Category: OFF Alerts

BURDICK’S ANTI-GUN BILLS SCHEDULED 

Senator Floyd Prozanski has scheduled three gun bills for a hearing on Feb.8.

These bills are SB 1550,1551 and 1574.

1550 bans licensed concealed carry on school property.
1551 bans licensed concealed carry in all public buildings.
1574 is a supposed “reciprocity” bill we told you about in our Jan. 25th alert.

There have been no issues that warrant these attacks.

SB 1550 and 1551 are the most dangerous bills we will face this session.

It is critical that you act immediately.

If you can attend the hearing, it will be at 1pm, Feb. 8, in hearing room 343 in the Capitol.

Whether you can be there or not, please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and tell them “hands off my gun rights.”

Please send the short, clear message “NO on 1550 and 1551!”

The members of the committee are listed below:
Floyd Prozanski
503-986-1704
sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us

Jackie Dingfelder
503-986-1723
sen.jackiedingfelder@state.or.us

Jeff Kruse
503-986-1701
sen.jeffkruse@state.or.us

Doug Whitsett
503-986-1728
sen.dougwhitsett@state.or.us

Peter Courtney
503-986-1600
sen.petercourtney@state.or.us

If your own Senator is not on the committee please contact them as well with the same message. You can send an email to your Senator using this link, even if you don’t know who he is.

The anti-gun extremists are cranking things up and we have to act as quickly as possible!

MORE ON FLOYD’S “RECIPROCITY” BILL

Senator Floyd Prozanski, who, as chair of Senate Judiciary, torpedoed every pro-gun bill in 2011, has sent out a mass email (reproduced at the end of this alert) promoting  SB 1574, a bill he sponsored as a “reciprocity” bill. We told you about it in this alert.

Displaying his normal cognitive dissonance, Floyd said “This bill is the product of a work group that included representatives from the NRA, Oregon Gun Owners Association, Oregon State Police and Oregon Sheriffs Association.”

Oddly, in the very next paragraph, Floyd’s email says “The national NRA recently blogged opposition to the bill.”

In an amusing, but not unexpected closing, Floyd states “Please remember to contact my office to get my actual position on particular bills. Once again, the information included in Kevin Starrett’s January 25 e-alert was inaccurate.”

It has become Floyd’s mantra (along with some genuinely delusional accusations) that the information we provide is inaccurate.  We encourage you to read the alert in question and determine if there is a single word in it that is inaccurate.

Once again showing how little Floyd understands about bills that come before him, he states:

” Unlike previous bills that were supposedly reciprocal, SB 1574 will ensure that Oregon CHL holders receive equal treatment in states that Oregon recognizes under this legislation.”

The fact is, the bill that Floyd killed in 2011 was not a “reciprocity” bill, it was a straight “recognition” bill that had strong support from the Oregon Sheriffs.

In an ironic twist, Floyd notes “The NRA’s national office favors legislation that would permit lesser-qualified, out-of-state CHL holders to carry in Oregon.”

Obviously we have some pretty high standards here and need to make sure residents of other states can match them. The irony is that today on KOPB’s Think Out Loud, Senator Ginny Burdick, Floyd’s gun-hating soul mate, explained why we need to ban CHL carry in public buildings. It’s because CHL holders are “not trained.”  There seems to be some intellectual bankruptcy in the gun control cabal.

Floyd’s email includes a survey that is designed to elicit the responses he wants rather than an accurate reflection of what people really think. His assertion that our earlier alert was “inaccurate” is just another lie from Floyd.  If you want to ask him  what we said that was not accurate, you can contact him here:

Senator Floyd Prozanski
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1704
District Phone: 541-342-2447
Email: sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us

Floyd’s email follows:

_______________________________________________________________________

Dear Friends,
I mentioned to you in my previous e-letters that I would keep you informed of any gun legislation that I introduced for the 2012 short session. I have introduced SB 1574. This is a true reciprocity bill that will allow out-of-state CHLs to be recognized in Oregon if their permitting requirements are substantially similar to Oregon’s and if the other state recognizes Oregon CHLs in their state. You can review my bill, here: www.leg.state.or.us/12reg/measpdf/sb1500.dir/sb1574.intro.pdf.
This bill is the product of a work group that included representatives from the NRA, Oregon Gun Owners Association, Oregon State Police and Oregon Sheriffs Association. Unlike previous bills that were supposedly reciprocal, SB 1574 will ensure that Oregon CHL holders receive equal treatment in states that Oregon recognizes under this legislation.
The national NRA recently blogged opposition to the bill. The NRA’s national office favors legislation that would permit lesser-qualified, out-of-state CHL holders to carry in Oregon. This would allow an out-of-state CHL holder who has not met the same standards as Oregonians, such as a criminal background check, not being a felon, and not having been adjudicated with a mental health illness, to have their out-of-state CHL recognized in Oregon. As an Oregonian, I do not agree with this approach. It would make Oregon residents second-class citizens in their own state.
Your opinion is important to me. I put together a brief survey on the matter. It can be accessed, here: www.surveymonkey.com/s/BSZRVRQ.
Please remember to contact my office to get my actual position on particular bills. Once again, the information included in Kevin Starrett’s January 25 e-alert was inaccurate.
Floyd

______________________________________________________________________

CHL PRIVACY SCHEDULED FOR HEARING

HB 4045 is scheduled for a hearing on Monday February 6. This bill, introduced by Representative Kim Thatcher, will protect the privacy of persons with concealed handgun licenses.

The bill will be heard in the House Judiciary Committee which meets at 8am in Hearing Room 343.

If you are a license holder and want to protect your privacy please attend and testify at this hearing.

