Category: OFF Alerts

GUN BILL HELD OVER. STARBUCKS UNDER THE GUN. FRIENDLY SHERIFF NEEDS HELP.

SB 1008, a lengthy, confusing and poorly drafted bill was held over  until Monday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee. As you know from previous alerts, this bill reverses the gains we made last year with SB 603. Now, the man primarily responsible for SB 603, Senator Floyd Prozanski, is claiming he did not understand what he did when he asked that it be amended into its final form.

Discussion of the bill has made it obvious that there is still tremendous confusion on the part of legislators about what SB 603 was intended to do and what it did. One thing is clear however. If changes do need to be made, this short, rushed session is not the time or place to do it. Given the level of confusion, it would be very unwise for the legislature to overturn in February, a bill that took effect in January. (A bill that passed without a single “no” vote in either House and was signed by the Governor.)  We will keep you posted.

On a separate note, the Brady Campaign against gun ownership has a new target. Starbucks. In a recent e-mail the Brady bunch expressed hysteria that Starbucks allowed lawful carry in their coffee shops.  “We need to tell Starbucks to bar guns in its stores. These individuals who have been carrying guns into Starbucks have all the firepower of a SWAT team, and none of the law enforcement training.”

If you want to let Starbucks know you appreciate their support for your rights, here is their contact info:

Customer Relations: 800 235-2883

E-mail:

Finally we have a bit of news we’re happy and eager to report.

You know that we make every effort to keep our requests for donations to a responsible level. Yes, we need funds to operate, but the weekly pitches that you get from other groups are not our style.  But, we are asking that you consider making a donation of whatever amount you can afford to help an Oregon Sheriff who is a true friend to gun owners.

Since the legislature has been incapable of expanding our CHL program to visitors from other states (you may recall our efforts to do that last year were shot down by Representative Judy Stiegler,) Sheriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County has decided he wants to make it as easy as possible for non-residents to apply for Oregon CHL’s. He hopes to actually travel to gun shows in adjoining states and take applications there.

Palmer has been a strong advocate of gun rights, but he has a small budget and he needs some help. The sheriff would like to purchase a digital fingerprint device so he can take applicants’ prints with less chance of them being rejected as unreadable.

OFF is sending him $1000.00 towards the purchase. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated.  You can send him a donation directly.

In an e-mail to us yesterday the sheriff said “If they want to send it to me at 205 South Humbolt Street Canyon CIty, Or. 97820 with a note for fingerprint machine I will put it into our monthly turn over with a line to a specific account that is and will be used for the upgrade on the equipment….what ever you can come up with would be wonderful too!!!!”

Or if you prefer to donate by credit card, you can make a donation to the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation and we will forward it to him.  Be sure to note that your donation is for Sheriff Palmer. You can do that safely on line here. Use the drop down menu to indicate your donation is for the Foundation and any field to note it’s for the Sheriff.  Thanks for helping.

SB 1008 HAS FIRST HEARING

SB 1008 received its first hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning. It became obvious that there are still people in positions of power who don’t understand current law or the potential changes being proposed by this bill.

The bill now has some amendments that clarify how a firearm may be transported on a motorcycle, but make virtually everything else incomprehensible.

We suggest you take a look at this bill and see if you understand it. Even the attorney who drafted it admits it’s “complicated.”

The bill essentially reverses the clarifications we made in 2009 with Senate Bill 603.  Prior to 603’s enactment, the law said a person with a felony conviction could go before a court and request restoration of the right to buy a  gun. But the law still prohibited them from owning it.

After many attempts to explain that this made no sense, Senator Floyd Prozanski finally asked that a correction to this error be amended into another bill we requested that clarified the term “readily accessible” for purposes of transporting a handgun in a vehicle.

When 603 passed, it seemed we had clarified an area of Oregon gun law misunderstood by many people including politicians and DA’s.  But now Prozanski is saying that he did not understand the changes he himself requested, and has introduced an incredibly complicated and difficult to understand bill to reverse much of 603.

Under 1008, no one will be allowed to ask for restoration of rights until 15 years after they are off parole or probation. And if your “felony” involved giving a firearm to a family member who lived in another state, you can NEVER ask for rights restoration.

Let’s say your daughter moves out of the house. You want her to have some protection so you give her one of your firearms.  But, wait, your daughter moved to Washington or Idaho. Now you and your daughter are both felons. Under this law, you and she will NEVER be allowed to appear before a judge and make a case to have your rights restored. It’s absurd.

During the hearing Prozanski claimed that he was aware that there was a “flaw” in this bill BEFORE the Governor signed it.  He never explained why NO ONE simply asked the Governor to veto it.

In e-mails to voters, Prozanski has claimed that OFF has chosen to distribute “inaccurate information.” This is false. He claimed that OFF and NRA agreed to allow this bill to move forward. This is also false.

