by Kevin Starrett, Executive Director.
Among its many bad provisions were requirements that guns transferred privately at gun shows be the subject of police record keeping. It also called for background checks of people receiving the guns.
These provisions would apply even for transferring between two collectors who already had a table full of firearms. If that wasn’t bad enough, the bill would have made the same demands on totally private transfers that happened at your home if, in the course of a year, you transferred more than 25 guns.
Transferred didn’t mean “sold”. It meant anytime a gun changed hands whether it was “sold” or not. This meant that under some circumstances you would be required to run a background check on a family member before giving them an heirloom hunting rifle!
Furthermore, it was clear to us that the “25 gun a year rule” was totally unenforceable and in fact was a built in “loophole” which would certainly be closed next session when the same police who supported this law came back and said they couldn’t enforce it. Then we’d be down to the “one gun a year” rule.
Obviously, we opposed this anti-gun attack on privacy and liberty, but “Oregon Gun Owners” lobbied for it and encouraged their members to support it!
As a result, we found ourselves battling not only the usual cabal of anti-gun legislators, but also an organization that raises money claiming to work for gun owners.
(The National Rifle Association was officially “neutral” on the bill, a fact we found only slightly less noxious.)
Through the hard work and dedication of our supporters, we were able to defeat this bill in spite of the conventional wisdom that it was unbeatable.
Throughout the fight, “Oregon Gun Owners” insisted that “something was going pass” and we’d better just accept it. You see, they had “counted the votes.”
Of course, they were wrong. But because we had exposed them for the compromising sell-outs that they are, they felt the need to attack us, a need they have never felt towards anti-gun politicians, many of whom have served on their board of “advisers”
In a lengthy piece that they hand delivered to even the most anti-gun legislators, they accused us and Gun Owners of America of lying about them, their motives and the contents of the bill. Using quotes that were taken out of context or only partially presented, they attempted to create political cover for the anti-gun zealots who were supporting this terrible bill.
It’s interesting to note that such anti-freedom extremists as Floyd Prozanski read from OGO’s hit piece on the House Floor. If you are known by the company you keep, “Oregon Gun Owners” have allied themselves with the most vicious opponents of gun rights in the state.
OGO’s policy of preemptive capitulation almost worked. Their willingness to roll over for the enemies of gun rights nearly gave enough anti-gun legislators the cover to pass the bill, while Oregon Firearms Federation and Gun Owners of America fought it to the very last minute, and won.
Even now, with their methods discredited and their true nature exposed, “Oregon Gun Owners” continues to chant the mantra of compromise and collaboration.
As far back as April of 1996, OGO’s John Nichols was writing in “Insight”, an OGO publication, “In other words, anyone interested in affecting the political process must be willing to put pure ideology aside and adopt a pragmatic approach to an issue based upon the possibilities that exist within the framework of long established legislative policy and judicial precedent.”
Further on in the same article, Nichols states “additionally, we have adopted a non-traditional approach when dealing with those who for one reason or another have introduced bills we cannot live with(or amend). Rather than being confrontational in our opposition, we attempt to remain on friendly terms with them…”
Now, after the motives of the anti-gunners are clear and their goals (complete elimination of civilian gun ownership) are well known, you would think that the powers that be at “Oregon Gun Owners” would recognize that “getting along” with your avowed enemies is a policy doomed to fail. But you’d be disappointed.
With that in mind, let’s take a look at the 1999 July/August issue of “Insight”.
In his column, Executive Director John Nichols continues his policy of advocating surrender prior to fighting the battle. After complaining that his tactics of collaboration resulted in “…the most vicious and sustained political attack that I h
ave ever seen-from any source- in a quarter of a century of lobbying for gun rights” Nichols claims that his organization has been painted as an anti-gun organization “in drag.”
We think it’s safe to say that the “sustained political attack” was from us but we have never accused OGO of being “in drag.” In fact at this point it’s safe to say they are not even trying to disguise their intentions.
Those intentions can be seen in subsequent paragraphs of Nichol’s article.
In spite of the attacks by anti-gun zealots like Senator Ginny Burdick who bragged about “rolling the gun lobby” (meaning “Oregon Gun Owners”) Nichols actually continues to promote the politics of capitulation. He writes “Winston Churchill wrote, “politics is the art of the possible’ In order to advance a point of view the advocate must be a better ‘salesman’ than his opponent.”
It would probably be more appropriate for Nichols to be quoting Neville Chamberlain, but can you imagine George Washington attempting to be a better “salesman” to the King of England or Douglas MacArthur being a “salesman” to the Japanese?
Nichols exhibits a misunderstanding of the reality of politics so fundamental that it is no surprise that anti-gun politicians embrace him. They know from the outset that Nichols will never challenge them. He’ll remain polite and obsequious, all the while trading away your rights.
