|
Category: OFF Alerts
If You Don’t Vote, You Don’t Matter
|
GUN BAN MOVING FORWARD, GABBY COMES TO TOWN
|
They Teach, But They Can’t Read
It’s always troubling when bureaucracies either cannot understand the law, or simply choose to break it.
A case in point is the Eugene “4J” School District, headed by Dr. Sheldon Berman. (541-790-7707 berman_s@4j.lane.edu )
No matter how you feel about it, Oregon law clearly allows persons with Oregon concealed handgun licenses to be on public school property.
Now, there is no question that the government school monopoly is not happy about this, and in spite of zero examples of any CHL holder ever hurting or threatening anyone, they return year after year to the legislature to demand that CHL holders be banned from their property.
This is ironic, of course, given the number of times armed civilians have stopped school shootings. But for the public school establishment, politics trumps kid’s safety.
The Eugene 4J school district has a policy that forbids anyone, even persons with concealed handgun licenses from being on their property with a firearm. You can see it here.
They even post it on big signs on their school doors.
Look folks, this isn’t news. Those policies are void. Period. This was settled when we sued the Oregon University System in 2011. The courts found that schools simply do not have the authority to make rules of this kind. In the Oregon Appeals Court ruling they said of the Oregon University System’s similar policy:
“Therefore, we conclude that OAR 580-022-0045 is an exercise of an “authority to regulate” firearms that is not expressly authorized by the Legislative Assembly, and that it is preempted by ORS 166.170(1).Accordingly, the rule exceeds the agency’s authority, ORS 183.400(4)(b), and is invalid. OAR 580-022-0045(3) held invalid.”
Really Dr. Berman, it was in all the papers.
Gun owners face an endless array of rules, regulations, orders, laws and statutes and we are expected to understand and obey every one of them. So why do bureaucrats like Berman believe they are above the law? Notice, the policy was readopted in May of this year! Are we to believe that no one in the Eugene school district was aware of the court’s ruling? If so, we’d hate to see the social studies classes there.
But it does not end there of course. The Oregon Department of Education “Early Learning Division” has an administrative rule dealing with day care centers. OAR 414-300-0170 says, among other things, “The possession and/or storage of firearms and ammunition are prohibited in the center.”
We wondered how this could be legal so we started contacting them last year about this. Here is a response our lawyer got after months of run arounds, from Kathleen Hynes “Legal and Compliance Manager Office of Child Care The Early Learning Division”
“Thank you for your inquiry. Counsel for the agency has researched the question Mr. Starrett posed regarding regulation of firearms in child care facilities. The agency has also considered the issue under its policies and procedures, and has concluded that the administrative rules in question don’t violate the statute that Mr. Starrett referenced, or any other laws or case law concerning firearm regulation.”
Oh really? Not so fast Kathleen. This month, Legislative Counsel weighed in on this. Those are the folks who actually write the laws for the legislature. Here’s what they said:
“The short answer is that we believe that ORS 166.170 preempts OAR 414-300- 0170(1)(k) and that, if it were challenged, the rule would very likely be declared invalid.”
and:
“It is, on its face, an administrative rule that regulates the possession and storage of firearms and ammunition and it therefore falls within the scope of preemption under ORS 166.170. Because there is not a state statute expressly authorizing the Department of Education, the Early Learning Division or any child care facility to regulate the possession or storage of firearms or ammunition within a child care facility, we believe a court would declare this rule invalid under ORS 166.170”.
So let’s be clear. If you are in possession of an Oregon CHL and you are not doing something illegal, you are allowed on public school property with a firearm. We will actively litigate against any school district that attempts to implement this policy in violation of Oregon law and we will contribute to the legal defense of any person ensnared by policies of this kind. If you run a day center you cannot be prohibited from have the tools you need to defend those children when the monsters come calling.
And don’t think this is isolated. See here and here.