He has also claimed that “Every other gun owner that I talked to about the error in SB 603 said they agreed that felons should not be able to immediately petition the court for their guns rights”

But OFF has copies of many e-mails from gun owners that were sent to Prozanski saying the exact opposite, that they supported a law that allowed a person to go to court to make a case for restoration, which is all 603 did. So while Senator Prozanski has told people that we are “distributing inaccurate information” it is in fact Prozanski who cannot keep the facts straight.

This bill is scheduled for another public hearing and possible “work session” next Thursday at 8am.  Please contact the Senate Judiciary Committee and urge them not to overturn 603 with a bill few will understand. And if anyone tells you that OFF is not telling the whole unvarnished truth, please let us know so we can set the record straight,

Contact info and sample message follow:

SENATE JUDICIARY.
Floyd Prozanski CHAIR
sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE, S-417, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986 -1704

Brian Boquist Vice Chair
sen.brianboquist@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., S-305, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1712

Susanne Bonamici
sen.suzannebonamici@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., S-403, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1717

Jackie Dingfelder
sen.jackiedingfelder@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., S-407, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1723

Doug Whitsett
sen.dougwhitsett@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., S-303, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1728

__________________________________________________________________

Dear Senator,

SB 1008 is a dangerous and complicated answer to a problem that may not exist. I urge you not to reverse the corrections made by SB 603 with a bill few people will understand.  Everyone agrees that this bill will need more work in the future. Why not wait until you have a full session to examine the issues before passing a bill that will make a person who had a technical violation of an arcane gun law ineligible from requesting rights restoration forever?

I urge you to leave SB 603 in place until 2011 when if there actually are problems, they can be examined and dealt with.

Sincerely yours,

_____________________

____________________________________________________________________

The first hearing to reverse gains made in the 2009 session will be held on February 2nd at 8am.

(The pre-session hearing on this bill  was scheduled for 8am. It was heard at 7.22 am before either Republican Senator had arrived.)

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold an “informational” hearing on SB603.
(Invited testimony only, neither OFF nor NRA was “invited.”)

SB 603 was actually a bill from 2009 which you may recall corrected an error in Oregon law that allowed a person with a felony conviction to petition to have his rights restored to BUY a gun, but then was forbidden from owning it

Your efforts for months finally got this error fixed, but now at the urging of the Department of Justice, Senator Floyd Prozanski has introduced SB 1008 to reverse the corrections he himself made in SB 603. What’s so odd about this is that 603, which Prozanski rewrote to correct the mistake mentioned above, passed out of his committee with no opposition, passed the full Senate with no opposition, passed the House Judiciary and the full House with no opposition and then was re-passed by the Senate with no opposition.  Now Prozanski is claiming that a five page bill that was largely his own work, was a “drafting mistake” and must be overturned.

This is an amazing assertion. He claims he did not understand the changes he himself  made and that every other legislator AND the Governor made the same “mistake.”

(We strongly suggest you read both 603 and 1008. See if you think the 43 page 1008 is easier to understand than the 5 page 603.)

(Please see this link for the “rebuttal” Senator Prozanski asked us to post.)

It’s essential that you contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and urge them not to rush to overturn this bill in a short “special” session.  If they are, in fact, that confused, a rush to replace this simple bill with a 45 page “correction” would be a tremendous mistake.

Contact info for the Committee members and a sample message follow.

SENATE JUDICIARY.
Floyd Prozanski CHAIR
sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE, S-417, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986 -1704

Brian Boquist Vice Chair
sen.brianboquist@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., S-305, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1712

Susanne Bonamici
sen.suzannebonamici@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., S-403, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1717

Jackie Dingfelder
sen.jackiedingfelder@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., S-407, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1723

Doug Whitsett
sen.dougwhitsett@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., S-303, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1728

_____________________________________________________________________

Dear Senator,

SB 603 passed out of your committee with no opposition. It passed the Senate twice, with no opposition.  Now it is being called a “drafting error.”  SB 603 corrected a major error in Oregon law, and was thoroughly discussed and vetted. I strongly urge you not to reverse the gains made in this bill in the short time you have in the February “special session.”

In spite of what’s been said, SB 603 does NOT allow felons to walk out of prison and get firearms. In fact, there remain substantial hurdles to a restoration of firearms rights. Let’s give this law a chance to prove itself.

Sincerely,

_______________________

________________________________________________________________________

 

On January 9th we warned you about the latest attack on gun rights in Oregon. We told you that there was a hearing scheduled on Jan 13th to hear  “Legislative Concept 57.”

LC 57 was the draft version of a bill, demanded by the Department of Justice, to overturn SB 603, a bill OFF members worked so hard to pass in 2009.

603 was the final version of several bills we worked on which were eventually compiled into a single piece of legislation. One of the most important elements of this bill was a correction of an error in Oregon law that said a person with a felony conviction could petition the court to have his right restored to purchase a firearm.  The problem was, that same law prohibited him from OWNING it.  It was clearly absurd.