If you cannot attend, please contact the members of the committee and urge their support for HB 4045. Contact information and a sample message follow:

_______________________________________________________________

Dear Representative,
HB 4045 is an important and overdue protection for Oregon residents. I urge you to support this bill in committee and when it gets to the House Floor.

Yours,

_____________________

_________________________________________________________________

Committee Members and Contact Info

Jeff Barker, Co-Chair rep.jeffbarker@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-491, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1428

Wayne Krieger, Co-Chair rep.waynekrieger@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-381, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1401

Chris Garrett, Co-Vice Chair rep.chrisgarrett@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-377, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1438

Wally Hicks, Co-Vice Chair rep.wallyhicks@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-490, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1403

Mary Nolan rep.marynolan@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-493, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1436

Andy Olson rep.andyolson@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-478, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1415

Mike Schaufler rep.mikeschaufler@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-382, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1448

Carolyn Tomei rep.carolyntomei@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-279, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1441

Matt Wand rep.mattwand@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-378, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1449

Gene Whisnant rep.genewhisnant@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-471, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1453

GUN BILLS INTRODUCED. CHL PRIVACY BILL RETURNS. GUN BANS IN SCHOOL AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS ALSO ON THE AGENDA.

The first “regular” February session has not yet started, but the gun bills have already been introduced.

These sessions were sold to Oregonians as a way to deal with an ever more complex budget, but as you might have expected, Senator Ginny Burdick will be using the session to,once again,try to ban guns on school property. But this time she has broadened her targets. Now she wants to ban licensed concealed carry in all public buildings.

SB 1550 bans CHL carry on school grounds including colleges.

SB 1551 bans CHL carry in all public buildings.

As always, there have been no incidents to justify these restrictions, but this is Burdick’s life work, so who cares about the economy?

A “reciprocity” bill has been introduced by, of all people, Floyd Prozanski.  You will recall that in 2011 Floyd torpedoed every positive gun bill or amended them so they were unrecognizable. In 2011, Floyd took a bill that was intended to clarify lawful transport of firearms on motorcycles, snowmobiles and ATV’s and turned it into a bill to ban firearms on school property. That bill died after he passed it out of his committee.

Now Floyd, is back with a so called “reciprocity” bill. This bill was the result of private “work groups” Floyd held over the interim where no public input was allowed. Floyd has taken a lot of heat for his attacks on gun owners. Is this his attempt to buy them off?   It’s a peculiar bill.

SB 1574  “Directs Department of State Police to identify states that recognize Oregon concealed handgun licenses and that impose eligibility requirements for issuing concealed handgun licenses that are substantially similar to Oregon requirements.
Provides nonresidents who are licensed to carry concealed handgun in state identified by Department of State Police with defenses provided to persons with Oregon concealed handgun license. Prohibits arrest of nonresidents who possess valid concealed handgun license issued in state whose license is verifiable through use of national law enforcement data system.”

It will be interesting to see where this goes. At one time in the past, the Oregon State Police had this exact authority. They could recognize a license from any state that had “substantially similar requirements” to Oregon’s.  They recognized exactly …none. We are wondering what has changed. We also wonder what the State Police will claim it will cost to make these determinations. As you know, Oregon is not exactly awash in extra cash.

Obviously we think Oregon should simply recognize every state’s permits or not require permits at at all. This has worked out just fine in Vermont, Alaska, Wyoming and Arizona.But here is a simple solution that for some reason, legislators refuse to consider. Since the anti-gun zealots have constantly stated that we cannot recognize other states’ licenses because they don’t meet our lofty standards, why not simply allow any person from any state to apply for our license?

Then, if the State Police for some reason find a state that does not have the extremely rigid and demanding requirements that Oregon has, a resident of that state could still get an Oregon permit and come to Oregon and spend money. (After having spent money to get the permit.)

We have been reliably informed that Prozanski has stated he will not even consider the idea.  We think we should work to change his mind.

If this bill goes anywhere (and since Prozanski is chair of the committee that will hear it, it probably will) we will hand deliver, to the Republican members of the committee, (Senate Judiciary) a request that they introduce an amendment to do just that. Then let the gun haters explain why even this is unacceptable.

Speaking of the Senate Judiciary Committee, with anti-gun Senator Suzanne Bonamici gone in search of a US House seat, the Committee was short one anti-gun member. So Senate President Peter Courtney replaced her with …Peter Courtney. This is not good news. No friend of gun owners, Courtney, as  Senate President, presided over all the shenanigans and game playing that went on in that committee in 2011. In the rushed February 2012 session, gun owners should be watching the Senate Judiciary Committee very carefully.

There is one other Senate Bill that, although not gun related, will be important to anyone who is concerned about the actions of our legislature. This is SB 1572.

Introduced by Senator Alan Olsen, this bill requires that amendments (which are getting harder and harder for the public to see) list the name of the person or committee that requested them. In an environment where playing “hide the ball” is becoming more and more standard operating procedure, this is an important step that we applaud.

Two gun bills have also been introduced in the House.

Pro-gun hero Representative Kim Thatcher has once again introduced a bill to protect the privacy of concealed handgun license holders. We told you about this bill in a previous alert. It is HB 4045 and as always, Kim deserves our gratitude and help.

The other bill is HB 4054 which prohibits Public Employees’ Benefit Board from authorizing or requiring collection of information or maintenance of records about firearms from eligible employee or family member.

By the way, you may have heard that anti-gun groups plan to boycott Starbucks starting on Valentine’s Day to protest their policy of obeying local gun laws. You may want to consider stopping in for a cup that day.

A list of 2012 gun bills will be available and updated if necessary here.

The session starts on February 1. We will keep you informed.

Here We Go Again

On February 1, the Oregon Legislature will convene for its first “official” even-year session. While we have had a few warm-ups with “emergency sessions,” this was the first regular annual session, sold to the voters as a way to deal with Oregon’s budget problems.

