Category: OFF Alerts

Recognition Bill Yanked Off Schedule… Again.

Yesterday we told you that the CHL recognition bill, HB 2463 was going to be heard today. (We hoped.)

We hoped too soon.

Once again the bill was pulled from the schedule.

The best information we have is that Democrats on the committee (who claimed to support the original bill) are now trying to change it to make if far more restrictive.

Now it seems they will reduce greatly the number of states whose licenses we will accept. As a result of those intended changes, someone, presumably the state police, will have to determine which states have requirements that are similar to ours. And THAT of course, will cost money. These new fiscal requirements are part of the reason for the delay.

The bill is now scheduled for Monday April 20th. Also on April 20th the SENATE Judiciary Committee will be hearing Senate Bill 603, a bill which we requested to define the term “readily accessible ” for the transportation of firearms in cars..

Tomorrow, the CHL privacy bill is still on the schedule, but may very well be amended beyond recognition. It’s not too late to contact the House Judiciary Committee and tell them you want a bill with the most possible protections for your personal information and a bill that gives sheriffs the discretion to disclose it is not what you expect when the legislature deals with this issue.

Today in Eugene, the Oregon Appeals Court heard our appeal in the Medford teacher case.

The Medford School District made several arguments.  They said that their rule forbidding employees from having self defense firearms was not a “regulation” since it only applied to employees and not the general public.

When the Court asked if the general public was allowed on school property armed, the school district’s lawyer said they “had no policy on that.” But moments later he said that he thought that schools that DID have that policy were obeying the law, which of course undercut his first argument.

His argument, of course, also would mean that the Department of Human Services COULD restrict gun rights for foster parents, because THEY are not the entire population, and the Port of Portland COULD have rules against gun possession because that would only effect people who go to the airport. As you know, both DHS and the Port of Portland have backed off on their anti-gun rules after OFF confronted them.

Then the school district argued that the law did not apply to them because they are not a “district.”  Which of course, they are. That’s why they are called a school “district.”

It’s impossible to know how the court will decide. But it was significant that one of the three judges closed the hearing by stating that the court should not even be dealing with this matter, that the legislature should address it, and in fact had a bill before them to address it.

The bill he was referring to was Senate Bill 568, a bill drafted by OFF to stop government agencies from making a “condition of employment”  that an employee gives up her gun rights. This, like several other bills, is being held up in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Chairman Floyd Prozanski. Prozanski has stated he plans to hold hearings on at least two of our bills, but has yet to schedule any and time is running out.

Tomorrow, the long awaited CHL recognition bill, HB 2463 will finally (we hope) receive a work session in the House Judiciary Committee.

As you know, this bill was already voted on once, and passed by this same committee, but was withdrawn and  sent back to committee after Democrats objected.

Tomorrow they get a second shot at it. We believe there is a strong likelihood that House Democrats will introduce amendments to substantially weaken the bill.

Please contact the committee and urge them to vote for a bill that will recognize all other states’ licenses as the Oregon Sheriffs have requested. Remember, this bill does not only help visitors to our state, it helps Oregonians who have CHL’s because this would open up many other states to recognizing our permits. Contact information and a sample message follow:

———————————————————————-
Dear Representative,

HB 2463 would recognize other states’ handgun licenses, just as many other states recognize ours.

Currently, Oregon recognizes NO other states’ licenses and as a result, Oregon CHL holders are often not allowed to carry in other states because we have refused to accept their licenses.

As you know, law enforcement supports this bill. I urge you to pass the most inclusive possible bill to benefit not only visitors to our state, but Oregon residents as well.

Yours,

____________________

—————————————————————————–

The coming weeks will be busy ones for gun rights in Oregon. But first, Oregon gun owners should know that both their US Senators, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, cast an important vote on April 2nd.

Wyden and Merkley both voted AGAINST an amendment to a Senate budget bill that would have allowed law abiding gun owners to transport firearms in their checked bags when traveling on the perennially broke, but taxpayer funded, Amtrak.

That’s right. Wyden and Merkley voted to prevent you from legally transporting a firearm on a train, something you can do on an airplane.

Amtrak, which should be considered “light rail” because it’s rarely weighed down by passengers, is chronically broke. Apparently, both Merkley and Wyden want to keep it that way. Thankfully, other states elected enough senators who think clearly and the amendment passed.