Corvallis Loaded Carry Ban To Be Considered Again
10.17.14
On October 21st the “Human Services Committee” of the City of Corvallis will, once again, consider its proposed ban on loaded firearms. This is the same policy you successfully defeated in Ashland.
The Human Service Committee is responsible for social services, recreation, park and open space issues, law code enforcement, and library service issues. Council members serving on the Human Services Committee are Mike Beilstein(Ward 5), Bruce Sorte (Ward 7), Penny York(Ward 1).
Clearly, the committee is considering a solution in search of a problem, but your efforts are certainly having an effect, so keep it up.
A review of the minutes from their last meeting on October 7th shows that both the City Attorney and the Chief of Police have serious reservations about enacting this attack on the rights of the people of Corvallis. (The loaded,open carry issue begins on page 6.)
According to the minutes of the meeting, City Attorney Jim Brewer “expressed concern about Subsection 4) infringing on 4th and 5th Amendment rights. A person who openly carries a weapon in Oregon is not a person who is committing a crime. The ability for Officers to stop and/or arrest a person after a weapons inspection is problematic. This subsection mirrors language in State law regarding carrying inside public buildings; however, Mr. Brewer is not sure the State language would survive a 4th Amendment review. If an ordinance is adopted, Mr. Brewer and the District Attorney recommend no change in police response. The ordinance does not give law enforcement the authority to stop and question people who are not otherwise reasonably suspected of being involved in criminal activity.”
Chief Sassaman “said the City cannot legislate a greater authority that does not currently exist. CPD abides by all statutes related to stop/frisk; search/seizure; 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments; etc. Officers do not have the ability to stop someone openly carrying a firearm to see if the weapon is loaded.”
In response to a question from one city councilor, the city attorney had to point out that Oregon has no “brandishing” statute.
Your activism is making a difference. Please keep up the pressure and help us stop this needless assault on your rights
The agenda for the Oct 21’s meeting can be seen here.
Decision 2014
The 2014 election is upon us. Ballots are in the mail.
Your vote is essential. Rest assured the anti-gunners are well funded and working overtime to get out the vote and promote freedom haters. The loss of one Oregon Senate seat could spell the difference between keeping or losing your gun rights. Make no mistake, in many, many districts the race will be decided by a tiny number of votes.
Our candidate ratings for Oregon House, Senate and Governor are posted here. There you will find an explanation of how we rate candidates whenever a rating is possible. To see our take on Federal races, you can go directly here. The direct link for local races is here.
The Governor’s race has come down to a contest between two candidates who could not be more different. Dennis Richardson believes that the best way to respond to calls for more gun control is to encourage more firearms education. By that he means actually teaching young people how to safely use firearms and to respect them.
Governor Kitzhaber would prefer to see more restrictions on gun owners. Remember, he personally accompanied anti-gun zealot Mark Kelly to a hearing in Salem to stump for an expansion of Oregon’s horribly failed background check/registration system.
While Kitzhaber supports more restrictions on law abiding Oregonians he also actively supports expanding rights for law breakers. Ballot Measure 88 would give driver’s licenses to people who are here in violation of the law.
Kitzhaber and other supporters make the absurd claim that giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens will somehow guarantee that these same lawbreakers will run out and get auto insurance. In his debate with Richardson on Oct 13th he defended his position describing illegals as “taxpayers,” an idea quickly dispelled by Richardson who pointed out they were not “taxpayers” unless they were using someone else’s Social Security number.
Gun owners should be very concerned about Measure 88. If illegals are given driver’s licenses the next step will be voting privileges, which are already absurdly easy to get in Oregon. The supporters of 88 claimed that the driver’s “cards” could never be used for anything but driving. That’s already been proven false. Rest assured, the vast majority of illegals will not be voting for candidates who support gun rights.
The revelations of the criminal past of the Governor’s girlfriend are also troubling, not because of her fraudulent marriage or her illegal growing operation but because of the obvious ethical problems created by her misuse of her relationship with the Governor for her personal gain.