But there are other problems. As we’ve pointed out in the past, the legislature is not in any way compelled to stick to budget issues. And, as even some legislators have noted, in very short sessions (this one is due to end on Feb. 29) things get rammed through that are poorly drafted, poorly vetted, poorly understood and often not even read. And that’s a dangerous thing.

We do not yet know what will be coming from the anti-gun zealots like Senator Floyd Prozanski in terms of anti-gun bills. One obvious possibility, based on our successful lawsuit against the Oregon University System, is another attempt to ban self-defense firearms on school property.

In 2011, Prozanski “gut and stuffed” a pro-gun bill and turned into a “no guns on school property” bill which died after he passed it out of his committee.

Prozanski made it clear in the past that he will take any pro-gun bill and either completely rewrite it or put poison pills in it. This is what he did during all of 2011. He also manipulated the hearing process to assure that pro-rights people were always at a disadvantage. Expect more of the same.

We have been working closely with pro-gun champion Representative Kim Thatcher to, once again, introduce and pass a bill to protect the privacy of concealed handgun license holders. In 2011, just such a bill passed with wide bipartisan support in the House, only to be killed in the Senate.

While not yet available on the legislative website, the bill is drafted and should be numbered HB 4045.

You can rest assured that the anti-gun, anti-privacy extremists in the Senate, led by Senate President Peter Courtney, will do all they can to defeat this bill. That’s why we need as much pressure as possible to stop them from killing this important legislation. There is just too much at stake.

Most, if not all sheriffs have included notices on their CHL applications which ask the applicant if he or she wants to keep their records private. Many sheriffs believe this will protect them against record demands from nosy “journalists” or others wanting to exploit these lists. They are wrong. This information is still public and very much at risk.

We are going to have a protracted battle to pass this bill, along with dealing with whatever mischief the gun haters throw at us. So we may as well get started.

Please contact Peter Courtney and demand that a hearing and work session be held on the CHL privacy bill with no games and no “gut and stuffs.” It has become a regular practice in the legislature to hold a “public hearing” on a bill and take testimony from Oregonians. Then, after people have had an opportunity to express their opinion, the bill is completely changed in the “work session,” but the public is not allowed to testify on the changed bill, making the entire process a scam. We need to put an end to these efforts to prevent public input.

Please contact Senate President Peter Courtney by phone or email and request a fair and honest hearing on the bill. Contact info and a sample cut-and-paste email message follow.

Senator Peter Courtney
Capitol Address:
900 Court St. NE, S-201
Salem, OR 97301
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1600
FAX:
503-986-1004
email sen.petercourtney@state.or.us

You can find your own Senator using this link. He will be the fourth person listed, under “State Senator.”

_______________________________________________________________________

Dear Senator Courtney,

I was appalled at the games that were played in the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2011. I hope you will not allow this to happen in 2012.

The Oregon legislature will almost certainly be seeing a bill this session to protect the privacy of concealed handgun license holders. As you well know, the holders of these licenses are the most law-abiding members of our society. The information demanded of them, and available to anyone as “public record,” is not information about government activity, which should, of course, be public. It is very sensitive private data demanded by the state in order to exercise what should be a right.

It is long past time that this information be protected from the prying eyes of those who seek to harass gun owners. Your website says “I encourage you to participate in the legislative process.” Please prove it by making sure honest hearings and work sessions are held on this important bill with no poison pills and no “gut and stuffs.”

Sincerely,

_______________________

_____________________________________________________________________

THE FEDS AND THE STATE LOOKS AT “RECIPROCITY”

As you may have heard, the US Congress is likely to hear HR 822 as soon as tomorrow.

This bill is intended to allow your CHL to be honored in other states. While very well intentioned, the bill has some definite flaws.

You may have read some of the arguments for and against this legislation. Some pro-gun groups and the Brady Anti-gun Campaign are opposed to it. The pro-gun groups claim it’s a dangerous intrusion by the Feds into gun rights. The Brady Campaign is (as usual) claiming the sky will fall and out-of-state murderers will descend on us to wreak havoc.

Meanwhile, the NRA is claiming this bill is a terrific solution and a great step forward. Our friends at Gun Owners of America have done the most level-headed analysis we have yet seen on this bill and we encourage you to look at the following alert, which if you did not receive directly, is linked here:

You should also know that the Oregon House and Senate Judiciary Committees are meeting this week, Wednesday for the Senate and Thursday for the House.

Members of both committees have been involved in closed door, private meetings in Salem, and the committees will be discussing one of the issues from those meetings. Their schedule lists it as:

“Work Group Report: Reciprocity – Recognition of out-of-state concealed weapons permits and license holders records, if other states recognize Oregon concealed weapons permits and have similar requirements “

While this sounds like it is potentially positive we have been informed that the intent is to create a system where the Oregon State Police will be given the authority to determine which other states’ permits should be recognized. In fact, they had this authority in the past and recognized exactly… none.

We believe that it is a mistake to task the State Police with this authority. The police are an enforcement body and not a judicial body. Their history indicates that they consider no other states good enough. While we support any effort to move Oregon into modern times (we currently recognize NO other permits) we think this may be little more than a ploy to create the illusion that a reciprocity bill is being considered when the final outcome will be no different from where we are right now.

You can see committee agendas here.

You can view hearings live here

The Senate Committee meets in Hearing Room C and the House Committee meets in Hearing Room F.

Both meetings are at 2pm on their respective dates.
_________________________________________________

First Congressional District Race.

As you now know, the primary for the House seat in the First Congressional District was decided with no big surprises.

The very well-funded State Senator, Suzanne Bonamici, easily won the Democratic Primary and Rob Cornilles easily won the Republican Primary.