So after months of discussions we finally convinced the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Floyd Prozanski) that this could not possibly be what the legislature intended, and he agreed to remedy this problem by including a fix in a bill, introduced by Brian Boquist, which defined the term “readily accessible” for purposes of transporting a handgun in a vehicle

Frankly, none of this was easy. Although OFF members did all the heavy lifting by making their voices heard on the importance of the bill, we still had to have numerous meetings with Prozanski just to get him to understand what the problem was. When Prozanski produced the final bill, we believed he finally grasped the problem.

Although SB 603 did not solve all the errors in Oregon’s gun laws, it did finally address two major issues. The “readily accessible” language and a fix for the “buy but not own” contradiction.

The bill passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee, controlled by Prozanski, with no opposition. It then passed the full Senate( twice), with no opposition.  It went to the House Judiciary Committee and passed there, with no opposition. On June 10th it passed the full House….with no opposition. On June the 24th, the Governor signed the bill.

It was a pretty amazing feat to have a bill that was good for gun owners receive no opposition. But it was a testimony to the hard work OFF members did  and the constant  explanations on our part to lawmakers about  what the problem was. And trust us, we provided these explanations over and over and over. In hearings and formal meetings, in hallway chats, this was one of the most explained bills in our history in the legislature. And the bill is only 5 pages long!

The summary of the bill could not be more clear. It says “Modifies who may petition for relief from bar against possession of firearms and bar against purchase of firearms.”

But now, after a complaint from the Department of Justice, Floyd Prozanski, who is a lawyer, a prosecutor, a veteran legislator, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee and the person who was responsible for drafting the final bill, claims he did not know what was in his own bill and has proposed a 43 page bill to overturn it.

The new legislation, in the form of a “Legislative Concept” was the last item on the schedule for yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee. The Committee was scheduled to meet at 8 am.  But the LC was moved to the beginning of the schedule. It was passed out of committee before either of the two Republican Senators arrived for the meeting. The time stamp on the audio file of the meeting indicates that this action was taken by the Democrats at 7.22 am, 38 minutes before the meeting was even scheduled to begin. (As of Feb 1, we have been informed the time stamp is not accurate.)

Any opportunity to get discussion on the record before this bill moved forward was squashed.

So, yesterday, immediately following the committee meeting, we met with Prozanski to get an explanation for his sudden desire to reverse his own bill. He claimed to be “confused” by his bill and said he had “not known what was in it.” He agreed to set up a meeting with the Department of Justice to have them explain their opposition to the bill. That meeting was held today.

The DOJ said that under 603, felons would be walking out of jail and getting their rights to own guns restored, ignoring the fact that the bill simply gives people a right to PETITION to get their rights restored. There is NOTHING automatic about it. It still requires the permission of a judge, and if you’ve followed any of our lawsuits, you know judges in Oregon are not particularly friendly to gun owners.

Throughout the meeting Prozanski continued to voice confusion over his own bill, but in the end made it clear he was determined to overturn it.

He informed us that he had spoken to numerous OFF members who all “agreed” that they don’t want “any felon to be able to walk out of jail and be able to ask for a return of gun rights.”  We have not heard from any of those “members” but the critical thing to understand is that all 603 did was recognize that in a land where you can commit a felony and not even know you’ve broken the law, it makes sense for there to be some kind of remedy.

This is NOT about arming dangerous criminals. This is about justice for people who have been entangled in the endless web of laws that can make criminals of any of us. It is about people who can demonstrate that they pose no threat, have paid a price and simply want their rights restored.  And now Prozanski and the Department of Justice are working overtime to make sure that can’t happen.

The Department of Justice claimed at today’s meeting that the bill was never intended to allow most people with a conviction to request rights restoration. But at NO time in the entire process of this bill in its many incarnations was the DOJ involved in any way. Not a single meeting or a single conversation included them. They have no idea what this bill was intended to do.

The bill does exactly what it was designed to do, and any legislator who claims to not know what was in this bill should not have the power to pass laws.

Please contact your House Representative and State Senator and urge them to stop any attempts to turn back the clock on Oregon’s laws.

There have been some changes in the legislature as a result of resignations and replacements.  Please use this link to write your Oregon House Rep. and State Senator.You can use this link to find all contact info for your legislators. They will be the LAST TWO names listed.

Suggested text follows:

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Legislator,

SB 603 passed the Oregon Legislature in 2009 without a single “no vote.” It was signed by the Governor.  Now  the Department of Justice, which played NO part in the crafting of this bill, is claiming it was a “mistake” and does things it was not intended to. That is false. This bill was carefully crafted over months by stakeholders and the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It corrected glaring errors in existing law and should not be overturned.  In spite of what you may be told, I do not believe that the entire Senate and the entire House AND the Governor passed a bill they did not understand.  Please resist efforts to turn back the clock on Oregon’s gun laws.

The legislation to reverse SB 603 is currently called LC 57 in the Senate. In any form, I urge you to oppose it.