MONDAY APRIL 13th.
Oral arguments in the Medford Teacher Lawsuit.
Our appeal of the court decision denying public school employees their right to self defense will be heard at 9am at the University of Oregon School of Law. The address is 1515 Agate Street, Eugene Oregon. Room 241.  (Be advised, the classroom will be considered a “courtroom” and as such it will be unlawful for license holders to be armed in the room.) Fittingly,students at OSU are hosting a “Second Amendment Week” starting on this day. We have been reliably informed that the school administration is so nervous, they have requested State Police in riot gear. No, we are NOT making this up.

The following bills are to be dealt with in the House Judiciary Committee. The committee meets at 1 PM in Room 357. These proceedings can be viewed live online here or here. Note, the video feed is on 24 hours a day, so you can check your connection before the dates of  the work sessions. There is no audio feed until the proceedings start. Please keep in mind that the chairman can remove any bill from the schedule with no notice. Even if the bill is listed on online committee schedules at the time of the meeting, the listed bills can be bypassed.

Tuesday April 14th
Work session, House Bill 2463 which would recognize other states’ handgun licenses. Note, this bill previously passed out of this committee with amendments that would have allowed gun owners, from states that don’t require licenses, to carry in Oregon. Democrats on the committee had a collective fit and the bill was returned to committee to be reconsidered. Because this bill has been delayed extensively, we believe there may be restrictive amendments introduced at the work session. They will most likely  not be available prior to to the work session.

Wednesday April 15th
Work session, HB 2727 to protect the privacy of concealed handgun licensees.  Members of the committee have requested far-reaching amendments which could render this bill pointless. If they are adopted, we would support the decision of members (who supported the original bill) if they voted “no” on the final bill.

We are still hoping to have the bill passed with its original protections. Some committee members might vote “no” on any protections for CHL holders, but for the ones who supported the original bill we have made it clear we would understand a “no” vote on a gutted bill which would only serve as political cover with no real benefits for gun owners.

Thursday April 16th
Work session, HB 2991. This bill exempts CHL holders from background checks for gun purchases. It is likely that if this bill passes, the Feds will try to block it.

Monday April 20th
HB 2853.This is the mental health records transfer we warned you about in a previous alert.The bill summary says “Expands prohibition on possessing and transferring firearm to include person found guilty except for insanity of misdemeanor” but ten pages of amendments have turned it into a huge data dump of personal information to the Obama administration and the FBI. These changes are being made to force Oregon to submit to federal legislation that could dramatically damage the gun rights of veterans.

Senate Judiciary Chairman, Floyd Prozanski, has promised to hold hearings on at least two bills in his committee to clarify or correct Oregon gun laws. As of now, he has scheduled nothing. The deadlines for these actions are fast approaching.

Mental Health Records To Be Sent To Obama Administration

On April 8th, the Oregon House Judiciary Committee held a public hearing for HB 2853.

In its original form, it was an unnecessary, but mostly innocuous bill. But as so often happens, an effort was made to”gut and stuff”  the bill and turn it into a far more dangerous and intrusive piece of legislation.

The original meaning of the bill was stripped out, and language was introduced in the form of 10 pages of amendments that made the bill a far different animal.

The new language would force Oregon to comply with HR 2640, a Federal law passed in 2007.

You may recall  that 2640 was a gun control bill that was dead until it was revived by the National Rifle Association. On the day it was passed, both the NRA and the Brady Campaign  sent out “victory” messages, but the bill was anything but a “victory” for gun owners.

For an analysis of the bill, see here. For more information see here.

Here’s what notorious gun grabber, Senator Chuck Schumer, said about the bill: “When the NRA and I agree on legislation, you know that it’s going to get through, become law and do some good.”

The point of the bill was to turn over, to the Federal government, vast databases of the mental health records of Americans. Under the guise of preventing mentally ill people from buying guns (an absurd notion in itself considering that the shooter in the recent Binghamton NY killings was a New York State pistol license holder) the bill greatly expanded the failed Brady bill by including records formally kept private.

