Two firearm-related bills met similar fates yesterday in the Oregon Senate after much debate between invested lawmakers. In the end, gun rights advocates came up on top. The conclusion can only be laid out as follows:
The Creepy: With a 24-5 vote, the Senate slashedHouse Bill 4045, a measure that would forbid public agencies to share basic information of concealed handgun holders. So much for ever linking handgun holders with gun-related crimes. Fortunately, Sen. Fred Girod, a Republican from Stayton shared his cemented reasoning to clear up the concern. “I have a concealed hand gun license,” he said. “It’s nobody’s business.”
The Bad: I know it’s not my place to label things “bad” or “good,” but I’m just going off of the general reaction from Senate Bill 1594‘s opposition. This bill tackles the much-discussed issue of permitting concealed handgun on school campuses. But — echoing past measures — the vote allowed concealed gun permit holders to remain on campuses across the state. Following the most recent Ohio school shooting, this topic sparked vehement rebuttal. But to no avail. The measure narrowly passed with a 15-14 vote.
The Questionable: Remember how narrowly the last bill was voted against? (If you answered no, simply read two sentences prior). Turns out this vote could have been tilted if Sen. Bruce Starr, a Republican from Hillsboro, didn’t have to take his child to an orthodontist appointment and actually showed up to the showdown. Alright, so maybe he would of played the Republican role and voted against it along with his fellow right wingers — BUT who knows, Starr could have been a wild card. Also, I think it’s great that the Oregonian included the orthodontist part.
All in all, gun slingers and supporters left Salem satisfied yesterday. Now, you’ll never know if that lurky kid sitting next to you in lecture is packing heat. Beware.
I’M SORRY, BUT THIS IS JUST REALLY AWFUL REPORTING. REALLY BAD. EMBARASSINGLY SO.
Care to be more specific, Graham?
Could of? Ugh.
“The measure narrow passed”
Oy.
Seriously, I have no idea what side of the issues either bill actually fall on. Did the school/guns bill allow or ban concealed weapons? I know I’m lazy for not clicking through, but isn’t that still your job? Did the first bill require or FORBID disclosure? Forebode? Rilly?
Graham is correct. This post features some terrible reporting and writing. ‘Would forebode’ ? ‘Sparked vehement rebuttal’ ? ‘BUT who knows’?
I hope this was thumb typed on an old cellphone by a very hungover person who is not a native English speaker because that is the only thing that would justify publishing some of the painful phrases, tortured structure and general not-telling-the-reader-what-actually-happened-ness of this blog entry.
@REYMONT: OTHER THAN THE COMPLETE LACK OF COPY EDITING?
FORBODE
HANDGUN HOLDERS
CEMENTED REASONING
“The measure narrow passed with a 15-14 vote.” EXCEPT THAT THE MEASURE DIDN’T PASS.
BUT REALLY, FOR ME, IT’S ZIELINSKI’S CAVALIER ATTITUDE IN REGARDS TO ATTEMPTS BY THE STATE TO ERODE CIVIL LIBERTIES. I CAN SEE NO CLEAR REASON FOR THE STATE TO KEEP SPECIFIC TRACK OF AND SHARE INFORMATION IN REGARDS TO PEOPLE WHO WISH TO ENJOY THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES. THAT DIRECTION LEADS TO AN OBVIOUS SLIPPERY SLOPE. IF A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY REQUIRES THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION, LET THEM GO TO COURT EACH AND EVERY TIME AND SHOW CLEARLY WHY THEY NEED THAT INFORMATION.
OH, ALSO THIS SENTENCE IS JUST AWFUL. REALLY AWFUL IN CREATES A SENSE OF DANGER AND FEARMONGERING THAT IS UNFORGIVEABLE
“Now, you’ll never know if that lurky kid sitting next to you in lecture is packing heat.”
BECAUSE WE SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME THAT ASOCIAL KIDS HAVE GUNS. GOOD JOB, ALEX. GOOD FUCKING JOB.
Alex,
Just a note-
I am a genderqueer persyn, a Union Organizer, was discharged from the military as a Conscientious Objector, work for a community sustainability non-profit, etc. On the surface I could be a poster child of ‘progressive’ Portlandians.
And I carry a concealed handgun. I hold a valid Oregon CHL. I support other queer folk, feminists, anti-racists, folks of color, those who experience the most violence in this society, to have the knowledge, skills, and tools to defend our bodies, space, and communities. I also believe that our privacy should be respected. I have had folks in my community targeted, with the underlying theme many times being that they were targeted for empowering themselves in the face of systemic oppression. Folks who retain defensive tools to protect themselves from queer bashing, sexual violence, and domestic abuse (just to name a few threats) should not have to worry about predatory individuals checking a list to see what means of defense they retain.
Violence prevention is a centrally important issue in our times. As we wrestle with the questions and complexities this presents, let’s respect the gravity of the situation enough to refrain from pretending that issues such as gun ownership are cut and dry, ‘liberal’/’conservative’ questions. The breakdown is never that clean.
If you would like to do more reading on this topic before writing your next (hopefully better informed) article, here are some places to look:
PinkPistols.org
Deacons for Defense and Justice (google it)
Justice is a Woman with a Sword by D.A Clark
There is of course much, much, more that you will find if you where to continue to honestly explore the diversity of perspectives that exist within progressive circles regarding self defense and guns.
revluv
There you go, Graham! The difference between constructive criticism and trolling.
I feel like we’ve made real progress today. Why don’t you try to reflect on it in your journal?
@REYMONT: GO DIE IN A FIRE.
Oh, you guys, hug it out.
@MELOGNA: I DON’T KNOW HOW TO HUG. NO ONE EVER TAUGHT ME.
@GRAHAM: I WOULD SUGGEST STARTING WITH A PET. SOMETHING LIKE A MOUSE THAT IS EASILY REPLACED IF HUGGED TOO HARD.
Grammar aside (although I won’t let a “would of” slide), the facts and analysis seem contradictory all over the place.
For instance:
The Creepy: so the bill that would forbid the sharing of info was “slashed.” I assume that means fail? So that means agencies *can* share info? So then I don’t understand why you wrote “So much for ever linking handgun holders with gun-related crimes.”
I’m confused. Where’s Mirk?
@ 10, interesting points and post. I too have a permit, but I am wary of this law. I do not wish to see violence and bulling towards any group or individual or gender on any campus, but is this truly the answer? Shouldn’t the School and it’s security be responsible for preventing this? In addition, carrying a firearm without having a permit is not an anomaly at schools and enforcing a permit law is no guarantee more tragic shootings will be prevented. Are all the student’s searched? Did the kids at Columbine have permits? Was anyone aware they had multiple firearms on their person? I am a former Marine who has also worked in Private security I am not sure if I agree that having more (legal) firearms present prevents any violence. Often it seems to escalate it. I do however understand your concerns, however I think most students would just like to go about obtaining an education without worrying about a gun battle breaking out.