You see, politics is not “the art of the possible.” Politics is war and the aggressor usually wins. Witness the behavior of Charlie Schumer and Diane Feinstein.They relentlessly attack. They brand gun owners as everything from drunken rednecks to crazed killers. They are vicious and extreme and consistent.
Here in Oregon their counterparts, like Representatives Joanne Bowman and Randy Leonard and Senator Ginny Burdick utilize the same techniques, never giving an inch while attacking, maligning and, of course, advancing their agenda year after year.
But instead of recognizing the plan of his opponents, Nichols is committed to remaining “non-confrontational.” The problem is, of course, the gun grabbers have no such commitment.
Every time there is an opportunity to vote on a bill which would be, by anyone’s measure, “reasonable”, they will (if they perceive there to be the slightest benefit to gun owners) vote no.
In spite of this, Nichols goes on: “Arguments need to be presented in a reasoned and dispassionate manner and above all, the lobbyist must never lie about the content of a bill or impugn the motives or character of an opponent.”
The facts are (as anyone who’s read the bill can tell you) that we didn’t lie about the content of the bill. We told the truth. Nichols, on the other hand, regularly mislead people about the contents of the bill in order to excuse his support for the very kind of bill his organization pretends to oppose.
As for “impugning the motives or character of an opponent” let’s, just for a moment, entertain a brief flirtation with reality.
Our opponents in this battle are committed to destroying our privacy and liberty. As I said earlier, this is war. While Nichols is convincing himself that he is playing a friendly game of checkers with his opponents, they are beating him deaf, dumb and blind with bar stools and he is saying “thank you sir, may I please have another?”
Unfortunately, it’s not only his own rights he’s trading away.
Nichols is committed to never offending a politician, irrespective of what that politician does to you and your rights.
When told “NO” Nichols slinks away and assumes defeat instead of considering the possibility that the offending politician can be “persuaded” not by superior “salesmanship” (forget that, this is NOT a matter of education) but by the ability of grassroots activists to cause pain for an elected official who is attempting to steal their rights.
After “a quarter century” of fighting anti-gun extremists, Nichols is still blissfully ignorant of their intent. He still believes he can “show them the light” if he is just “reasonable” enough. The simple truth is these people know exactly what they are doing and that is attempting to disarm every civilian in America. You know how we know? They told us. Over and over again. Still, Nichols cannot resist the siren song of surrender. He continues “Lobbyists who engage in ‘attack politics’, which are based on instilling fear through hysterical misrepresentation of the facts have an extremely limited effective political life.”
If Nichols was referring to the anti-gun crazies who will tell any lie and distort every fact to further erode your rights that might be an interesting statement, but of course he is not. He’s referring to the only people with the principle to fight against those erosions, us.
Amazingly Nichols further revels his true agenda a few sentences later:
“The net result is that they soon find themselves on the ‘outside looking in’ as opposed to being an effective ‘player.”
Yes, what an effective player Nichols was in the ’99 legislative session. An anti-gun bill he promoted was voted against by the vast majority of Republican House and Senate members and supported by all the most extreme anti-gunners. That would be effective if he was working for Handgun Control.
But think of how revealing that statement actually is. Nichols makes no attempt to defend your rights. He simply extols the beauty of being an insider, a “player.”
That’s his problem. Winning is of no consequence to him. Being “One of the club” is all that matters. And to remain in good standing in the “club” you play by their rules and do things their way.
Obviously, we play by different rules. Our own.
We certainly hope that if Nichols is any indication of being an “effective player” we remain forever on the “outside looking in.”
In an interesting side bar, we did notice the following:
On the inside cover of previous issues, OGO listed their “Board of Advisers”. Among other anti-gun leaders, the board included Senator Gordon Smith, who led the call for more gun control in the US Senate. In this issue the space usually reserved
for the listing of these luminaries is the following:
“Advisory Board Update.
OGO is in the process of reevaluating the need for and function of the OGO Advisory Board. The defection of three of our board members has caused us to question our relationship with key political figures who have wavered (sic) from strong and consistent support of the 2nd amendment.
In the meantime, the Board of Directors has removed Senators Brady Adams and Neil Bryant as well as Representative Lynn Lundquist for their support in favor of SB 700.(sic) We will let you know the results of our evaluation in a future issue of the Insight.”
(Emphasis added)
On a special added back cover received by only some OGO members is a quote from “Advisory Board” member Senator Veral Tarno. It reads as follows;
“Not only do I consider it a privilege to own a firearm under our second amendment rights, I consider it mandatory that I do in order to insure that our future generations have the same privilege.”
Maybe with advisers that think gun ownership is a “privilege” instead of a right, they’re finally making the right decision by dumping the “advisers,” but don’t hold your breath.
(Emphasis added)