After three terms of Kitzhaber Oregon ranks near the bottom of everything. Our unemployment rates, graduation rates and economic health are getting close to third world status. Kitzhaber’s only response to this seems to be that he supports same sex marriage and abortion. And while that might be enough for some people, even the most committed leftists should demand a chief executive who is marginally competent and is not flushing millions of our dollars down the toilet with pathetic schemes like “Cover Oregon.”
Add to this Kitzhaber’s outrageous misuse of the Oregon State Police to push his anti-gun agenda and the decision on who to vote for becomes fairly easy.
Voters could be forgiven if they are scratching their heads over Ballot Measure 90. This measure would limit elections to only two candidates, the “top two” from whatever field started in what we now call a “primary.”
The voters pamphlet is filled with arguments for and against this measure. The proponents are claiming that this measure would open up the process to more voters and better candidates. Both rural Democrats and urban Republicans have published statements implying that this system would give them a voice they don’t have now.since they would be able to vote irrespective of the party they are in.
It is true that in Oregon an awful lot of voters are locked out of the process because they are independents and don’t have a vote in the primary elections, but it’s hard to imagine how this would be an improvement. In Portland, which is totally controlled by anti-gun Democrats, two anti-gun Democrats will be the “top two” in the final election. That gives a pro-gun independent or Republican (or third party member) the choice of voting for an anti-gun Democrat, or…an anti-gun Democrat. And while one could make the case that only an anti-gun Democrat can win in Portland anyway, you should not be forced to choose between casting your ballot for someone you disagree with or nobody.
Whether your candidate wins or loses, you should still have a right to make a statement with your vote and your conscience. A similar argument could be made if you are an anti-gun Democrat in eastern Oregon.
Almost certainly third party candidates will disappear. Currently, minor party candidates have almost no chance of winning, but they are still allowed to run, they are still allowed to make their positions known to the best of their ability despite being shut out by the mainstream media.
If neither of the “top two” candidates reflects your principles, shouldn’t you at least have the right to make a statement with your vote regardless of your candidate’s chances of winning? Toss into this mix this interesting factoid; Michael Bloomberg, who is spending millions to impose universal gun registration of the type used in New York for mass confiscations has put well over a million bucks into promoting this measure. Bloomberg does not exactly have a reputation of wanting to expand the voice of the people.
Oregon’s independent voters clearly need more access to the process. Some kind of “open primary” may be the way to achieve that. But Measure 90 seems to be nothing more than a way to limit choices. All too often we feel like we are stuck with the “lesser of two evils.” Measure 90 almost guarantees it.
You can find your current legislators and district here. Use the box in the lower right corner that says “Find My Legislators.”
Gabby Giffords’ War On Women
10.14.14
Gabby Giffords is coming back to Oregon to spread the gospel of gun control.
Although a date has not been announced, the Associated Press has reported that Giffords “will begin a nine-state tour in Maine, where she will advocate for tougher gun laws that she says will help protect women and families.”
(Giffords is bankrolled by millions from New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg.)
Giffords “will seek to elevate the issue of gun violence against women ” and no doubt will be promoting universal gun registration (“background checks.”)
Among the dead when Giffords was wounded were Chief Judge John Roll and Giffords’ community outreach director Gabe Zimmerman. Both apparently were men.
Of course, as is so often the case, the murderer who killed John Roll, Gabe Zimmerman and a nine year old girl when Giffords was shot, passed a background check. According to the State Police’s own figures, many law-abiding Oregonians cannot.
So while good people have their rights delayed or denied, killers like Gifford’s attacker and the Virginia Tech shooter are approved for gun purchases.
According to AP:
“Among the changes Giffords has sought is to include people with misdemeanor-level stalking crimes among those who are prohibited from buying firearms and to expand background checks to ensure that domestic violence abusers can’t buy firearms at gun shows.”