Yours,

___________________________________

LEGISLATURE STARTS ATTACKS ON GUN RIGHTS EARLY

UPDATED JAN.11th SEE BOTTOM FOR ADDITIONAL INFO.

First, we’d like to thank all of you who have committed to being part of our efforts to protect gun rights in 2010. We are deeply grateful for your continued support. Now on to the bad news.

Although the “special” session does not start until February, the Oregon legislature has already scheduled a “work session” on a “legislative concept” to reverse gains made in the 2009 session.

The “special sessions” were promoted by the legislature as a way to get around Oregon’s policy of only meeting every other year. In an effort to be able to raise taxes on a more regular basis, the legislature created an annual “emergency” so they could meet every year.  But clearly, they have plans to do more than simply raise your taxes in February.

On Wednesday, Jan 13, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will be meeting. On the schedule for the Senate Committee is “Legislative Concept 57.”

The “concept” is 43 pages long, but its goal is brief and easy to explain. What this would do if it becomes law is reverse the corrections we made in 2009 with SB 603.

As you may recall, until the first of this year, Oregon’s law stated that a person with a felony conviction could petition the courts to have his rights restored to buy a firearm. But, absurdly, he could not OWN that firearm.

After extensive discussions with  Senate Judiciary Chairman Floyd Prozanski , we eventually convinced him that this clearly made no sense, and because of your tireless efforts,we passed SB 603 without a single “no” vote in either House.  That bill took effect January 1.  Now a person who had a felony conviction could request to have his rights restored. It was NOT a guarantee, it only allowed the person to ask. If he was successful his rights would be restored to buy AND own. In a country where a person can be convicted of a felony for being in possession of the wrong size lobster we believed this was an important correction.

Then, in September, at a joint meeting of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the Department of Justice testified that this bill must have been a “mistake.”  Now, according to the DOJ, any felon could walk out of prison and buy a gun.  This was nonsense. In fact, it was just plain false.  Nothing could be further from the truth. But apparently, lies work.

The “legislative concept” that will be discussed on Wednesday reverses SB 603 and denies the ability to petition for rights restoration to anyone barred from possessing a firearm under ORS 166.270.  That section covers anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony. The only exception would be for persons who had only one felony, which was not a homicide or a weapons charge and had been released from “imprisonment, parole, post-prison supervision or probation,” for 15 years.  Of course the catch is that those people could still be charged with unlawful possession under a different Oregon statute! So  essentially we are back to where we were before all your hard work to pass 603, and all because the Department of Justice came and misrepresented the bill you passed.

This “concept” is on the schedule for the Senate Committee. That means it was approved by Senator Prozanski. Why he would seek to reverse a bill he helped draft remains a mystery and he has not responded to our call to him.  So, it’s time to get back in the saddle. We cannot allow all the hard work we did last year to be undone. Please contact Senator Prozanski and tell him to kill this “concept” now. We made progress in our efforts to make Oregon’s law make sense. Now he wants to turn back the clock. Contact info and a sample message follow. Please feel free to modify it.

Senator Floyd Prozanski
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1704
District Phone: 541-342-2447
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE., S-417, Salem, OR, 97301
District Office Address: PO Box 11511, Eugene, OR, 97440
sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us

__________________________________________________________________

Dear Senator Prozanski,

“Legislative Concept 57,” scheduled to be heard in your committee on Wednesday, returns Oregon law  to its pre-2010 state of making no sense.  Why would the state allow a person to ask for restoration of his rights if he was prohibited under 166.250 and 166.470 but NOT under 166.270?  I know  the Department of Justice testified in September that this bill would allow  felons to walk out of prison and buy guns, but you know this is untrue since you were responsible for drafting the bill this seeks to reverse, SB 603.

I urge you not to be intimidated by the misrepresentations and scare tactics of the DOJ, and do not move LC 57 forward.  We’ve made a small amount of progress in improving Oregon’s laws. Please don’t take a step backwards.

Yours,

____________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Sample message for Committee members.

_____________________________________________________________________

Dear Senator,

Your committee has scheduled a “work session” on LC 57 for Wednesday.  This LC reverses much of SB 603, a bill that came out of your committee in 2009. The bill passed without a single “no” vote in either house.  If LC 57 is enacted, Oregon law will return to the contradictory and nonsensical state it was in before 603 was passed. I urge you to NOT move 57 forward.

Yours,

_______________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

 

PAC DONATION INFO

CHL holders in Oregon are receiving a letter from “Oregon Gun Owners” asking for utions to their political action committee.

Recipients of the letter include CHL holders whose names and private information where disclosed by the sheriffs in their counties.

We have received several copies of the letter and all recipients received it because their sheriffs had released this private information.

We have also received several communications asking us if OFF is in some way involved in this solicitation for funds.  The letter contains this cryptic message: “Normally, printing and postage are its only expenses. This year, however, printing and postage are being provided by another gun rights organization as an in-kind ution.”

As a result, there have been those who believe the Oregon Firearms Federation may have been in some way uting to this group. We have not.