While no one wants to see people who are dangerously mentally ill acquiring firearms, our experience with the background check system has proven over and over that perfectly qualified people are routinely delayed and denied firearms purchases because of faulty or poor record keeping.  Now Oregon wants to share the mental health records of its citizens with the most openly anti-gun administration in American history. With top Democrats reversing earlier positions and now embracing the new gun control restrictions promoted by Obama/Clinton, the disclosure of these records is an almost certain recipe for abuse.

As you can see by the GOA analysis referenced above, one of the principle dangers in the legislation is to veterans who may very well lose their gun rights because of a diagnosis of post traumatic stress, a condition experienced by a large number of veterans to greater or lesser extent after combat.

The amendments to 2853 were described by the Oregon State Police as being intended to allow them to receive mental health records and share them with the National Instant Check System.

We believe that irrespective of the stated intention of the records transfer, the potential for abuse by a militantly anti-gun administration is overwhelming. (Even now, medical databases are error prone, telling insurance companies that medicines prescribed for conditions such acid reflux are actually anti-psychotic)

Currently, background checks for gun purchases in Oregon are done by the Oregon State Police. Even if one concluded that handing over mental health records to the State Police was justified, it is hard to justify giving that personal information to FBI. While some may claim Oregon is simply complying with Federal  mandates, we have shown no reluctance to stand up to those mandates on other issues.

The Federal bill was opposed by the Military Order of the Purple Heart, The American Legion, Gun Owners of America and state wide gun rights organizations from coast to coast.

The bill was an ill-thought-out reaction to the Virginia Tech Shootings and will do nothing to protect Americans from crime, while invading the privacy of millions of citizens.

The NRA/ Brady mandate should not be imposed on Oregonians.  Please contact the House Judiciary Committee and express your opposition to the “Dash 1” amendments to HB 2853.

The bill is scheduled for a “work session” and possible vote April 20th.

Sample message:
________________________________________________________________________

Dear Representative,

The dash 1 amendments to HB 2853 represent an vast invasion of privacy and create tremendous potential for abuse.

I strongly urge you to protect the residents of Oregon by not adding their personal mental health records to giant federal databases beyond our control.

Thank you,

___________________________

________________________________________________________________________

In what has become an all-too-regular occurrence, a bill that could benefit gun owners has been pulled from the schedule.

HB 2727, a measure we have been working on since before the session began, was scheduled, after numerous delays to be heard today, in the House Judiciary Committee. We were informed that it would NOT be heard just hours before the committee met, even though it was still on the legislature’s web page as being on for today’s meeting.

HB 2727 would protect the privacy of those persons who have applied for, or received, concealed handgun licenses. In its original form, this simple bill would have protected their personal information from disclosure unless it was needed for legitimate law enforcement purposes or pursuant to a court order.

As a result of the complaints of members of the media, efforts were made to water the bill down to the point where it would have served no practical purpose.

Right now, the sponsor of the original bill (Representative Kim Thatcher) is working to draft amendments that would return the bill to its original intent. But we are running out of time.

Deadlines are fast approaching, that, if exceeded, will eliminate any chance of a bill actually becoming law. (A bill that would recognize other states’ concealed handgun licenses was due to be heard tomorrow after having been pulled from the schedule before. It was inexplicably yanked off the schedule again and rescheduled for the 14th of April, just days before the deadline.)

While we want the best possible bills to pass, the clock is ticking. The same deadlines exist in the  Senate, where not a single bill to improve Oregon’s gun laws has been scheduled for a hearing, yet the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled hearings out until the 16th of April, only one day before the deadline.

Please contact the House Judiciary Committee and urge them to move quickly on HB 2727 and pass the bill with all the original protections.

A link for the contact info for the committee members follows, as does a sample message.

____________________________________________________________________

Dear Representative,

The delays on HB 2727 concern me. Time is running out to have work sessions and pass bills.

I urge you to pass HB 2727 with the strongest possible safeguards intact. Amendments that would allow the personal information of license holders to be revealed at the discretion of government agencies would eliminate the purpose of the bill.

Please do all you can to move HB 2727 to the floor without amendments that would render it useless.

Yours,

_______________

____________________________________________________________________

CHL PRIVACY BILL MAY GO UP IN SMOKE..AND MIRRORS.

House Bill 2727, a bill to protect the privacy of concealed handgun licensees, is facing an onslaught of efforts to render it useless, apparently because there were objections from some news sources, the very people who made the bill necessary in the first place.