Of course, persons with domestic violence misdemeanors can’t buy guns at gun shows now, no matter how old, trivial or trumped up their charge was. Remember, for many years people who were arrested for “domestic violence” were encouraged to plead to misdemeanors even when they were innocent, because it would “save them thousands in lawyers fees.” Few knew they were giving up their rights forever.
Oregon law now requires that people be informed they will lose their rights before pleading, but for far too long many innocent people were ensnared by dishonest DA’s and ill-informed police.
People who are subject to “stalking orders” have not been accused of a crime, let alone convicted. And yet Giffords wants to see their rights violated with no due process. Even now, a person can have their rights eliminated simply because someone else makes an unfounded accusation. Any attempt to refute the accusation, no matter how false, puts the accused in further jeopardy!
But Gifford’s handlers, and she by proxy, are actually waging a war on women and expediting violence against them.
Giffords is using her Bloomberg pay off to endanger the most vulnerable in our society. By pushing an expansion of the failed background check system to include transfers between friends and family members, Giffords is putting a bullseye on the back of every woman who fears for her safety from a real stalker or abuser.
The State Police’s own figures demonstrate that the majority of people who are denied a firearm are denied in error. So while encouraging women to seek “restraining orders” against abusers (which provide exactly zero protection) Giffords is working overtime to assure that women won’t be able to access the one thing that might actually protect them from harm.
The universal background checks Giffords is pushing are gun registration pure and simple. The ballot measure currently being promoted by her sugar daddy Bloomberg and other millionaires in Washington State will make criminals out of thousands of good people. And make no mistake, Oregon is next in line.
We will never compete with their bankrolls, but we have to be prepared to spread the truth in the face of their lies and distortions.
Please consider a donation to our Political Action Committee. You not only help us prepare for the battles that are certainly coming to Oregon, you get a tax credit.
Out of state millions can buy lots of votes. Help send Bloomberg and his billionaire buddies back home.
OPEN CARRY BAN HEARD IN CORVALLIS
10.08.14
A subcommittee of the Corvallis City Council held a hearing on Tuesday to discuss a ban on open loaded carry of firearms.
Second Amendment supporters were well represented and we thank everyone who took time out of their busy day to show up and speak in support of liberty.
While this issue is by no means resolved, early indications are that the council members are realizing an ordinance of this kind would create nothing but confusion and open the door to endless lawsuits.
Your activism convinced the City of Ashland to abandon its plans for a similar rule and your continued efforts may well get Corvallis to give up on this pointless attack on your rights and common sense. Here are some quotes from pro-rights people who were there.
“I didn’t keep an exact count, but I think it was about 7 to 2 testifying in opposition to the ordinance. Maybe 25-30 folks.”
“Everyone was civil, made their points well and was respectful. One gentleman, a VietNam Vet, the first to testify, was a little worked up at Councilor Beilstein’s Cuban flag plastered on the back of his laptop. There’s a long story to that, but suffice to say, the Vet made a great point. Beilstein has a cuban flag on his computer prominently displayed and NOWHERE in the room was a Flag of the United States. Good on him for noticing that and bringing it up. “
“The (Police )Chief and the (City)attorney seemed to be trying to say in as diplomatic of a way as possible that the ordinance was meaningless. It changes nothing in the way the officers would be able to respond. If no procedural changes, why go forward. They pointed out how sections of the Portland ordinance is lacking in logic as well. “
“The proposal itself is an enactment of what is essentially a cut/paste of the Portland ordinance. First up to speak on it were the Chief of Corvallis PD and the city attorney. They briefly went over the ordnance as proposed and offered the following:
The proposed ordinance would be problematic; the Portland ordinance was used as a template because it is the only one to have survived any scrutiny whatsoever, and that was in a couple of very fact-dependent cases.
They posited that the ordinance would very likely break down under any sort of more general test. They also offered the opinion that it would be unenforceable on (if I remember correctly) Fourth Amendment grounds. The Chief of Police informed the committee that CPD policies and practices would not change if the proposed ordinance passed.”