The letter also states “In 2009 OGO successfully defeated such legislation, including a bill that would have required a 14-day waiting period when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.”  Actually this bill, SB 953 never even received a hearing and was never a real threat to gun owners.

The Oregon Gun Owners have not only supported and uted to anti-gun politicians such as Kevin Mannix, they have lobbied for gun control and even attempted to introduce an anti-gun ballot measure in 2000.

In 1999, when Kevin Mannix was a House Rep, he authored HB 2535 with the help of “Oregon Gun Owners.”  This bill would have illegalized private transfers of guns at gun shows. But it went further. It also illegalized many private transfers outside of gun shows and included  mandatory “lock up your self-defense” provisions.

When OFF defeated that bill in 1999, “Oregon Gun Owners” attempted, and failed, to put similar legislation on the ballot.

Clearly, this is not an organization that shares the principles or goals of OFF.

We thank the recipients of this letter for informing us and giving us an opportunity to set the record straight.

The Oregon Court of Appeals has once again ruled against gun owners.

In a case funded by the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, Jane Doe Vs Medford School District, the court ruled that Oregon’s preemption statute does not protect employees from gun restrictions imposed on them by state employers.

This case, which got international attention, pitted a Medford school teacher against her employer. When it was learned that the teacher, Shirley Katz, possessed a concealed handgun license, her school and school district began a campaign of abuse and threats against her.  We agreed to take her case to court.

After the Circuit Court ruled that the school could, in fact, create rules to prevent her from possessing a self-defense firearm, we appealed.  The Court’s decision can be seen here.

It’s interesting that the Court continues to use and misunderstand the case of Starrett vs City of Portland, another case funded by OFEF.  In their decision they state  “In Starrett, the City of Portland leased Pioneer Square to a privately owned company, Entercom, which owned and operated a number of radio stations in the area. Id. at 536. Entercom leased the property in order to host a New Year’s Eve celebration. “

This is exactly the opposite of what happened. In fact, Entercom radio did not “lease” space from the city. The city PAID Entercom radio to run a City party on City property with taxpayer money. So once again, the Courts reach a conclusion based on incorrect former conclusions.

EXTREMIST ANTI-GUN LEFTISTS NOW “TRAINING” OREGON POLICE.

A far-left anti-gun organization is now “training” Oregon police on how to spot “hate.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which considers opposition to draconian gun control laws to be “crackpot,” has sent one of their “experts” to Eugene to teach police from multiple agencies about “Hate in America Today- a National Overview of Far Right Domestic Terrorism.”

You will recall that in the brave new world of Obama, “right wing terrorists” include gun owners, Constitutionalists, military veterans and supporters of limited government.

The SPLC is a multi-million dollar fundraising machine run by Morris Dees, also known as the King of the Hate Business.

SPLC denounces any organization that differs from their far-left,paranoid, but very profitable agenda. SPLC counts amongst its enemies, talk show host Lou Dobbs, The American Family Association , The Oath Keepers and The Federation For American Immigration Reform.

Oregon Firearms Federation is apparently an enemy as well.

SPLC is a radical anti-liberty organization. Their involvement in “training” local police is a chilling development.

Eugene Police Department

Eugene Police Public Information Coordinator:
Jenna LaBounty 541.682.5197
Eugene Police Public Information Director:
Melinda Kletzok 541.682.5124

Below, SPLC Founder, Morris Dees, compares returning veterans to Timothy McVeigh and warns that they are being “recruited” by right wing hate groups. He also hails the DHS report that invented a wave of potential “right wing terror.”  The recent murders at Fort Hood demonstrate the actual threat within our military, and it’s not coming from “right wingers.”

Grant County Announces Pro-Gun Policy Towards Non Residents.

While most of the recipients of our alerts are Oregon residents, we are pleased to be able to report that at least one Oregon County has announced a formal policy of encouraging non-residents to apply for concealed handgun licenses.

Grant County Sheriff Glen Palmer has just sent us his new CHL application and asked that we make it available on our website.

You can download it here.  (Adobe Acrobat required.)

Of course, Oregon law still limits non-resident applications to residents of adjoining states, but this is clearly a positive development.

For years, one of the most commonly asked questions we have received at Oregon Firearms is “what sheriff is most likely to issue a license to a non-resident?” We can now report that at least one county has a formal policy of issuing.

Sheriff Glenn Palmer told us in a recent e-mail “I am kind of excited about doing this as it is high time that we do something favorable instead of taking something away from gun owners.”

We encourage non-resident applicants to visit beautiful Grant County if they are seeking non-resident concealed handgun licenses. Of course, pro-gun residents should consider spending their vacation dollars in a county with such positive policies.

Contact info for the Grant County is available here.

This is an unedited response from Sheriff Gilbertson to our alert of 10.30.09 which can be seen here.

Mr. Starret,

First, for anyone to suggest I am against the 2nd Amendment is either a liar, or at the very least, misinformed. I have always believed in the Constitution. In fact, I have put my life on the line in numerous conflicts, throughout the world, to preserve and promote our way of life.