You’ll recall that the Medford Mail Tribune had demanded the names of license holders in their county in order to “out” local teachers with CHL’s.

The bill, sponsored by Kim Thatcher and co-sponsored by over 40 other legislators, may be rendered meaningless unless gun owners let the members of the House Judiciary Committee know that they favor the bill in its original, no-nonsense form.

Currently, some Democratic members of the committee are attempting to rewrite the bill so instead of saying CHL records cannot be released, the law will say they cannot be released, unless a government agency wants to.  All of the original protections will be taken out of the bill and the new language will provide virtually no protection at all. (The bill is scheduled for a work session and possible vote Tuesday March 31st.)

Oregonians know full well that sometimes state agencies are run by people who are ethically challenged. Multnomah County recently lost a sheriff due to ethics charges against him.

To say that a state agency can decide to release these sensitive records if they choose to, does nothing more than give a weapon to any agency with an anti-gun agenda.

Please contact the legislators listed below and let them know that you want HB 2727 passed in its original form.  A sample message follows.

__________________________________________________________________

Dear Representative,

HB 2727 is an important defense for the privacy of concealed handgun license holders in Oregon. The bill, in its original form, will provide the best possible protection for sensitive information collected by the sheriffs of license holders. Their personal information should not be subject to disclosure at the whim of a state agency.

I urge you to pass HB 2727, without amendments, as soon as possible.

Yours,
_______________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

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

Brent Barton
rep.brentbarton@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-386, Salem,, OR, 97301
503-986-1451

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

Chip Shields
rep.chipshields@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-276, Salem,, OR, 97301
503-986-1443

Jefferson Smith
rep.jeffersonsmith@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-486, Salem,, OR, 97301
503-986-1447

Judy Stiegler Vice Chair
rep.judystiegler@state.or.us
900 Court St NE H 489 Salem OR 97301
503-986-1454

The Senate Judiciary Committee is refusing to hear numerous firearm related bills.

This would not be unusual, except several of these bills can hardly be interpreted as “pro-gun.”

The Chairman of the committee, Floyd Prozanski is refusing to hold hearings on a number of bills that do nothing more than clarify existing law, or correct errors that exist in the current law.

Why would Prozanski, himself an attorney, not want to correct clear mistakes in existing statute?

Take Senate Bill 573 for example. No one could reasonably say this bill is a “pro-gun” bill. All it does is address a peculiar error that exists in state law.

Currently, a person with a felony conviction may petition the courts to have her rights restored to buy a firearm. (Keep in mind, this only allows people to ASK, it’s not a guarantee their request will be granted.)  Sounds simple enough right? It’s not.

While such a person can ask to have their rights restored to buy a gun, they CANNOT ask to have their rights restored to own that gun! It’s absurd. Surely Prozanski cannot believe the legislature intended to write the law that way. Yet Prozanski has shown no interest in this simple technical fix that would make Oregon’s law make sense.

Another bill Prozanski has refused to hear is Senate Bill 603. Is this a “pro-gun” bill being pushed by the “gun lobby?”  No, all it does is define the term “readily accessible.”

Why is that important?  Oregon law forbids people who don’t have Oregon concealed handgun licenses from having handguns in their cars if they are concealed  and “readily accessible.”  But nowhere does the law define what “readily accessible” means.

If you’re traveling in a Miata or a Mini Cooper, what part of the car is not “readily accessible?”  What about a pickup truck?  Well, the bed maybe, but most of us would probably not want to transport firearms in the open bed of a pickup. What if you’re traveling on a motorcycle?

All SB 603 does is define what “readily accessible” means so that visitors and persons without CHL’s, can travel without running afoul of the law. Hardly a “pro-gun” bill, unless you believe that innocent people, being entrapped by their own reasonable interpretations of the law, somehow serves the common good. But Prozanski has refused to hear that bill as well.

There are other bills that Prozanski is refusing to deal with, but we can understand that, because they would benefit law abiding gun owners. However, we are baffled by Prozanski’s refusal to address areas of law that obviously need clarification or correction.

These are not complicated or controversial bills. They simply acknowledge that the laws as written are incomplete or incorrect.  Please take a minute to ask Chairman Prozanski to hear, and act on, these commonsense measures. Contact info and a sample message follow.