“Public testimony ran 9/2 opposed. Testimony on both sides ran about as one would expect, with 5-6 people who wished to speak being unable due to time constraints. The committee decided to resume public testimony on the matter at the next meeting, 21 October same place, same time.”
Responses to emails sent to the Mayor and Council members indicate no great enthusiasm for poking this particular badger, but we need to keep the pressure up.
An interesting take on the meeting was posted by our friends at Oathkeepers.
If you can be at the next hearing, please go and make your voice heard. If not please send a message to the council members and mayor.
Contact information for the the mayor and city council is available here.
Schedule information and agenda documents are available here.
Hypocrite.
hypocrite
noun
1.
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles etc. , that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.Sara Gelser really wants to be a Senator. Really. So she is attacking her opponent, Betsy Close, by calling her “extreme.” Of course, if you believe in the Second Amendment, you are “extreme” to Gelser. That’s to be expected.
But Gelser’s hypocrisy is stunning. She attacks Betsy by running ads saying the “extreme right” is “shoveling money” into this campaign, but Gelser is fine with having California billionaires “shovel money” into her coffers.
Gelser’s main attack on Senator Close is that Close supports a person’s right to own a firearm. Close voted against a bill that would force friends and family members to ask for police permission to lend or give a gun to each other. That’s what has millionaire Gelser fuming.
If Gelser has her way, a woman who was facing a violent stalker would not be allowed to have gun, from a gun store or her best friend or even her uncle, unless the police approved! And in Oregon, people trying to acquire guns are routinely denied that right by the police because their record keeping is so shoddy that they can’t even tell who is prohibited. So they prohibit first and ask questions later.
Recent statistics we obtained show that over 97% of the people denied firearms by the state police were not people who were actually subject to any arrest. They just had their rights denied.
Of the people who the police said were so dangerous they could not buy a gun only 2.41% were actually arrested. And Gelser wants to expand this colossal failure to a gun you want to leave with your girlfriend if you have to be out of town and she fears for her safety.
Gelser is so determined to deny anyone the right to own a firearm for protection, she has even tried to make it illegal for foster parents to own guns! So, if you step up and try to provide a home for a kid who has nowhere else to go, Gelser wants to take your rights away.
Gelser leads the privileged life of a millionaire. It’s no surprise she would want to disarm everyone else. Don’t let Gelser impose her elite agenda on you and your family. Help us send her back to her mansion and get her out of Oregon politics. Please consider making a donation to keep Betsy Close, (a true Second Amendment chanpion) in the Senate by making a donation to her campaign or contributing to OFFPAC. Your help will keep hypocrite Gelser out of the Senate and away from your guns.
Portland Slime Now In Corvallis
10.02.14
The endless war on the Second Amendment will have its next battle in Corvallis on Oct. 7th at 2pm.
The City Council is scheduled to hold a hearing on “Open Carry of Firearms.”
Corvallis has already lost one lawsuit against a person who was openly carrying a firearm, but it does not look like they have learned their lesson.
Just to be clear, in most places Corvallis has no legal power to ban “open carry.” What they are trying to do is ban “loaded carry.”
The lessons of Ashland have clearly been lost on this City Council. Ashland dropped its efforts to ban open, loaded carry when it became a magnet for lawful open carriers. Perhaps Corvallis must be next.
If you can be at this hearing, please show up and express your opposition to this pointless act of theater. If you cannot be there, please contact the City Council and let them know how you feel.
Contact information for the the mayor and city council is available here.
Schedule information and agenda documents are available here.
BACKGROUND CHECKS A FAILURE. State Police
09.30.14
In a stunning admission that their current background check/ gun buyer harassment scheme is a failure, the Oregon State Police have released statistics proving what we’ve said all along.