The race to replace disgraced Democrat David Wu is receiving national attention since it is not taking place during a regular election cycle. Of Oregon’s five Congressional Districts, four of them have been held by enemies of gun rights. With David Wu now out of the picture, this race could replace him with another outspoken opponent of the Second Amendment (Bonamici) or a supporter of liberty. But here’s the problem. While we know where Bonamici stands because of her terrible record in the Oregon Legislature, her opponent, Republican Rob Cornilles, has no voting record and has so far refused to say where he stands on gun rights. As of today, November 12,Cornilles’ website makes no mention of the issue.

If he is willing to stand up for liberty, he could be a tremendous asset in Congress. If he is another middle-of-the-road, establishment politician, he will be of no use to gun owners at all.

During the primary, Cornilles would not take a position on gun rights. Some of the other candidates, even those who opposed gun rights, went on the record. Now that the general election is looming, knowing his position on the Second Amendment is more important than ever.

Minor party candidates can file for this race until December 1. It is possible that a minor party candidate may file who is unapologetically pro-gun. That’s why we need to know if the major party candidate actually believes in your rights.

Whether you live in the First Congressional District or not, the winner of this special election will be casting votes that effect your life and your liberty. With two militantly anti-gun senators and three sitting congressman who oppose your rights, this election will be pivotal in the fights ahead.

Please consider contacting Rob Cornilles and urging him to complete our candidate survey so we have some indication if he plans to stand up for your rights, or like Suzanne Bonamici, work to undermine them.

UPDATE 11.25.11

We have received scores of copies of the form email the Cornilles campaign has sent to voters who asked him to answer our survey. Usually the text consists of the following message:

“Rob has taken a consistent position in the last two cycles regarding his strong support for the 2nd Amendment whenever he has been asked about it or whenever it comes up on the stump.
As a rule, due to a lack of sufficient time/staff, we do not respond to any of the myriad of questionnaires sent to this office on a daily basis by the entire spectrum of advocacy groups. If we did so, our staff would be overwhelmed.
However, I would be happy to discuss Rob’s strong support for the 2nd Amendment. Please call HQ at 503.922.2014 and ask for me.
Regards,
Mike C.”

What makes this perplexing is that they have no time to answer a very short survey, but they have time to take many phone calls and send out countless form emails saying they have no time to answer a survey. Unfortunately what this translates into is “Take our word for it, but don’t expect us to go on the record.”

What’s even more troubling is the email one OFF supporter received which said “We did receive an A rating from the NRA last year in our run vs Congressman Wu – without answering their questionnaire. Instead,they spoke with us and we explained our positions.”

So the NRA gives “A” ratings to candidates who have never held office, have no voting record and won’t put their positions on the record.

Politicians make lots of promises. Often they even break the ones they have put in writing, but refusing to even commit to a position is cause for alarm. We encourage you to keep after Cornilles.

Contact info and a sample message follow:

Rob Cornilles
P.O. Box 2272
Tualatin, OR 97062
503.922.2014

info@cornillesforcongress.com

______________________________________________________________________

Dear Rob,
I am concerned that you have refused to take a position on Second Amendment rights.

I notice you make no mention of this important issue on your website and you have not responded to requests from the Oregon Firearms Federation to complete their short survey.

In a state where almost all of our Federal representatives are hostile to gun rights, as is your opponent, it is very important to me to know where you stand.

I strongly urge you to respond to OFF’s survey so voters in your district, and potential utors nationwide, have an accurate idea of your position.

Sincerely,

_______________

_____________________________________________________________________

One Step Up…

As you may know, the Oregon University System has chosen NOT to appeal their loss in the Oregon Appeals Court.  The decision in the lawsuit our foundation filed said that the OUS does not have the authority to make up rules denying CHL holders the right to possess firearms on OUS property. While this was an important victory, it is clear, that as we predicted, the OUS plans to use every trick they can find to circumvent the court’s decision.

The Oregonian reported that “…lawyers across the system are working on a comprehensive set of contracts and policies that would effectively ban guns from all classrooms, dorms and university buildings, said Di Saunders, spokeswoman for the system. ”

We told you this would happen the very day we won the case and it’s no surprise. Clearly the bureaucrats would rather spend thousands of your dollars on lawyers to find ways to bypass the law rather than simply obey it.

On another more positive note, your efforts undoubtedly had a profound effect on the Superintendent of the Newberg School District who has now reversed her illegal “no guns” policy.

The Newberg Graphic is reporting:  “The Newberg School District is now in compliance with the law of the land. It’s OK for patrons to pack heat on local school campuses, after the district dropped language banning the possession of firearms last week.
The change of language happened after the district received a complaint from a Beaverton resident who was attending a community event in Newberg, superintendent Paula Radich said. That was at about the same time Rep. Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer) wrote this newspaper to complain about the district’s illegal practice and call on the administration to end it.”

Based on the correspondence we have received it’s clear that the calls and emails from OFF supporters had a major impact on the Radich’s “change of heart.”

While there can be no question that this battle is far from over and an endless parade of petty despots will be doing all they can to bypass the clear language of the law, your efforts have once again made a difference. 

NEWBERG SCHOOL DISTRICT TELLS LEGISLATOR THEY PLAN TO CONTINUE BREAKING THE LAW.

The Newberg, Oregon School District is setting an interesting example for the children it is “educating”. That lesson is: if you don’t like the law, ignore it.

In spite of the fact that the Appeals Court has ruled in no uncertain terms that schools cannot create or impose their own rules dealing with firearms, Newberg School District Superintendent Paula Radich has made it clear that she intends to do just that.