Floyd Prozanski
900 Court St. NE, S-417
Salem, OR 97301
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1704

sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us

_________________________________________________________________________

Dear Senator Prozanski,

Of all the bills you have in your committee, there are two that are neither complicated nor controversial, but they are necessary.

SB 573 does nothing more than correct a glaring error in existing law. SB 603 simply creates a definition of “readily accessible” in the context of transporting a handgun in a vehicle, thereby removing the current ambiguity and making travel safer for motorists and police officers.

I strongly urge you to hear and pass these much-needed bills as soon as possible. They just make sense.

Sincerely,
________________

_________________________________________________________________________

House Bill 2463 , a bill that would recognize other states’ concealed handgun licenses is stalled in the House Judiciary Committee because of Democrats’ objections.

The bill was first heard on Feb.24, where it appeared to have wide support on the committee of 4 Republicans and 6 Democrats. At the time, an amendment was discussed that would expand the bill so people who could lawfully carry in states that did not require a permit (Vermont and Alaska) would also be allowed to visit Oregon with self defense firearms.

On March 12th a “work session” was held on the bill. The proposed amendments were considered, but suddenly some of the Democrats on the committee withdraw their support and voted against the amendments and the bill.  The Chairman of the committee, Jeff Barker, who is also a Democrat, and a cosponsor of the bill, voted with the 4 Republicans for both the amendments and the bill, and it passed.

But (according to capitol sources) the Democrats objected so strenuously that Barker returned the bill to committee to be dealt with again.

OFF proposed a simple solution. Remove the amendments and add language that would allow anyone from any state to apply for an Oregon license. (Currently you must live in an adjoining state and the sheriff to whom you apply has complete discretion to turn you down.)

It seemed like the objections of the Democrats (that some people could theoretically carry here with no background check) were answered.

The bill was then scheduled to be worked on again yesterday, March 18th. But the committee was adjourned with no action on the bill and it has been moved again to March 30th.

The longer this bill is kept on hold, the longer the anti-gun forces will be working on the committee members to kill it.  The objections of the Democrats have been answered. There is no reason to stall the bill any longer.

Please contact the opponents of the bill and ask that they consider the simple solution we have suggested and move the bill forward. Their contact information and a sample message follows.

Please also contact the Chair, Jeff Barker, and thank him for his past support and urge him to continue standing up for gun rights in Oregon.

Members and contact info:
All the following members voted against the bill except Chip Shields, who was excused.

Brent Barton
rep.brentbarton@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-386, Salem,, OR, 97301
503-986-1451

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

Chip Shields
rep.chipshields@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-276, Salem,, OR, 97301
503-986-1443

Jefferson Smith
rep.jeffersonsmith@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-486, Salem,, OR, 97301
503-986-1447

Judy Stiegler Vice Chair
rep.judystiegler@state.or.us
900 Court St NE H 489 Salem OR 97301
503-986-1454

 

Dear Representative,

Your objections to HB 2463 can be answered with a simple amendment that would allow non-residents to apply for Oregon concealed handgun licenses.

As you know, only residents of adjoining states may do so now. By adding this element to the bill you would be assured that persons who lived in the states that do not require concealed handgun licenses would meet Oregon’s standards.

I urge you to adopt those amendments and move the bill forward.

Sincerely,

__________________________________

 

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

Dear Representative Barker,

Thank you for your support  for gun rights in Oregon.

The objections the Democrats have to HB 2463 can be dealt with by simply allowing Oregon sheriffs to issue non-resident licenses to residents of any state. Please consider an amendment of that kind and move the bill forward. I appreciate your efforts on behalf of Oregon’s gun owners.

Sincerely,

_____________________________________

Tomorrow, as we told you, the House Judiciary Committee will be hearing four gun related bills.

Two of these bills, HB 2644 and HB 2991, allow persons with concealed handgun licenses to bypass background checks when making firearms purchases.

These two bills are the same, so it’s likely that they will be consolidated into one bill.

HB 2645 requires the destruction of records obtained during background checks for firearms.

HB 2727 prohibits the release of information about concealed handgun licenses. All are good bills but will almost certainly be amended.