As you know, Governor Kitzahaber has required that every time a firearm’s purchase is denied, at least one State Police officer must leave patrol to “investigate.” While the OSP’s directive says the investigating officer must be told the reason for the denial, they virtually never are.
Now the OSP has provided details that demonstrate what a staggering waste of time this policy is.
According to an Executive Summary “on the investigations the Oregon State Police (OSP) is conducting regarding denied firearm transactions through the Firearm Instant Check System (FICS) Unit” of the 331 “denial” investigations only 8 people have been arrested. That’s a total of only 2.41% of the people denied!
And of course, there is no way of knowing how many of the people taken into custody were arrested for actual offenses and how many were victims of the same sloppy record keeping that kept most of the other 97% from completing transfers.
Of the 12 people reported to have been denied because of “mental health” we know of at least one who was clearly denied for false reasons.
Another buyer who was issued a “citation in lieu of custody” was told he had to appear in court and when he inquired about his court date was told everything had been dropped!
Even more surprising was the reported statistic that of the 40 people who were denied because they were “wanted”only 4 were actually arrested! The State Police describe a person who is “wanted” as having an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.
90% of the people who were denied because they were “wanted” walked out of the gun store. 4 people who were denied because they were “wanted” are listed in the category of “Investigation Complete-No Action.” The State Police list this as “Trooper finished investigation and determined extraneous circumstances did not warrant an arrest,citation or any other action.”
Of the 331 denials 40 were because the OSP determined that the gun they were trying to buy was stolen. That hardly makes the buyer a dangerous person.
The anti-gun crowd is eager to report the number of firearms purchase denials as evidence that the failed background check system is a great success. But three factors make this claim absurd.
First, as is clearly demonstrated by the numbers provided by the OSP, the vast majority of people who are denied have not been proven to have done anything wrong.
Second, assuming that the OSP’s numbers are accurate, (which we can’t) only a tiny fraction of the people who are denied are arrested, meaning that if they truly are dangerous and should not have firearms, they are still free to walk the streets. So pretending that a denial has any effect on crime is, on it’s face, ridiculous.
Third, in virtually every case of a mass shooting, a mandatory background check would have had no effect. The shooters either PASSED the check or would never have been subject to one because, for example, they stole the guns used.
Keep in mind that we have faced an ongoing effort to expand this failed system to transfers made between friends and family members. In the last few weeks the Firearms Instant Check System has had massive delays with dealers facing waiting times for what transfers do take place at 350% or more over normal waits. In some cases the FICS system is simply not working at all.
Washington voters are now facing a ballot measure that will expand this failed system to private transfers. Nevada is following their lead. We will almost certainly face a similar measure here. Make no mistake, background checks are gun registration schemes. Efforts to expand them are being funded by billionaires with armed guards.
The battle is coming.
Get ready.
The Sharks Are Circling
09.26.14
Yesterday we told you about California billionaire Tom Steyer’s efforts to buy two Senate seats in Oregon and install anti-gunners. Steyer hopes to defeat Republicans Betsy Close and Bruce Starr.
Today the Washington Times is reporting that another out of town billionaire, anti-gun zealot Michael Bloomberg, is dropping even more money to attack Bruce Starr.
The Times reports that Bloomberg’s “Everytown For Gun Safety” spent over $18,400.00 in support of Chuck Riley, Starr’s Democrat opponent.
“Everytown” has listed three expenditures for Riley: $292.37 and $2545.02 for “card shipping” and $15,600 for “paid organizers.”
As you know, the Senate is currently made up of 14 Republicans, 15 anti-gun Democrats and 1 pro-gun Democrat. The loss of even one Republican seat could be disastrous for gun rights in Oregon.
Bloomberg already has an organized campaign of letter writers attacking Starr.
You can help us defeat Bloomberg with a donation to OFFPAC and you can get a tax credit. Or you can help Starr directly by making a donation to his campaign.
This message was brought to you by OFFPAC.