When informed that the District’s policy (PLEASE NOTE, AS OF 11.09.11 THIS LINK NOW TAKES YOU TO THEIR AMENDED POLICY,NOT THEIR ORIGINAL POLICY)on firearms possession was illegal, Radich wrote to a district resident: “After considerable research and thought regarding your request to change Board Policy KG and Administrative Regulations KG-AR, in the interest of protecting the safety and well-being of children in our care, I will not be recommending a policy change to our Board of Directors. Thank you for your input”

When contacted by House Rep Kim Thatcher and reminded that the Oregon University System squandered almost $50,000.00 in taxpayer funds in a failed attempt to defend their unlawful gun policies (in spite of having been repeatedly warned that they were illegal) Radich responded: “Thank you for writing me. I have read both court cases and have discussed this matter with our Board of Directors. At this time, I am not recommending a change in Board policy.”

In other words, “The law means nothing to us.”

This is an interesting situation given that not a legislative session goes by without the public school establishment demanding huge increases in their funding. The District Superintendent is handed a very well publicized court decision saying she is breaking the law, she is reminded of how costly these policies can be and she chooses to simply ignore the facts and the law. And these people are teaching Oregonian children.

Clearly, the law must be changed so that bureaucrats who flagrantly ignore or break the law can no longer flush away precious taxpayer money. They must be held accountable themselves.

Given the current makeup of the Oregon Senate, any change of that kind will be an uphill climb, but if you would like to share your thoughts with the Superintendent, her contact info follows:

Newberg School District Superintendent
Paula Radich
(503) 554-5042
radichp@newberg.k12.or.us

Sample cut and paste message:
________________________________________________________________________

Dear Superintendent Radich,

I am amazed and outraged that after being repeatedly told your firearms policy is forbidden by law, you would respond with nothing more than an arrogant refusal to consider obeying what the courts have decided. Your reckless disregard for the potential cost to the school district is incredibly irresponsible in these difficult financial times. The example you are setting for the students in your district is reprehensible.

Yours,

___________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Here is contact info for the school board members:

Melinda Van Bossuyt
Board Chair, Director Zone 3
503-538-5717
melinda@springcreekllamas.com

Polly Peterson
Director Zone 2
503-538-6923
popeters@gmail.com

Todd Thomas*
Director Zone 4
503-780-4880
TThomasNWNGS@nwnatural.com

Jim Chogyoji*
Vice Chair, Director Zone 5
503-538-9530
jchogyoji@verizon.net

Mitsi Vondrachek*
Director Zone 6
503-538-4241
mitsi@verizon.net

Debbie Hawblitzel
Director Zone 7
503-537-0888
debbiehawblitzel@comcast.net

Addendum
We have gotten reports that not all of these* emails are working.
To get in touch with any Director, you may contact him/her directly or contact School Board Secretary Mikaela Schamp at 503-554-5041 schampm@newberg.k12.or.us

ADDED 11.3.11. An email we received.

Hi,
I’m still in Afghanistan serving in the Army. Just thought it so fitting, after reading the post about the school officials, to send you a copy of quoting from Justice Brandeis [written years ago]:

“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subject to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the ends justify the means would bring terrible retribution.”

And some wonder what has gone wrong with our laws, government, and people in general…. I believe the answer is in the above statements; no, I know it is. Take care my friends, John S.

Notice to Oregon residents who are prohibited from possessing firearms in Washington State because of prior criminal record.

I am an attorney in Washington State whose practice focuses on gun rights. The majority of my clients are persons seeking to remove a firearm disability because of prior criminal records.

I am interested in challenging a recent amendment to Washington firearm laws (RCW 9.41 et al) restricting where a petition to restore gun rights may be filed. The amendment, effective July 22, 2011, requires petitions to be filed in the county of residence or the county of prosecution resulting in the loss of gun rights.

While prohibited persons who reside in, or have prohibitive convictions in, Washington state may file a petition for relief from the disability imposed under state law, the statute is silent as to venue for nonresidents who are prohibited under the laws of Washington state because of a conviction in another state. The result constitutes a violation of the 2nd and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

One must have standing to challenge the law. In other words, only a person who falls within the category of “nonresident with out-of-state prohibitive conviction” can challenge the law. I am seeking an individual (one qualifying person) who falls within this category so that I may file a petition on his or her behalf. This is not a class action case

I am not seeking compensation for legal services in connection with this issue. Legal services would be limited to removing a firearm disability imposed by RCW 9.41.040 and guidance for following up with a Voluntary Appeal File application if desired.

Be advised that persons convicted of a sex offense or convicted of a felony punishable by a maximum term of 20 years or more are ineligible to petition for relief in Washington.

Restoration of the right to possess firearms by a superior court of the State of Washington for an out-of-state conviction does not remove a firearm disability resulting from operation of federal law or the laws of other states.

nterested parties may contact:
Paul T. Ferris
Attorney at Law
105W 5th Ave., Suite 108
Ellensburg, WA 98926
ptferris@washrecord.com
www.washrecord.com

APPEALS  COURT SAYS RIFLES AND MAGAZINES MAY BE BANNED.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled that semi-automatic firearms and “large capacity” magazines may be banned.

In their ruling, the Court makes this bizarre assertion in reference to common semi-automatic rifles:

“Nevertheless, based upon the record as it stands, we cannot be certain whether these weapons are commonly used or are useful specifically for self-defense or hunting and therefore whether the prohibitions of certain semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds meaningfully affect the right to keep and bear arms.”

The ruling is not a very big surprise in light what the Courts concluded in “Heller” but are a serious blow to gun rights non the less.Given the clear language of the Second Amendment, and the finding in the Miller case which concluded that only military weapons are protected, this is a strange and dangerous decision. But perhaps no stranger than others.

You can read the decision here.

Today, after several years of legal maneuvering, the Oregon Appeals Court decided that the rules the Oregon University System has had in place to ban lawful carry of firearms on their property are invalid.

