Oregon’s Absurd Lock Up Laws

7.10.2026

Recent reports of a Marion County Judge having a “loaded and unsecured handgun in his chambers” remind us that it may be a good time to review Oregon’s absurd “lock up” laws.

We are drawing no conclusions about the actions of the judge, which were first reported in the rabidly anti-gun “Oregonian” and then picked up by MSN.  As is always the case, we are only getting a part of the story filtered through the words of a biased “reporter.” Other accusations made against the judge should be evaluated in the context of who made them.

That being said, many may be unaware of the extreme and counterproductive nature of Oregon’s laws on locking up your self-defense firearms.  We have copied the entire statute at the end of this post and included the statute that provides the definitions for the terms used in the law in question. 

We covered the passage of the law in an alert at the time it passed in 2021.  You can view that alert here.

But for those who may be new to Oregon gun laws, we will provide an overview so you can be familiar with some of the laws you are probably  breaking on any given day.

The short version is this: any gun you are not actively carrying or is not close enough “to prevent another person who is not an authorized person from obtaining the firearm” must be locked up.

The shotgun you keep in the corner of your bedroom becomes a violation the minute another person is closer to it than you are.  The “authorized person” language is a bit of a minefield as well.  The definition of “authorized person” is “person authorized by the owner or possessor of a firearm to temporarily carry or control the firearm while in the presence of the owner or possessor.”   So just because you have “authorized” a person to handle your firearms, don’t think they can touch them when you have left the room. (Emphasis added)

Furthermore, an “authorized person” cannot be a minor.  So your 17-year-old daughter with a document from the NRA identifying her as a certified instructor is not allowed to handle your firearms ever.  On top of that, an “authorized person” has to live in the same house as you do.

ORS 166.392 3(b) (b) That the owner or possessor of the firearm is in the person’s own residence, either alone or with only authorized persons who also live in the residence and who are not minors, and the residence is secure.(Emphasis added)

Here is what the statute considers “secure”;

      (A) With an engaged trigger or cable lock;

      (B) In a locked container; or

      (C) In a gun room.

Here is the definition of “gun room”,

“Gun room” means an area within a building enclosed by walls, a floor, and a ceiling, including a closet, that has all entrances secured by a tamper-resistant lock, that is kept locked at all times when unoccupied, and that is used for:

      (a) The storage of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms or ammunition, or equipment for firearm-related activities including but not limited to reloading ammunition, gunsmithing, and firearm cleaning and maintenance; or

      (b) Conducting firearm-related activities, including but not limited to reloading ammunition, gunsmithing, and firearm cleaning and maintenance.

For an interesting example of legal mumbo jumbo, here is one of the definitions of “trigger lock”;

A device incorporated into the design of the firearm that is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by any person not having access to the device.

Don’t worry, we have no idea what that means either.

The lock-up requirements extend to your car as well.  So, if you are a firearm owner who has some business in one of the many buildings controlled by government entities, buildings you pay for,  that prohibit you from entering while armed, your firearm must be locked in your car.

In addition to being locked, it may not be “within view of persons outside the vehicle”.  So a firearm under your seat with a trigger lock is somehow, in the eyes of the idiots who write this stuff, “secure.”

It is unclear how these rules apply to motorcycles.

But wait, we’re not done yet.  You are also responsible if someone gets your gun and commits a crime with it. Because that is the Oregon way. No point in punishing a perpetrator when you can punish the victim.  Here is the controlling language:

If a firearm obtained as a result of an owner or possessor of a firearm violating subsection (1) of this section is used to injure a person or property within two years of the violation, in an action against the owner or possessor to recover damages for the injury, the violation constitutes per se negligence, and the presumption of negligence may not be overcome by a showing that the owner or possessor acted reasonably.

While an obvious attempt to entrap and harass gun owners, it is really difficult to imagine how this would be put into practice.  Someone, (not a burglar because there is an exception for that) but someone you allowed in your home hurts someone with your gun, you are responsible.  How the authorities are supposed to prove two years later that there was no trigger lock on your gun is a mystery.  Of course, another mystery is why in the world these gerbils think a “tigger lock” secures a gun.   The complete law follows with the statute including the definitions right underneath it.

166.395 Securing firearms; penalties; civil liability. (1)(a) An owner or possessor of a firearm shall, at all times that the firearm is not carried by or under the control of the owner, possessor, or authorized person, secure the firearm:

      (A) With an engaged trigger or cable lock;

      (B) In a locked container; or

      (C) In a gun room.

      (b) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection, a firearm is not secured if:

      (A) A key or combination to the trigger, cable lock, or the container is readily available to a person the owner or possessor has not authorized to carry or control the firearm.

      (B) The firearm is a handgun, is left unattended in a vehicle, and is within view of persons outside the vehicle.

      (2)(a) A violation of subsection (1) of this section is a Class C violation.