We are a poor County. The O&C timber revenue has always supported county law enforcement. The loss of that revenue is proportionate to the level of service we can provide. One of our responsibilities (under ORS) is to provide Court security. We lack the funding to provide 24/7 coverage of patrol, only use 43% of our jail, lack adequate support in court security, amongst other duties – so, we spread out what we have to the best we can.

I have personally provided public classes to our citizens on how to defend themselves, which includes the use of various levels of force. We are weak in law enforcement in this County and I believe it a duty for this Sheriff to provide the public with the knowledge on how to legally protect themselves, others, and their families.

To take guns away from citizens lessening their ability to protect themselves, especially given our weak law enforcement presences, would be a true injustice that I will not abide by. As long as I remain Sheriff of this County, I will fight to uphold our Constitutional rights.

Many of you have already condemned me, and even made threats, without understanding what occurred in Josephine County. A Commissioner asked the Court for permission to carry a concealed weapon within the Courthouse. That decision falls under the authority of the Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) and the presiding Judges, not the Sheriff.

Possession of weapon or destructive device in public building or court facility:

Oregon law 166.360 Definitions for ORS 166.360 to 166.380. As used in ORS 166.360 to 166.380, unless context requires otherwise:
Para (2) “Court facility” means a courthouse or that portion of any other building occupied by a circuit court, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court or the Oregon Tax Court or occupied by personnel related to the operations of those courts, or in which activities related to the operations of those courts take place.

Further, the following is a decision on this matter from Josephine County Judges: This memo comes from the Court Administrator to County Legal Counsel –

“I am writing in reply to your memo dated October 22, 2009 regarding a Presiding Judge Order to authorize a County Commissioner to carry a concealed firearm.

You referenced the 2005 Presiding Judge Order that was rescinded in 2007 and the possibility of renewing the Order.

I discussed your memo with Presiding Judge Lindi Baker and she has conferred with the other judges. All of the judges agree the current Presiding Judge Order prohibiting weapons in a court facility by anyone other than law enforcement while on duty is in the best interest of court security.

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) conducted an on-site assessment for Josephine County in 2008 that evaluated our court facilities, including our court security policies and procedures. A fundamental principle of courthouse security is to restrict all weapons and to have only trained law enforcement personnel carry firearms.

It is critical that we provide a safe and secure environment for both our employees and the hundreds of customers who visit the courts and courthouse on a daily basis. In accordance with ORS 166.360 and our current Presiding Judge Order Banning Firearms, we do not support any non-law enforcement personnel carrying a concealed weapon. Judge Baker will not amend the Order to allow County Commissioners to carry weapons in the courthouse.”

I support the 2nd Amendment and an individual’s “right” to defend themselves, or others.
Gil Gilbertson,
Josephine County Sheriff

Josephine County Sheriff Calls Gun Owning County Commissioner “paranoid.”

Update. Sheriff Gilbertson strongly denies any anti-gun sentiments. We have offered to publish any response or rebuttal he wants to provide. (On 11.5.09 the sheriff responded. See his response here)

News Link 1
News Link 2
News Link 3

Gilbertson’s Contact Info.

OFF responds with a rifle raffle. (Maybe the winner will be from Josephine County.)

Post Office Court Case Says No Guns in Post Offices.

For some time there has been confusion about the legality of carrying
a firearm in a Post Office.

Many Post Offices have signs posted stating it is unlawful. However,
Federal law does NOT prohibit possession of firearms in Post Offices
for “any lawful purpose.”

In our book “Understanding Oregon’s Gun Laws” we stated that we knew
of no successful prosecutions for persons carrying guns in Post Offices, but otherwise committing no crime.

Unfortunately we now have one.

It’s important to note that is was NOT decided in our circuit, but
also important to note that the conviction stemmed not from any
violation of law, but of a “rule” which is a very troubling development.
To see the entire ruling, use this link.

Those of you who live in the Portland area know that the three counties near Portland (Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington) share an odd “regional” government called “Metro.”

Many are not really sure what Metro does or why it’s needed but that has not made it go away.

Among other functions “Metro” is responsible for various parks and facilities such as the Portland Zoo.

Many of these locations have signs posted saying that no firearms are allowed and there are no exceptions. The zoo rules allow no one to have a firearm there.

Of course, Metro has no authority to create any restrictions on persons with concealed handgun licenses.

Some time ago we contacted Metro to inquire where they believed they got the authority to impose these rules.  As you would expect, rapid responses are not part of big government.

We did hear from Metro’s CEO and he did agree that there may be a conflict with state law.

In September we made a public records request from Metro asking for all rules and restrictions dealing with firearms at facilities and locations they control. While we still have not received those we have received a copy of an executive order dealing with firearms and license holders that clearly contradicts their stated policies.

While we believe that Metro is reexamining all of its firearms restrictions, until they have corrected the many unlawful rules at locations they control, we want you to have a copy of their executive order which clearly states that license holders are NOT subject to their restrictions.