The opinion reaffirmed what we have always held to be true. The law is the law.

This is a very important day for gun rights in Oregon. Our Educational Foundation brought this suit after Jeffery Maxwell, a Marine Corps veteran, was unlawfully arrested on the campus of Western Oregon University while in possession of a handgun for which he had an Oregon concealed handgun license.

WOU’s outrageous abuses of Maxwell are well documented, and now we have at least some vindication.

Looking at the response of the school system, it is clear that they will do all in their power to circumvent the decision of the court, and we are confident that this battle is by no means over. But today’s ruling is clearly a victory for gun owners, a victory for the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, and most of all, a victory for every one of you who stood by us, and, by your extraordinary generosity, allowed us to see this through. To each of you, we offer our thanks and gratitude.

Of course, there will be the predictable response by some of the more extreme anti-rights politicians, so we need to prepare for the up coming battles, but for now, congratulate yourselves on a hard-earned victory.

We also want to thank those in the legislature who stood up for the rights of Oregonians as this issue played out.

Below is the most important part of today’s decision.

Although the State Board of Higher Education is an arm of the state, it is not the Legislative Assembly. And while, as noted, the State Board of Higher Education has general authority to control and manage its property, ORS 351.060, and to enact administrative rules, ORS 351.070(4)(b), no argument can be reasonably made that OAR 580-022-0045(3)–which regulates the very subject expressly preempted by ORS 166.170(1)–was “expressly authorized” by the Legislative Assembly. See ORS 166.170(1). Therefore, we conclude that OAR 580-022-0045(3) 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).1 Accordingly, the rule exceeds the agency’s authority, ORS 183.400(4)(b), and is invalid.

OAR 580-022-0045(3) held invalid.

Special Election Oregon Congressional District 1

UPDATED SEPT 30
UPDATED OCT 6
UPDATED NOV.8
See Bottom of Page.

As a result of the implosion and long overdue resignation of David Wu, Oregon’s First Congressional District will be having a special election on May 15 2012.

Here is a list of candidates and their contact information.

We sent every candidate a survey to help gun owners make an informed decision when it came time to vote.  A copy of the survey can be seen here.

Of the 13 candidates running, only three responded. All were Democrats. (See update below)  They were Dan Strite, Dominic Hammon and Saba Ahmed. Hammon asked that we publish his responses.

Of the three respondents, both Strite and Hammon support Federal restrictions on modern firearms and ammunition feeding devices. Both believe the Feds have the right to regulate, tax and restrict firearms ownership.

Saba Ahmed answered 100% pro-gun.

Oddly, her website notes that she has worked for both Governor Ted Kulongoski and Congressman Earl Blumenauer, neither of whom have ever had much use for gun rights.

Of the three candidates (all Democrats) who are currently serving in elected office, none responded. They are Brad Avakian, Brad Witt and Suzanne Bonamici.

Witt did call with a request for more information about one question, but then never responded with a completed survey. Bonamici has a record as a committed opponent of Second Amendment rights. As a member of the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee, she has voted over and over to attack the liberties of gun owners.

Gun owners in the First Congressional District clearly have little to be excited about with their choices to replace Wu. Remember, not answering is answering.

Feel free to contact candidates who refused to answer and ask why they feel the need to hide their positions on this important issue. We will post updates if we receive any.

UPDATE 9.30.11

We have received a survey from Republican Delgado Morgan. She responded almost 100% pro-gun. On question 2, asking if she would have voted to extend the Patriot Act, she answered “Other” but with no explanation.

UPDATED 10.6.11
Jim Greenfield returned a nearly 100% pro gun survey. He did note that he was unfamiliar with the United Nations Small Arms treaty but his other answers were all pro 2nd Amendment

UPDATED 11.8.11
We received a very late survey from Lisa Michaels with a 100% pro-gun response.

Senator Floyd Prozanski. Provable, Certified Liar.

By Kevin Starrett

No doubt by now many of you have received an email (or possibly a snail mail) from Senator Floyd Prozanski attacking me personally (again).

In large part a rehash of a similar attack he sent some months ago, this message has some new accusations that require a response.

While I will attempt to address them point by point, I would like to start with one issue that needs to be put to rest because some people seem to believe there is some truth to it.

Prozanski has in the past, and again in his latest email, accused me of using a doctored photo of him in an email alert. In his latest attack on me he even included a link to the photo which appeared on someone else’s website, “Ammoland.”  In his email he says the following; “As clearly indicated by its web address, the altered photograph was posted on ammoland.com. The posting, titled “Anti-Gun Oregon Senator Prozanski, Cuckoo or Crazy Like a Fox,” was uted by and credited to OFF” .

To set the record straight here are the facts. “Ammoland”, like many other pro gun sites and chat boards, often reproduces OFF alerts. (Type “Prozanski” in the search field. ) People, from firearms instructor Jim Jacobe to nationally known gun writer David Codrea, either reproduce or post links to our legislative alerts. We do not ask for this to be done, nor do we require permission that it be done.

In this case, “Ammoland” apparently included the altered photo of Prozanski  when they reproduced our alert. (An unaltered photo appears there now.)  Let’s be clear and unequivocal. The altered photo was NEVER posted on our site, was not created, approved, suggested or even seen by us before Ammoland posted our alert. In short, myself, OFF and everyone associated with OFF had nothing to do with this photo of Prozanski. He is quite simply lying about it. He has been informed we had nothing to do with it but continues to lie about it. In his most recent attack he states “Although he took down the image the day after I pointed it out, Kevin failed to realize that it would be retained on the World Wide Web.”