The bills allowing CHL holders to bypass background checks will probably meet with objections from law enforcement who will say that gun dealers will have no way of knowing if a license is valid, since they can be revoked, but not siezed by the sheriff. The obvious, easy fix for this is to allow dealers (and private sellers at gun shows) to contact the state police and inquire only if a license is valid. No other check would be required.

The State Police currently have the ability to provide this information.

However, if that is done, a potential conflict arises with HB 2727, the CHL privacy bill we have been working on since before the session began.

As currently written, HB 2727 would not allow the State Police to tell dealers if a CHL was valid. If the bills allowing license holders to bypass background checks are amended to allow the State Police to simply verify whether a license was valid, 2727 will have to be amended to allow the State Police to disclose that information to gun sellers. We are working with the bills’ sponsors to make sure all these different goals are met.

As far as HB 2645 is concerned, the State Police have pointed out that if they are required to destroy all records obtained during a background check, that they would lose information they had acquired that cleared a gun buyer. In other words, if a person was delayed because of a question that came up during a background check, and the investigation proved the person was qualified, then the next time he tried to purchase a gun, the police would no longer have the info to clear him and another delay would result.

There is an easy fix for this as well. The information on the buyer could be retained, but the State Police would be required to destroy the information about the firearm purchased.

While these bills will need some work, we are confident that they can be amended to make them all work together.

Please contact the House Judiciary Committee and urge them to craft simple, workable bills that protect gun owners’ rights and privacy. A sample message and contact info are provided below.

______________________________________________________________

Dear Representative,

House Bills 2644, 2645, 2727 and 2991 are common sense measures that protect gun owners’ rights and privacy. Please work to resolve the minor conflicts in these well-intentioned and long overdue protections for Oregon’s most law-abiding community.

Sincerely,

__________________________
__________________________________________________________________

The House Judiciary Committee will be hearing three pro-gun bills on March 10th at 1 pm.The bills, with links to their text, are listed below.

Please contact the committee and urge their support for all three.

The House Judiciary Committee contact info is available here. Sample e-mail text follows after the bill descriptions.

HB 2644 – Exempts transfer of firearm from performing criminal history record check if purchaser or recipient has concealed handgun license.

HB 2645 Requires Department of State Police to destroy records obtained during criminal records check within 24 hours of approval for qualified firearms purchases.

HB 2727– Prohibits public body from releasing information that can be used to identify holder of or applicant for concealed handgun license.

____________________________________________________________

Dear Representative,

On March 10th, your Judiciary Committee will be hearing three bills that deal with firearms records and background checks. House Bills 2644, 2645 and 2727 are commonsense measures that protect the privacy of law abiding gun owners. I urge you to support all three.

Thank you,

_______________

________________________________________________________________

SHERIFFS ON BOARD WITH CHL RECIPROCITY

Today in the House Judiciary Committee, three bills of interest to gun owners were heard, But without question, the one that most gun owners will want to know about was HB 2463.

This bill recognizes the concealed handgun licenses of all other states.

At the request of OFF, an amendment was drafted that extended that recognition to Alaska and Vermont, which allow their residents to carry concealed without a license.

As you know, this type of legislation has been introduced many times in the past and has always generated resistance from the Oregon Sheriffs.

At today’s hearing, the representative of the Oregon Sheriffs stated that they no longer opposed recognizing the CHL’s of other states. This is a significant breakthrough in our efforts to have Oregon join the many states that allow non-residents to be safe while visiting .

We strongly urge you to contact the House Judiciary Committee and express your support for HB 2463. Please remind them that this bill not only helps non-residents, but will help Oregonians whose licenses would be recognized in many states if Oregon recognizes theirs. A sample message and contact information follow at the bottom of this page.

Oregon currently recognizes NO other state permits. This bill would change that and open up numerous other states to concealed carry by Oregon residents.

Five pro-gun bills requested by OFF have been introduced as well this week. You can see them on here. They are Senate Bills 567,568,569,573 and 603.  The sponsor for all these bills was Senator Brian Boquist. We will keep you informed on these bills’ progress.

One more note. We have received countless e-mails and phone calls about HR 45,

While this bill (in the US Congress) is troubling and extreme, there is no indication right now that it is going anywhere. If that changes, we will let you know immediately.