It is our expectation that Metro will be revising the rules and signage at their facilities, but until then, know that if you are a CHL holder, the restrictions do not, and cannot, apply to you.

9.30.09 Anti-Gun Efforts Begin Long Before “Special Session.” Firearms Possession On School Grounds In The Cross Hairs.

In February, the Oregon Legislature will be meeting for a “special session.”

Although our legislature is supposed to meet only every two years, it is now a forgone conclusion that they will be in Salem annually.

But they are not waiting until then to begin their assault on your rights, so it’s essential that you start responding right away.

Today, at a joint session of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees the attacks began.

As you may know, in the 2009 session OFF passed SB 603. This bill did several things.

One of the things it did was correct a mistake in Oregon law. The old law (still in effect until January 2010) said that a person with a felony conviction could petition the courts to have his rights restored to purchase a firearm. However, that person was still not allowed to OWN a firearm.  SB 603 corrected that and allowed a person to ask to both buy and own.

It seemed like a no-brainer. But today the Oregon Department of Justice came to asked that this correction be reversed. It was their position that because of SB 603, a person with multiple felony convictions could walk out of prison and legally get guns. This is, of course, absurd.

All the bill does is allow a person who could ASK to have his rights restored to actually get them restored. There is no guarantee that the petitioner would be successful. But it was clear that neither the Department of Justice, nor most members of the committee really understood current law or the effects of the bill.

Although this was not a public hearing, we were asked to respond to the DOJ and we made it clear that the language in SB 603 was not a mistake, nor was it unintended. It was a well crafted attempt to fix an existing error. If this language is stripped from the bill, the law may very well return to its previous nonsensical version.

But that was just a down payment on what was next.

As you know, the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation has filed a lawsuitgainst the Oregon University System for attempting to enforce illegal anti-gun rules.

Just as in the Medford School District, which threatened a teacher there for having a CHL, the Oregon University System has draconian anti-gun regulations that Oregon law does not allow them to adopt.

But, not content to wait until the courts rule on either case, OUS has sent out their hired hack, Neil Bryant, to try to convince the legislature to write new rules to strip license holders of their ability to be on University property.

Bryant was the Chair of the Senate Judiciary in 1999. He was one of the driving forces behind an attempt to ram through legislation to end private transfers at gun shows. This bill was actually supported by a “pro-gun” state group  back then, and it was ignored by the NRA. OFF opposed it and it was defeated by one vote.

Now Bryant is back as a lobbyist  trying to attack the rights of the most law-abiding people in the state, concealed handgun license holders.

It’s interesting to note that while this hearing was a joint session of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the Chair of the House Committee, Jeff Barker, wanted no part of it. So he dismissed his committee when this issue came up. Only  ultra-liberal  House Rep Jefferson Smith stayed in the room.  Smith commented that Oregon might be “better off” with a patchwork of different rules and laws in different places, a nightmare our “preemption” statute was passed to address.

Bryant told the Committee that college students should not be allowed to be on campus with lawfully owned guns because they drink too much. He asked what would happen if a bunch of drunken college students decided to “pass a gun around.”  He wondered aloud about what armed students would do if they “broke up with their girlfriend” or were “angry at a professor.”

At no point did Bryant actually give an example of any problems on any college campuses. At no point did Bryant explain why these same students could be trusted off campus. But he did mention our lawsuits as the reason he  was asking for new restrictions.  (We can only conclude that the Oregon University System is convinced they will lose.)

Bryant also stated in the hearing that Jeff Maxwell, the Western Oregon University student who was unlawfully arrested for having a handgun on campus, was given a “public hearing.”  As many of you know, that’s untrue. Maxwell was “tried” by a kangaroo court of students in a closed session where even Jeff’s family was denied access.

Bryant suggested, and the Senate Committee agreed to the creation of a “work group” to try to come up with new laws to restrict gun rights on college property.

Bryant suggested that the group consist of  legislators, school board members, officials from K-12 schools, district attorneys, campus security, police and sheriffs. Almost as an afterthought he said a representative from “gun rights group” should perhaps be invited.  At that suggestion, Senator Susanne Bonamici said that if a pro-gun representative was included, she wanted someone from an anti-gun group like Ceasefire Oregon. (As if the deck were not stacked enough.)  Neither Bryant nor any member of the committee suggested having any representation from student organizations.

There is no question that the anti-gun establishment is running scared and is working overtime to find a way to disarm license holders. It is essential that we act before this misguided movement can pick up steam.

Both the attempted gutting of SB 603 and the attack on gun rights on college property will likely be considered at the February “special session.”  Please contact the Senate Judiciary Committee and let them know that you will not stand for any attacks on your rights.

Chair Floyd Prozanski is the person who most needs to hear from you. It was he who agreed to put together the “work group” being  assembled to craft these new restrictions.