Here is a news flash for you Floyd, that photo never appeared on our website, and if it had, we would not have taken it down because of anything a lying coward like you said. Furthermore, it was not “uted” by us and if it was “credited” to us, prove it. Your claim that it appeared on our website is a bald faced lie. The assertion that we in some way “provided” this photo is too. Quite frankly Floyd, you do a fine job making yourself look foolish, you don’t need our help with that. If it was “retained on the web” how come there is no link or record of it on our site?

Just to further prove how far from reality Prozanski resides, he also stated “…Kevin continued to deny any association with the altered photo of me that appeared … and his accusation that I was the person who fabricated it.”  Please Floyd, show us where I accused you of fabricating the picture. Another lie. Really Floyd, I doubt you have the creativity or skill to come up with something like that.

So here’s the deal Prozanski, our political action committee will write a $5000.00 check to your reelection campaign if you can provide proof of your claim that this image ever appeared on our site or that it was created or uted by anyone from OFF to any other site.  It’s right here on the internet, saved for all time.

Thousands of people get our alerts. If we did what this pathetic liar accused us of, SOMEONE will be able to provide documentation.  Put up or shut up Floyd.

I presume that addresses that issue. Now let’s respond to some other things Prozanski has said.

Prozanski says “After my first e-mail, Kevin sent me a message demanding that I apologize to him for stating that he altered my picture and posted it on ammoland.com. He even threatened to file an ethics complaint if I did not.Knowing that my statements are factual, I sincerely had hoped that Kevin would file his complaint. ”

I never said anything in my email to Prozanski about “posting on Ammoland”. This is absurd. I don’t even know if a person can “post on Ammoland”. Show us the email Floyd. I am sure you have a copy. No wait, I have a copy. What follows is the exact text of the email I sent to Prozanski:
______________________________________________
06.08.11
Dear Senator Prozanski,
By now you have no doubt seen my response to the email you sent out yesterday dealing with gun legislation.
Frankly, I have no problem with your accusations about my use of “scare tactics” and “misinformation.” My alerts are available for anyone to see anytime and I will stand by their accuracy. However, in your email you made the following statement: ” Many of you have received information from Kevin Starrett of Oregon Firearms Federation, who has used scare tactics, misinformation and “photo shopped” pictures to berate the bill or me.”This is false. No alerts or other communication dealing with the pending bills, or you, contained a photo, much less one that was “photo shopped” of you.
For the record, I do not own Photo Shop and can assure you that I have better things to do than “photo shop” images of you.
Inasmuch as this false and bizarre accusation reflects directly on my credibility and professionalism, I request that you correct the record with all who received your first email. Out of respect for your office and the reality that you and I will no doubt be involved with each other on a professional basis I would accept a simple correction and retraction. I believe this would be preferable to any ethics complaint.
As you know, lobbyists are expected to abide by certain accepted standards, I believe legislators should as well. Your accusation is false and needs to be corrected.

Kevin Starrett

___________________________________________________

One note. After sending this  email I did recall a web page (not an alert) that dealt with bills sent to Prozanski’s committee. That page did include a photo of him, but as noted and corrected here, the image was only a copy of his legislative web page photo and was not “photoshopped.” The only change made it was that it was reproduced in black and  white.

In fact, I did contact the ethics commission. They informed me that they would not consider any complaint unless if involved a legislator illegally taking money. I can assure that had that not been the case, a complaint would have been filed.

In the opening of his email Prozanski says “I believe that it is important to communicate directly with folks, especially as I try to set the record straight against someone spreading misinformation about me.”

This is, of course, the same accusation Prozanski has made in the past, that I mislead and lie about him.

Prozanski continues to assert that I lie and mislead about him and his record.  But the problem for Prozanski is that everything we write and distribute is available for anyone to read and judge for themselves. In fact, any ten year old with an internet connection can research everything we report and learn for themselves if any of Prozanski’s accusations have any merit. It’s interesting to note that for all the lies I am accused of creating, Prozanski cannot provide a single example of one. Not one.  Really Floyd, with that crack staff of yours who managed to find an altered photo of you on a website OFF has nothing to do with, don’t you think those well trained legislative aides could find at least ONE example of anything I have said which is not 100% accurate? (Hard to find good help these days isn’t it?)  Really, I can provide numerous lies from just one of his emails, and he can’t provide a single one from the dozens and dozens of alerts available to anyone on our website. And this guys is a “municipal prosecutor”? (Oh that would be traffic tickets right?)

Floyd’s next big lie is that we use our email alerts to raise money. Now, why Prozanski thinks we should not raise money to fight liars like him may be explained by the fact that 100% of his income comes from feeding at the public trough both in and out of  session, but we welcome anyone to view our legislative alerts and judge for themselves how often we use them as a fund raising tool. Come on Floyd, they are right there on our website, even if you cannot read and understand legislation, you should be able to read alerts and then count. Go ahead. Count them.Advocacy organizations raise money. We do it far less than most. Really not important, but just another demonstrable lie from Floyd.

As part of his attack on me Prozanski says “Since Kevin did not give you all of the facts, here is a link to the bill signed by the Governor: leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/hb2700.dir/hb2792.en.pdf.”

The bizarre thing is that the alert he was attacking contained a link to the very bill he said I was not giving the facts about! What is this guy talking about? Why not just list the “facts” I did not provide? Because he can’t.

Prozanski goes on with this gem:“Kevin continues to provide you with misinformation and has lost credibility with many legislators. I suggest you consider getting the facts from another gun rights organization. The NRA and the Oregon Gun Owners are two respected advocacy groups that will provide you with actual facts and that work positively with legislators. Those groups are known to advocate effectively for gun rights in Oregon.”

Once again, Prozanski and his crack staff fail to provide a single example of the “misinformation” while suggesting you get your “facts” from NRA and “Oregon Gun Owners.”

