opinion
april16
2015
An Opinion: State Gun Control Bill is a Bad Idea
By State Senator Betsy Johnson
The 2015 Oregon Legislature is
shaping up to be one of contradictions
– more gun control for those who obey
the law but possibly more government
protection for those who have broken
the law.
We’re about to increase
background checks on private gun sales,
which will do nothing to stop felons
from continuing to illegally obtain and
use firearms.
At the same time, legislation
has been proposed that would make it
harder for an employer to do a criminal
background check on felons.
Yes, this is a very contentious
legislative session. Many bills are on a
fast track. If we don’t slow down and
become more thoughtful, we’re going
to pass some bad laws, and citizens will
pay the price.
Last year during the legislature’s
brief 35-day session, state Sen. Floyd
Prozanski (D-Eugene) tried to rush
approval of a gun control bill to expand
background checks. He needed just one
more vote, and I declined to give it. I
didn’t think his bill would reduce crime.
I wish all it took to change human
behavior was passing legislation. It
doesn’t work that way.
Prozanski is back this year with
a similar bill, and this time he has the
votes. That doesn’t mean he has a good
bill.
His Senate Bill 941 requires
that any time a private citizen sells or
transfers a firearm both the seller and
buyer/recipient must go to a licensed
gun dealer, and pay to have the buyer
undergo a criminal background check.
On the face of it this seems
reasonable. Think about it, though. If
you know you have a criminal history,
you’ll bypass this law: Have somebody
else buy a gun for you, or obtain one on
the black market. It’s already against the
law for ex-felons to possess a firearm.
Yet how often do we read about ex-
felons committing a crime, and they’re
armed? It takes more than laws to disarm
a criminal.
However, a law can disarm
a non-criminal. Under the proposed
legislation, a gun owner with no
criminal history could find himself in
violation if he loans a hunting rifle to a
friend without a background check. On
a first offense, the punishment could be
one year in jail and/or a $6,250 fine.
On a second offense, the punishment
could reach 10 years in prison and/or a
$250,000 fine.
Given Prozanski’s legislative
history, I have to ask: Does he really
want to go after violent felons? Or does
he want to cause problems for legitimate
gun owners?
Two years ago Prozanski served
on the governor’s Commission on Public
Safety, where he worked on House Bill
3194. He pushed unsuccessfully to
reduce the sentences for some robbery,
assault and sexual abuse crimes.
Even more revealing, Prozanski
wanted to expand expungement – a way
for felons to wipe clean their criminal
history to help them find housing and
employment. Now here he is sponsoring
a bill that requires background checks
on gun purchases. What good does it do
to require background checks, if you’re
also helping felons rewrite their criminal
records?
As it is, the public might be
surprised how often expungements and
sealed records are allowed. I checked
with one of the District Attorneys in my
district – Clatsop County’s Josh Marquis
– and found that his office alone grants
at least 100 expungements or sealed
record requests a year.
Once an adult’s criminal record
is sealed it may not appear on the Law
Enforcement Data System, the National
Crime Information Center, the older
Oregon Judicial Information Network
or the newer Odyssey court system.
Prozanski’s bill does not address this.
There are aspects of his gun
bill that are worthy – for example,
prohibiting
persons
undergoing
court-ordered outpatient treatment
from possessing a firearm. However,
confidentiality laws make it difficult to
even reveal who is mentally ill. The bill
does nothing to protect the public from
a person whose mental illness expresses
itself in violence.
The overriding intent of
Prozanski’s bill is not directed at violent
behavior but at making gun ownership
more inconvenient for the law-abiding.
Nevertheless, it will pass and
will be trumpeted as making the public
safer.
Meanwhile, the bill assisting
ex-felons in the job market makes for
a curious counterpoint. If you support
Prozanski’s gun bill, take note.
Say you’re an employer and you
also hate guns. You may find yourself
unwittingly offering a job to someone
who has committed armed robbery. If
you then want to rescind the job offer,
you may have some explaining to do to
a state official.
House Bill 3025, also called
the ban-the-box law because of the box
on some job applications asking if an
applicant has a criminal record, would
restrict how private employers can
interview job applicants.
No inquiry could be made about
an applicant’s criminal history, nor could
a background check be conducted, until
after a job has been offered. Only then
could the employer seek a background
check. If something turned up, the
employer could rescind the offer if the
conviction was related to the nature
of the job. The applicant could then
appeal to the state Bureau of Labor and
Industries.
It’s popular to say that this is
a well-intentioned law, but you know
what? It isn’t. This is the kind of law that
creates animosity. The bill as currently
written is clearly designed to give one
select group of job applicants a cudgel
– the threat of legal action – to force
compliance from employers. In this
job market, there are a lot of qualified
people who can’t find suitable work.
Why should ex-felons get a special
break?
There are already federal tax
incentives to encourage employers to
hire ex-felons. The Work Opportunity
Tax Credit Program has been around
since 1996 and has been renewed ever
since.
Some employers have made it
known that they like to hire people with
criminal backgrounds.
Dick Withnell, a Salem auto
dealer, has spoken at legislative hearings
about hiring employees out of prison.
He’s to be commended for that. But
it’s his choice. Freedom of choice is a
beautiful thing. It’s better than political
force.
The ban-the-box bill has had a
hearing before the House Business and
Labor Committee, where advocates for
ex-felons and prisoner’s rights were
well-organized with their testimony.
If it doesn’t pass this session,
like Prozanski’s gun bill it will likely
come around again.
Where do you read the Voice?
Show us where you have traveled.
Submit your photo by email to:
scott@vernoniasvoice.com
3
Publisher and Managing Editor
Scott Laird
503-367-0098
scott@vernoniasvoice.com
Contributors
Chip Bubl
Tobie Finzel
Sen. Betsy Johnson
Karen Kain
Dr. Carol McIntyre
Aaron Miller
Shannon Romtvedt
Dale Webb
Grant Williams
Photography
Tracy Easlon
Scott Laird
Teri Willard
Want to advertise?
Have an article?
Contact: scott@vernoniasvoice.com
One year subscriptions
(24 issues) $35
Vernonia’s Voice is published
on the 1st and 3rd Thursday
of each month.
Vernonia’s Voice, LLC
PO Box 55
Vernonia, OR 97064
503-367-0098
www.VernoniasVoice.com
Vernonia
Veterinary Clinic
Small and Large Animals
Now Open
Mon, Wed & Saturday
9 a.m. - 4 p.m.
Call for Appointments
(503) 429-1612
Or 24 hr. Emergency Number (503) 397-6470
700 Weed Ave. Vernonia, OR
Cedar Side Inn
Happy Hour Mon-Fri 4-7
Lady’s Night Wed 5-12
Sunday Breakfast
Now serving 10am-9pm
Karaoke
Events
Every 2nd & Last Friday
Taco Tuesday
from opening until 9pm
3 hardshell or 1 softshell $4.25
Ladies’ Night
every Thursday 6pm-close
• Specialty hamburgers
• Draft beer & mixed drinks
• Pool tables & satelite TV
• Pool Tourny Most Friday nights
• Free Pool • Free WiFi • Specialty Pizzas
iheck our Facebook page for daily specials and upcoming events
756 Bridge Street, Vernonia
503-429-5841
• Free Wi-fi
Sat, April 18th
Texas Hold ‘Em
Sat, May 30th
Dixie Wrecked
“STILL BIKER FRIENDLY”
• Beer & Kegs to go
Sun - Thurs 11 AM - Midnight •
733 Bridge St, Vernonia
Fri - Sat 11 AM - 2:30 AM
• 503-429-9999
