What specific provisions does HB 3075 change about Measure 114’s permit, fees, and issuing authorities?

1. Permit processing time: doubling the decision window

HB 3075 extends the period a designated permit agent has to issue or deny a permit under Measure 114 from 30 days to 60 days after receiving an application, effectively doubling the statutory processing window and giving authorities more time to complete background checks and administrative steps ^{[6] [7] [2]}. Multiple outlets summarized the same change as an increase in “waiting delays,” and legislative summaries repeatedly note the 30-to-60-day extension as a core operational modification to the permit timeline ^{[8] [1]}.

2. Fee increases: raising maximums for initial permits and renewals

The bill raises the cap on what jurisdictions may charge for an initial permit and for renewals, moving the maximum initial application fee from up to $65 to as much as $150 and increasing renewal fees from $50 toward $110 in reported proposals ^{[1] [7]}. State reporting and advocacy summaries present these numbers consistently; proponents frame the hikes as necessary to fund implementation, while opponents argue higher costs could become a barrier to lawful ownership ^{[1] [9]}.

3. Issuing authorities, eligibility and exemptions

HB 3075 specifies where and who may accept applications and clarifies eligibility standards tied to training and background checks, including requiring proof of a firearm safety course or approved alternatives as part of the permit package ^{[2] [1]}. The bill also creates a permanent exemption to the permit requirement for active-duty law enforcement and military personnel—an exemption Measure 114 did not contain—and establishes temporary exceptions for certain firearm transfers through July 1, 2028 in the bill’s text ^{[8] [3]}. Legislative materials indicate the language was developed with input from the Oregon State Police and sheriffs’ association to provide implementation clarity ^[2].

4. Administrative details: who gets fees, records and appeal venue

HB 3075 allocates a specified portion of collected fees to the Oregon State Police to conduct federal criminal background checks, and it exempts certain permit application information from public records requests—changes that both address administrative funding and privacy concerns tied to the application process ^{[9] [5] [4]}. The bill further narrows where legal challenges may be filed by directing certain appeals or challenges to Marion County Circuit Court, language critics say limits venue options for challengers ^{[9] [2]}.

5. Competing narratives and fiscal framing

Supporters—including sponsors and gun-violence prevention groups—present HB 3075 as a technical, implementation-focused bill that fills gaps left by Measure 114 and funds the Permit-to-Purchase program; fiscal documents show implementation costs and revenue impacts are still being estimated by state agencies ^{[2] [4] [5]}. Opponents portray the bill as adding burdens—higher fees, longer delays, and restricted legal options—that could effectively deter lawful purchasers; advocacy pieces and industry critics emphasize the fee and timing changes as evidence the bill tightens access beyond voter intent ^{[9] [6] [7]}.

Conclusion: an implementation bill with substantive effects

HB 3075 reframes Measure 114’s permit regime in concrete operational terms: it doubles the statutory permit decision window, hikes allowable fees substantially, delineates which officials and locations handle permits while exempting active-duty law enforcement and military, and layers in administrative rules on fee allocation, records confidentiality and legal venue ^{[1] [6] [3] [5]}. Whether those changes will be seen primarily as necessary implementation details or as meaningful barriers depends on political perspective and forthcoming fiscal and judicial developments surrounding Measure 114 ^{[4] [2]}.