While we often disagree with the NRA, here’s a fact from them that we share,Prozanski received ad “F” from NRA .  It’s pretty hard to get an “F” from NRA, yet Prozanzki states (presumably with a straight face) that he is “pro-gun.”

“Oregon Gun Owners” is best known for drafting and promoting a bill to ban private sales at gun shows and when that failed they attempted to get a measure on the ballot  to do the same. That  also failed. Of course, “Oregon Gun Owners” endorsed Prozanski and anti-gun Senate President Peter Courtney.  “Oregon Gun Owners” lobbyist could not even correctly say how long a concealed handgun license was valid for when he testified before a House Committee. No wonder Floyd wants you to get your information from them.

Prozanski’s lies may well be too many to catalog, but one final lie deserves attention. In his  attack on me he says :”As stated in my last e-mail, I am pro-gun. I support the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 27, of the Oregon Constitution. I personally own several firearms and have owned guns since I was 15. I am also a member of my party’s gun caucus.”

Well Floyd, you can say you’re an astronaut too, but that does not make you one. Prozanski killed efforts to keep CHL info private and turned a bill that clarified carry on motorcycles and ATVs into a bill to ban self-defense firearms on school property. He reversed a bill he himself carried and  passed through his committee CORRECTION. IT PASSED THE FULL SENATE(twice) but clearly never read or understood,to give persons a path for firearms rights restoration and manipulated hearings to prevent any meaningful testimony by pro-gun advocates. Can you  imagine if he were anti-gun?

Prozanski has proven himself to be not only a determined enemy of liberty and  the Second Amendment, but a provable liar. This must be why he is the Senate Judiciary Chair.

Kevin Starrett

After reading Kevin Starrett’s recent attack e-mail and blog posting, I thought it was time to send out another message to each of you. But first, I truly appreciate the many replies of thanks to my last e-mail. I believe that it is important to communicate directly with folks, especially as I try to set the record straight against someone spreading misinformation about me.
I’d like to start by acknowledging that gun owners may not always agree with each other on every issue, but we should be willing to discuss the merits of those issues without misrepresenting the facts or calling each other names.

That said, I am continually disappointed in the behavior of Kevin Starrett and his attacks on my character. Kevin has demonstrated his skill at name-calling, but he does not have the facts to back up his claims. Even I was surprised that Kevin continued to deny any association with the altered photo of me that appeared … and his accusation that I was the person who fabricated it.

Really? Here are the facts:
Although he took down the image the day after I pointed it out, Kevin failed to realize that it would be retained on the World Wide Web. Here’s a link to the picture my staff was able to locate through a Google “spider” search: www.leg.state.or.us/prozanski/ammoland_website.jpg.
As clearly indicated by its web address, the altered photograph was posted on ammoland.com. The posting, titled “Anti-Gun Oregon Senator Prozanski, Cuckoo or Crazy Like a Fox,” was contributed by and credited to OFF.
After my first e-mail, Kevin sent me a message demanding that I apologize to him for stating that he altered my picture and posted it on ammoland.com. He even threatened to file an ethics complaint if I did not.
Knowing that my statements are factual, I sincerely had hoped that Kevin would file his complaint. He did not because the facts don’t support him. Instead, he sent out another e-alert blasting me and, predictably, asking you for money. Kevin continues to defame my character and misrepresent my position on gun rights. If he truly believes that the facts support his claims, he should file his ethics complaint.
As stated in my last e-mail, I am pro-gun. I support the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 27, of the Oregon Constitution. I personally own several firearms and have owned guns since I was 15. I am also a member of my party’s gun caucus.
As a gun owner for more than 40 years, I believe certain felons (e.g., murderers, rapists and felons who used a gun or dangerous weapon to commit a person felony) should not be eligible to petition for restoration of their right to purchase or possess guns. On the other hand, Kevin believes all felons should have that right. I see no reason for Kevin to resort to such extreme tactics against me just because we disagree on this issue, except to try to raise money.
In Kevin’s recent e-alert, he praised passage of HB 2792 as it pertained to clarifying possessing firearms on motorcycles and ATVs, but stated he had misgivings about some felons not being able to petition the courts for gun rights. As the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I amended HB 2792 to include both of those provisions. The bill passed the Senate 24-5, and the House 45-12.
Since Kevin did not give you all of the facts, here is a link to the bill signed by the Governor: leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/hb2700.dir/hb2792.en.pdf.
As I also stated in my first e-mail to you, Kevin uses scare tactics to raise money for his organization. He denies it on the premise that he did not ask for money in his May 31 posting that contained the altered photo. He then makes a pitch for your money in his July 23 e-alert! Does he really think we’re that gullible? All session long he used a time-honored approach of some advocacy groups to raise money: First, sound the alarms and use scare tactics, and then ask for money to fight the “Big Bad” __________ (fill in the blank). Kevin decided to make me the “Big Bad” to try to raise money. He fails to mention that I’m a gun owner and that I work as a municipal prosecutor when I’m not in session.
Kevin continues to provide you with misinformation and has lost credibility with many legislators. I suggest you consider getting the facts from another gun rights organization. The NRA and the Oregon Gun Owners are two respected advocacy groups that will provide you with actual facts and that work positively with legislators. Those groups are known to advocate effectively for gun rights in Oregon.
You can also review the legislative record yourself. All bills and committee records can be accessed here: www.leg.state.or.us/index.html. Currently, the two judiciary committees are scheduled to discuss additional gun legislation during the interim. You can follow the committees’ work through the above link.
In closing, I want to reemphasize that gun owners may not always agree with each other on every issue, but we should be willing to discuss the merits of those issues without misrepresenting the facts or calling each other names. As always, my office is ready to assist you in getting legislative information and I welcome your input.
Thanks again,
Floyd