unless the child was forced to meet the parent off the school property.

As always it “declares an emergency.”

SB 699

As drafted, this would ban those with CHL’s from the Capitol Building if in possession of a firearm. (It’s interesting to note that groups like the “Brady Campaign” have long decried the legality of “hidden handguns.” Now the attack is on open carry.)

This scheme long predates the recent rallies but seeks to exploit them. The fact is when rally goers went into “their” building they were perfectly well behaved. The police reported “no incidents.” Once again, for years licensed carry was allowed in the Capitol. There have been no problems. The anti-gunners claim the were intimidated by the sight of people openly carrying rifles so they respond by outlawing the concealed carry of pistols! This is another bill that looks for a problem where there isn’t one.

If the current amendments are adopted, the ban would not apply to retired cops and corrections officers. There has been no explanation for that proposed change. But another amendment would allow concealed carry “provided that the firearm is completely concealed from view.” It would also extend these new restrictions to all public buildings.

Since this has historically been how CHL holders (including many legislators) have carried their firearms this is an entirely unneeded change. But it’s also a problem. If a license holder’s firearm became visible at any point, that person could be charged with a FELONY. There is simply no need for this legislation and it puts gun owners at great risk. What does “completely concealed from view” even mean? Does this mean if a handgun prints through an outer garment, you become a felon?

Of course, it declares “an emergency.”

SB 700

This bill outlaws most private transfers. The original bill exempts “immediate family” without defining the term. The “gut and stuff” amended version allows transfers between:

“(A) The person’s spouse;

“(B) The person’s parent;

“(C) The person’s child;

“(D) The person’s sibling;

“(E) The person’s grandparent;

“(F) The person’s grandchild; or

“(G) The spouse of a person specified in subparagraphs (B) to (F)

of this paragraph.

The amended version defines transfer as “the sale, gift or lease of a firearm.”

So you can give a gun to your son, but not your step-daughter. You may give a gun to your wife, but not your girlfriend. You may sell a gun to your son-in-law but not your nephew. However you may give a gun to your wife, who may give it to her sister, who may give it to her husband who can give it to his son. (Your nephew.) You may not give a gun to your domestic partner.

While the law says that if you purchase from a gun dealer and you are “delayed” you may take possession of the firearm without state approval after three days have elapsed. There are no similar protections for non-dealer transfers. The State Police can delay a private transfer forever.

As you may know, the Oregon State Police ID unit routinely fails to complete background checks for dealers in a timely fashion. Gun buyers are left waiting sometimes months to complete a transfer. This bill would force the failed system on virtually all transfers. And when the “system” is down, you are simply out of luck. Sellers would be required to have state issued forms before a transfer could take place. Oh yeah, it creates a state wide gun registry too.

Of course, it declares “an emergency.”

SB 796

Range Requirements

This bill creates a baffling collection of shooting requirements to get a CHL. It changes the requirements for legal resident aliens to apply for a CHL. The shooting requirements are totally arbitrary and bear no resemblance to any real life situation. Here are some of the demands:

(A) 20 rounds fired from a distance of three yards, with:

(i) Five rounds fired one at a time with two seconds allowed for each shot;

(ii) 10 rounds fired two at a time with three seconds allowed for each two shots; and

(iii) Five rounds fired with 10 seconds allowed for all five shots;

(B) 20 rounds fired from a distance of seven yards, with:

(i) Five rounds fired with 10 seconds allowed for all five shots;

(ii) Five rounds fired with four seconds allowed for the first two shots and six seconds

allowed for the remaining three shots;

(iii) Five rounds fired one at a time with three seconds allowed for each shot; and

(iv) Five rounds fired with 15 seconds allowed for all five shots; and

(C) 10 rounds fired from a distance of 15 yards, with:

(i) Five rounds fired with six seconds allowed for the first two shots and nine seconds

allowed for the remaining three shots; and

Five shots fired with 15 seconds allowed for all five shots;

The shooting requirements would be necessary for every renewal.

The bill has two amendments. One would make it only apply to new license applicants. The other amendment changes the required course of fire by a few seconds and makes some changes in the order and sequence of the shooting, proving the original bill makes demands that are totally arbitrary and spawned from the fantasy of someone who never picked up a firearm.

The bill makes no allowances for the different rates of fire of semi-auto pistols vs revolvers. It makes no distinction between calibers.

It requires the availability of shooting range and range officers. It has no method for enforcement and does not specify who is supposed to test students or how their grades must be recorded or proven.

April 1 2:40 PM. This has been changed again. Now proof of meeting the test will be required. See this amendment. They have removed the time requirements. So, once again, making it up as they go.

It will vastly increase the cost and complexity of getting and keeping a CHL. As with the other four bills, there has been no reason shown for why this bill is needed as its supporters have been unable to provide any examples that would demonstrate that current license holders have been any kind of problem. It would not apply to people who just chose to carry openly.
Of course, it declares “an emergency.”

H/T Oregon Firearms Federation