__________________________________________________________________

Dear Representative,

HB 2463 is a much needed change in Oregon law that would not only allow visitors to Oregon to protect themselves lawfully, but allow Oregon residents to have the same freedoms in many other states. I urge your support.

Yours,

_______________

___________________________________________________________________

House Reps Kim Thatcher and Jeff Barker have introduced legislation to protect the privacy of persons with concealed handgun licenses.

OFF has been working with legislators since prior to the session to get a bill introduced that would stop the malicious abuse of the records of license holders.

The Medford Mail Tribune started seeking these records after we assisted a Medford area teacher in her efforts to have her employer stop denying her rights as a CHL holder. (That case is currently on appeal)

The Tribune was attempting to get the names and private information of other teachers in the area. (The Tribune has editorialized against gun owners rights.) So far, the Sheriff has refused to disclose this information and a lawsuit is ongoing. (The court demanded that the Sheriff disclose the private information and the Sheriff has appealed.)

Recently an organization sought the lists to use for fundraising drives.

Now Representatives Thatcher and Barker have introduced HB 2727 (pdf)to put a stop to these abuses of privacy.We applaud their work on behalf of gun owners. Please let them  know you appreciate their efforts.

The bill has a lengthy list of cosponsors and is supported by the Oregon sheriffs across the state.

MARINE VETERAN KICKED OUT OF SCHOOL FOR POSSESSING FIREARMS

WOU STUDENT TRIED,CONVICTED AND SENTENCED.<

The WOU student who was falsely arrested and charged with possession of a firearm in a public building, had all his criminal charges dropped by the Polk County DA tonight.

The DA admitted no wrongdoing on his part, or on the part of the police who arrested Jeff Maxwell for a “crime” that does not exist.

In a statement released to OFF’s attorney, the DA said “I believe the Monmouth Police Department issued the citation in good faith and that there was an arguable violation. However, a careful reading of the statute and the facts led me to conclude the charge was not in the best interest of justice.”

“Not in the best interest of justice.”  There was NO CRIME. But it gets worse. Much worse.

The college still got to “try” Jeff Maxwell. And they did tonight.

The tribunal that tried Marine veteran Jeffery Maxwell laughed after suspending him from Western Oregon University and sentencing him to:

a “psychological evaluation stating he is not a threat to himself of others” and

a mandatory “ten page paper” ” with references, “citing, but not limited to:
1) the importance of following the law,even through civil disobedience.
2) the importance of accepting responsibility for one’s actions
3) and recognizing the impact possession of weapons on college campuses has on others.”

So, Maxwell has been told his lawful possession of a firearm on campus is evidence of mental illness and he must “confess his sins.”  Welcome to the new Politburo. Maxwell may as well been judged by the Hitler youth for his “thought crimes.”

Jeffery Maxwell’s “jury” were four unnamed students and one staff member of WOU.

The “prosecutor” was Patrick Moser moserp@wou.edu “Acting Coordinator of Campus Judicial Affairs”

Maxwell asked to have his “trial” open to the public, which is his right, but was denied.

The tribunal was told repeatedly that they lacked the authority to impose a rule dealing with firearms. But the children who sat in judgment of the veteran were not interested in the law or the facts. They were only interested in attacking and embarrassing a man who had committed no crime but had chosen to exercise his right to protect himself and others.

The “trial” was a sham. No one present even seemed to know what the “charge” was. When confronted by the fact that the school has no authority to make rules about firearms, they said that was “not relevant.” Then they said they were not charging Maxwell with having a firearm. When asked what they WERE charging him with, they seemed to not know. They then said they were charging him with having a “knife and a rifle in his car.”   When told they had no authority to make rules about guns in his car, they said THAT was not “relevant.”

The children who sat on Maxwell’s “jury”  and their staff advisors seemed to have no idea what they were actually charging Maxwell with. But they had no problem sentencing him. Gun owners, and all Americans should be outraged.

OFF is committed to continuing Maxwell’s defense. We are shocked and disgusted by the treatment he received by the staff and the students of WOU,

We ask your continued support of our legal battle for Jeff Maxwell. We promised Jeff what he promised the men he served with. We will not leave him behind.

Three gun related bills will be heard in the House Judiciary Committee on Feb.24th at 1pm in hearing room 357.