If you are a student, or will be in the future, or if you have a child or grandchild who is a student, it is critical that Prozanski hear your voice. Remember, this is NOT just about colleges. If these efforts are successful, a parent with a CHL will not be allowed to pick up  a child at school  while in possession of a self defense firearm. Tell Prozanski that you want to be represented at this “work group.”  (You may even want to serve on it yourself.) This group will be forming immediately. You MUST act right away. A sample e-mail and contact info for Senator Prozanski follows:

Capitol Address:
900 Court St. NE, S-417
Salem, OR 97301
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1704
District Address:
PO Box 11511
Eugene, OR 97440
District Phone:
541-342-2447

sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us

___________________________________________________________________

Dear Senator Prozanski,

I am very concerned that the improvements made to Oregon law under SB 603 will evaporate if the Department of Justice has its way. It’s clear that they have misunderstood current law and the changes that SB 603 makes. 603 does NOT allow felons to get guns. It only allows them to petition the court to review their status. Please don’t fall for the scare tactics the DOJ is using.

I am also very concerned about the formation of a “work group” to explore new ways to erode the rights of concealed handgun license holders. The Oregon University System’s position that license holders cannot be trusted on their property makes no sense. If the system is so concerned about “drunken college students” behaving irresponsibly, they should consider banning cars from campus. Cars kill far more college students than firearms do. If you do go ahead with the formation of this group, I urge you to not stack the deck with countless anti-gun bureaucrats and only token representation for gun owners.

Yours,
__________________________________

 

If you think dealing with the legislative system is frustrating, you don’t know the half of it.

Those of you who followed the case of Jeff Maxwell, a Marine Corp veteran who was arrested at Western Oregon University for exercising his Second Amendment rights, know how long we have been involved in our efforts to get justice for him.

It has been a very long and complicated journey,

Although we were able to quickly get the criminal charges against him dropped, getting the Oregon University system to comply with the law is another matter.

As those of you who have followed our defense of the Medford teacher know, these processes can take a ridiculously long time. (We are still awaiting the Appeals Court decision on that issue.)

This case was complicated by a number of factors. First, there were several ways we could have approached it. Each had their own strengths and liabilities.

Second, other organizations got involved in the issue, As a result, there was a major possibility that we would be working at cross purposes with people who were trying  to reach the same goal we were.

When multiple players are addressing the same legal issue, their cases could be consolidated, or one group might be bumped out of the process altogether. While any legal strategy comes with a chance of  losing, we felt very strongly that we had to have a plan that had the greatest chance of success for Maxwell and all gun owners. We also had an obligation to protect  Jeffery from any additional liability.

Frankly, this took a lot longer than we expected. For those of you who have so generously uted, we thank you for your support and your patience.

As you know, early on we considered a Federal Deprivation of Civil Rights lawsuit. At one time, we felt strongly that that was the best way to go.

As this case developed,  our attorneys concluded that that path might not be the most beneficial. There were a number of reasons why. One, there was a distinct possibility that the Federal Courts might simply refuse to hear our case.  Because another organization had served notice of their plans to challenge Maxwell’s suspension in state court, the Feds might very likely have taken the position that they would not rule until the State had reached a conclusion.

Had that happened, there would have been little we could do for  a long time. But there were other considerations.  Our attorneys informed us that should the Feds hear our case, and our side lost, Maxwell could be personally liable for attorney’s fees.

We have always been clear that our Foundation would pay for Jeffery’s legal bills, but we were not comfortable allowing him to be in the financial cross hairs. We can budget for known lawyer’s bills, and our supporters have been very generous, but to have him be technically responsible instead of us made no sense.

So, after much consideration and discussion, with a lot of input from  friends in many quarters, we chose another route that we believe will allow us to reach a conclusion to this matter and isolate Jeffery from any future potential liability.  Jeffery has been involved on all stages of this process and is on board with this strategy.

On August 7th, our attorneys filed a Petition for Judicial Determination of Validity of Rule.

Since our Foundation is the plaintiff instead of Jeff Maxwell, he cannot be liable for any negative outcomes in the future. The law also requires that the plaintiff not be  a party to any current dispute, so the Foundations becomes the perfect party to address this issue.

There are other reasons why we believe, win or lose, that this will be the best way to go.

As you know, we have been involved in numerous legal actions when we felt there was no legislative remedy. As you also know, courts are really accountable to no one and they reach some bizarre conclusions. If the case was just about Jeff, the courts may have found a creative way to either affirm Jeff’s suspension from school, or reverse it while never addressing the rule itself. Then we could face this same battle again.

We have sued the Oregon University System in the past with no resolution. The way this case is crafted, we believe that we have a far better chance of getting an answer that applies to everyone.

This step unfortunately, is but the first of a long trip.  The actual legal battle will go on for some months. But it’s a battle that must be fought.

Once again, we thank you for your support and patience.  We thank the courageous legislators who have stepped up to challenge the law-breakers at the University System , especially Senator Brian Boquist and Representative Kim Thatcher and we ask that you continue to stand with us as this lengthy process unfolds.