California Billionaire Tries To Buy Oregon Senate
9.25.14
The anti-gun left, always eager to assail the funding of Republican candidates by affluent out-of-staters, has been very quiet about California billionaire Tom Steyer’s attempt to buy the Oregon Senate.
A May 22, 2014 New York Times article stated that Steyer’s goal is to spend $100 MILLION dollars to “defeat those who question or deny the established science of climate change.”
Leave it to the tolerant left to want to punish anyone who even “questions” their orthodoxy in spite of the fact that “climate change” is far from the “established science” the New York Times says it is.
It’s this sort of “established science” that has “scientists” calling for a ban on lead ammo while admitting that such bans have produced no results. “A partial ban went into effect in July 2008 and was later expanded. So far, however, researchers have found no evidence that the ban has resulted in a reduction in blood lead levels in condors.”
One such “scientist” (Myra Finkelstein), who testified at a recent hearing in Oregon in favor of banning lead ammunition, may have set a new record for highly dubious “facts” when she said: “We found that over the course of 10 years, if just one half of one percent of carcasses have lead in them, the probability that each free-flying condor will be exposed is 85 to 98 percent, and one exposure event could kill a condor.”
Even the United Nations is getting into the lead banning act:“With respect to lead ammunition, the most effective way of reducing risks to migratory birds is to create legislative processes to restrict sale, possession and/or use of lead ammunition to ensure lead ammunition is not left un-retrieved within the environment.
Now the folks who are using agenda-driven politics masquerading as “science” are planning to drop a boat load of money in Oregon to defeat Republican Senators and replace them with anti-gun extremists.
The Oregonian is reporting that Steyer’s group, NextGen Climate, “announced Wednesday that it will work with Oregon environmentalists to try to unseat Republican state Sens. Bruce Starr of Hillsboro and Betsy Close of Albany…NextGen announced it would partner with the Oregon League of Conservation Voters on a series of get-out-the-vote activities and TV ads to support Starr’s challenger, former Democratic Rep. Chuck Riley, and Close’s Democratic opponent, Rep. Sara Gelser of Corvallis.”
As you know, the current makeup of the Oregon Senate is 16 Democrats and 14 Republicans. Exactly one Democrat, Betsy Johnson, is pro-gun. That means that with the loss of a single Republican Senator, Oregon could become the next Connecticut. Except for Johnson, every other Democrat Senator is committed to attacking gun rights.
Betsy Close has been one of the strongest voices in defense of the Second Amendment our legislature has ever had. Betsy recently held a fundraiser where women were taught firearms skills. In contrast, her opponent, Sara Gelser, has attempted to punish foster parents who own firearms.
Bruce Starr has been a consistent pro-gun vote while his challenger, Chuck Riley, has aligned himself with far-left, anti-gun activists.
The anti-gunners are incredibly wealthy and willing to tell any lie to promote their liberty smashing agenda. It is essential that we, as Second Amendment supporters, retain these seats.
If you live in either Close or Starr’s district, please be sure to cast your vote for them. Put up a lawn sign and talk to your family and neighbors. And remember, you can help support and elect good candidates by making a donation to OFFPAC, where every dime goes for gun rights and contributions qualify for a tax credit. These races will be won by a small number of votes. Please do all you can to make sure anti-gun extremists do not prevail.
This message was brought to you by OFFPAC.
AMMO BAN UPDATE
09.17.14
Yesterday’s hearing on lead ammo reinforced everything we were expecting.
While the hearing subject was listed as “Lead Ammunition Survey” there is no doubt that what will be coming down the road is an attempt to ban lead ammo.
If some of the more extreme anti-hunting activists have their way, the ban will be on all lead ammo, not just ammo used in hunting.
While the representatives from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife did not call for an outright ban, others who came to testify made it clear that that was their goal.
Myra Finkelstein of the Department of Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology, University of California, and Debra Scheafer of the Audubon Society of Portland both called for a complete elimination of lead ammo. But while their “science” was obviously agenda driven, one comment by Finkelstein was particularly telling.