All three bills are positive changes for gun owners and we urge you to contact the House Judiciary Committee members and ask them to vote yes on all three bills. Also, please contact your own legislator if he or she is not a member of the committee and tell them that you support the bills and expect them to support the bills as well.

The three bills are;

HB 2463

This bill “Provides persons licensed to carry concealed handgun in another state with protections provided to persons with Oregon concealed handgun license.”

The value of this bill is obvious. With so many states now recognizing CHLs from other locations, Oregon is long overdue to get on board. We have made numerous attempts to achieve this in the past only to face legislative obstruction or vetoes. It’s time, and we urge its passage.

 

HB 2330

This bill is a bit more complicated, but very important to get Oregon law to make sense. Currently, a person who was convicted of only one felony, which did not involve a weapon or a homicide, can get his gun rights restored 15 years after being discharged from imprisonment, parole or probation. But, while that person can no longer be charged with “felon in possession” he would still be violating another statute that would make him guilty of misdemeanor unlawful possession of a firearm. Clearly this was never the intention of the legislature and is an error. This bill corrects that error and allows a person who made one mistake and has since led a law-abiding life to get his rights restored under Oregon law.

HB 2314

This bill requires that a person could not be convicted of unlawful firearms possession as the result of a past felony conviction, unless he knew of the felony conviction at the time he possessed the firearm. While this might seem like a no-brainer to many, the complicated machinations of the court very often leave a person unsure of what his conviction was actually for. In fact, we know of one case underway where a gun owner was charged with unlawful possession even though a previous charge had been reduced to a misdemeanor. The DA in the case is insisting that he was a “felon in possession” because the original charge was  a felony. The court reduced it to a misdemeanor, so naturally the accused person logically assumed he was not a “felon.”  The DA’s tortured interpretation of the law put this person in jeopardy, and this bill would correct these kinds of incidents.

Please contact the House Judiciary Committee and ask them to support these three bills.

A sample message and contact information follow:

__________________________________________________________________________

Dear Representative,

On Feb. 24th, you are scheduled to hear three bills in your House Judiciary Committee that would improve Oregon’s laws.

HB 2314 and HB 2330 clarify areas of Oregon law dealing with possession of firearms for persons with past felony convictions.  I strongly believe these bills would  provide needed corrections and improvements to Oregon law.

HB 2463 allows law-abiding visitors to Oregon to have the same access to self-defense they have in their own states.  With so many other states extending these rights to Oregonians, I believe it is long past time that Oregon reciprocated.

Please support all three of these important bills.

Yours,
_____________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Legislators Join OFF In Defense Of Lawful Gun Owners.

Representatives Kim Thatcher and Bruce Hanna joined OFF and the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation today in defense of  a college student (and Marine Corps veteran) who was falsely arrested at Western Oregon University last week.

The student was charged with “possession of a firearm in a public building.” The college has barred him from classes and the state has charged him with the same crime. The student was involved in no unlawful activities nor was he engaged in any actions that would discredit a responsible gun owner. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There is one small problem. The student has a valid Oregon concealed handgun license. He is statutorily exempt from the prohibitions on gun possession in public buildings.

Apparently neither the college nor the Monmouth Police are acquainted with the law.

The student contacted us last week and we agreed to defend him against these charges, brought by people who seem incapable of reading.

The student is going to face a “hearing” at the college early next week and OFF and our attorney will be there. Our foundation has promised to defend the student and provide whatever legal assistance he requires.

This is an important case. Our foundation filed a lawsuit against the Oregon University System several years ago for the same attack on gun rights, but the court found that since the plaintiff had not been arrested or expelled, they would not consider the case.

This case is different. The WOU student was singled out and arrested in spite of the fact that he had committed no crime.

He has been trespassed off the school property and had his academic career damaged for a “crime ” that does not exist. We are committed to defending him.

It is ironic that at a time when when universities are begging for armed guards, some are also demanding that trained gun owners be disarmed.

No matter how this battle goes, it will be expensive. If you would like to make a tax deductible donation to our legal foundation to help us cover the costs of the student’s defense, we would be grateful for your help. You can donate here.

Please be sure to note that your donation is for OFEF so you receive a receipt for tax purposes.