Item 3: Discuss and Approve Non-Unanimous IGR Positions

Home Browse Search

HB 2727 prohibits a public body from releasing the identity of a current holder of, or applicant for, a concealed handgun license, except when the release of the information is necessary for criminal justice purposes or pursuant to a court order. It is hard to think of a legitimate reason why, other than for the exceptions listed, any person or entity would need the individual identities of individuals with a CHL. Aggregate data (such as how many such licenses were issued in particular cities or counties) would still be available for those interested in such data. But this bill would protect the identity of the individuals holding a CHL. Most individuals who have a CHL have procured one because of personal safety concerns. As part of the application, they obviously have to provide such personal information as their name and address to the county. Release of this information could result in harm to these individuals in at least two ways: First, a list of individuals with a CHL would provide a potential burglar with a list of addresses where there is certainly at least one handgun on the property that s/he could steal. Second, it provides a person intending to victimize a person a way to learn whether s/he likely is armed. Although some might argue that this could serve as a deterrent, it could equally well ensure that the criminal arms himself/herself, and uses a higher level of pre-emptive force against the victim, increasing the likelihood of serious injury or death to the victim. In addition, if information regarding who has a CHL is publicly available, some individuals who might otherwise obtain a CHL, but do not want that fact known, may opt to take their chances by carrying a concealed firearm without a license, thus circumventing the screening process that currently takes place during the licensing process. On balance, we believe that the privacy rights of CHL holders, and their safety, far outweigh any interest that might accrue from their individual identities being publicly available. HB 2747 Relating Clause: Relating to review fees for properties in historic districts. Title: Limits fees governing bodies may charge for conducting reviews of proposed changes to property in historic districts. Sponsored by: Representative ESQUIVEL; Representatives GARRARD, GILMAN, HUFFMAN, JENSON, G SMITH, SPRENGER, THATCHER, WHISNANT URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2700.dir/hb2747.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Larry Hill Larry Hill CS-FIN 3/3/2009 Pri 2 Yes YesII Oppose Comments: HB 2747 would have a negative financial impact on the City of Eugene. It would prevent the City to recovering costs for a required review of property within a historic district. Such a review is triggered by permit applications. The financial impact on the city would depend on the number of permit applications requiring this review. ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Steve Nystrom Steve Nystrom PDD-ADM 3/3/2009 Pri 2 Yes YesIV. D2 Oppose Comments: Bill would limit city fees for historic reviews to $100. In Eugene, properties that have historic zoning require an "Historic Alteration" application for physical changes to historic buildings and/or property. Although the city processes only a few such requests a year, historic reviews cost the city approximately $3,000 - $5,000 per application. This bill runs counter to the city's goal of increasing the level of cost recovery for land use applications. HB 2748 Relating Clause: Relating to employment of public employees who do not speak Spanish. 6