(Keep in mind, the efforts to ban lead ammo are all being done in the name of saving California Condors. The claims by the anti-hunting extremists are that condors are dying because hunters use lead bullets. Those bullets “fragment into hundreds of tiny pieces” and are then consumed by condors.)
Let’s leave aside their questionable knowledge of ballistics for a moment.
Finkelstein noted that a voluntary ban on lead ammo for hunting in Arizona had been “incredibly successful” in terms of its very high compliance rate, but that it didn’t work!
It’s pretty clear that when a “scientist” promotes a program that has failed elsewhere, she has an agenda that’s a little different than advertised.
Oregon Firearms was joined by Dan Reid of the NRA and Stan Steele of the Oregon Outdoor Council who did an excellent job highlighting the holes in the anti-hunters’ testimony.
Brad Witt, the Chairman of the committee asked some interesting questions that clarified that the testimony of the “fragmenting bullets” was dubious at best. Vice Chair Sal Esquival pointed out that when he weighed the bullets from an elk he shot, they all weighted exactly the same as when they were fired, again adding to the doubt of fragmenting bullet theory.
Also pointed out was that California’s ban on lead ammo has coincided with an increase in lead levels in condors! As you would expect from California, they are now expanding that ban!
Coincidentally, NSSF today released a report “demonstrating the negative effects that the State of California’s ban on the use of traditional lead ammunition in hunting will have on hunters, the state’s economy and wildlife conservation.”
That report is available here.
The hysteria around lead ammo is interesting considering the massive amounts of lead used and left behind by people other than hunters.
There is little doubt that the real agenda is against hunting and gun owners and has nothing to do with saving scavengers.
You can see a video of the hearing by using this link. You will want to scroll down to “House Interim Committee On Agriculture and Natural Resources 2014-09-16 2:00 PM”
From there you can go directly to the part of the hearing dealing with lead ammo by clicking on the tab that says “Lead Ammunition Survey – Informational Meeting”.
Chairman Witt and Vice Chair Esquival (both of whom are hunters and gun rights supporters) commented on the large number of emails they received on this issue. For all who took time to write, thank you for your activism and thank you to everyone who took time to come to the hearing, especially the large contingent from our friends at Oathkeepers. Rest assured your presence made an impact.
Lead Ammo Ban Hearing Scheduled
09.09.14
We’ve been warning for some time that an attempt to ban lead ammo would be coming. Now the first hearing on the subject has been scheduled.
On Sept. 16 in Hearing Room D at the State Capitol at 2PM, the House Interim Committee On Agriculture and Natural Resources will be holding a “informational meeting” on lead ammo.
Governor Kitzhaber is reported to be behind a push to ban lead ammo. At this point there has been no proposed legislation made public so it’s unclear if this will start as a ban on lead ammo for hunting, or a total ban on lead ammo. You can rest assured that if it starts with hunting it won’t stop there. Make no mistake, this is a political effort, not an environmental one. The anti-gunners see this as one more way to attack the rights of gun owners.
Having failed in Oregon to ban firearms, this is yet another attack on possession of ammunition.
This hearing is open to the public, however only invited testimony will be taken. We still encourage you to attend.
The Chairman and Vice-Chair of the committee are both pro-gun and pro-hunting so the fact that this hearing is taking place at all before any bill has been made public may be an effort to get in front of the issue. However, it is still a dangerous policy. It’s unlikely that anything said at this meeting will prevent a lead ammo bill from being drafted and introduced. So now, even before the elections, we need to start letting legislators know that we will oppose any effort to further curtail ammo supplies.
Please contact Chairman Brad Witt Rep.BradWitt@state.or.us
and Vice Chair Sal Esquivel Rep.SalEsquivel@state.or.us
Urge them to oppose any effort by the environmental extremists and the well funded anti-gun lobby to ban lead ammo.
You can find an excellent source of information and talking points here.