      (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, a violation of subsection (1) of this section is a Class A violation if a minor obtains an unsecured firearm as a result of the violation and the owner or possessor of the firearm knew or should have known that a minor could gain unauthorized access to the unsecured firearm.

      (c) Each firearm owned or possessed in violation of subsection (1) of this section constitutes a separate violation.

      (3) If a firearm obtained as a result of an owner or possessor of a firearm violating subsection (1) of this section is used to injure a person or property within two years of the violation, in an action against the owner or possessor to recover damages for the injury, the violation constitutes per se negligence, and the presumption of negligence may not be overcome by a showing that the owner or possessor acted reasonably.

      (4) Subsection (3) of this section does not apply if:

      (a) The injury results from a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person; or

      (b) The unsecured firearm was obtained by a person as a result of the person entering or remaining unlawfully in a dwelling, as those terms are defined in ORS 164.205.

      (5) This section does not apply to a police officer as defined in ORS 181A.355, with respect to a particular firearm, if storage of the firearm is covered by a policy of the law enforcement agency employing the police officer and the firearm is stored in compliance with the policy. [2021 c.146 §3]

166.392 Definitions. As used in ORS 166.392 to 166.403:

      (1) “Authorized person” means a person authorized by the owner or possessor of a firearm to temporarily carry or control the firearm while in the presence of the owner or possessor.

      (2) “Container” means a box, case, chest, locker, safe, or other similar receptacle, including, within a vehicle, a glove compartment, enclosed trunk, or center console, equipped with a tamper-resistant lock.

      (3) “Control” means, in relation to a firearm:

      (a) That the owner or possessor of the firearm is close enough to the firearm to prevent another person who is not an authorized person from obtaining the firearm; or

      (b) That the owner or possessor of the firearm is in the person’s own residence, either alone or with only authorized persons who also live in the residence and who are not minors, and the residence is secure.

      (4) “Firearm” has the meaning given that term in ORS 166.210, except that it does not include a firearm that has been rendered permanently inoperable.

      (5) “Gun room” means an area within a building enclosed by walls, a floor, and a ceiling, including a closet, that has all entrances secured by a tamper-resistant lock, that is kept locked at all times when unoccupied, and that is used for:

      (a) The storage of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms or ammunition, or equipment for firearm-related activities, including but not limited to reloading ammunition, gunsmithing, and firearm cleaning and maintenance; or

      (b) Conducting firearm-related activities, including but not limited to reloading ammunition, gunsmithing, and firearm cleaning and maintenance.

      (6) “Handgun” has the meaning given that term in ORS 166.210.

      (7) “Law enforcement agency” has the meaning given that term in ORS 166.525.

      (8) “Minor” means a person under 18 years of age.

      (9) “Possessor” means a person who possesses a firearm with permission from the owner of the firearm for a period of time when the owner is not present.

      (10) “Trigger or cable lock” means:

      (a) A device that, when installed in a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating the device; or

      (b) A device incorporated into the design of the firearm that is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by any person not having access to the device. [2021 c.146 §2]

 

Supreme Court To Take Up Semi-Auto Bans

 

06.30.2026

The US Supreme Court has finally agreed to take up one of the most important and divisive issues in America today. They have agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County concerning Cook County, Illinois’ ban on modern firearms.

We cannot overstate how momentous this decision is, nor can we ignore how long overdue it is.

States and localities across the country have been flagrantly violating the Second Amendment rights of Americans by banning the most popular and common self-defense firearms.

Common sense and past court rulings make it impossible to justify these bans. Cook County, in its defense of these violations, had written

“Their inherent lethality makes them an alluring choice for mass murder, compared to less lethal weapons like knives or handguns…At war, the ability to fire continuously without reloading translates to combat effectiveness.”

Their “reasoning,” much like the arguments in so many other cases (including in our suit, Oregon Firearms Federation v. Kotek), is based on the idea that these firearms should be banned because they do exactly what they were designed to do.  No rational person could take the position that semi-auto rifles should be banned because “handguns are less lethal.”

Suggesting that firearms that have military uses should be outlawed turns the Second Amendment on its head, and previous court rulings have acknowledged that Americans have a right to own firearms for self-defense. 

Oregon’s constitution goes further, making it clear that our right is protected to safeguard ourselves and the state. Going back to US v Miller from 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that short-barreled shotguns were not protected because they were NOT military weapons.  And while the court was wrong in its assessment about the military value of short-barreled shotguns, the ruling made it clear that “military-style” weapons are most certainly protected under the Second Amendment, which, in case most courts have not noticed, refers to the “rights of the people” while understanding they are the “militia.”

Politically motivated lower courts have upheld unconstitutional gun bans; this action by the Supreme Court has been too long in coming. We are pleased to note that it will finally be addressed.   Arguments are expected to be heard this fall. 

Positive News

 

06.27.2026

The last few days have brought a series of developments from the courts which have been positive for gun owners.

While we still have many fights ahead of us, it’s always nice to have good news to report.

You may have seen some in-depth reporting on these cases elsewhere, but if not, we’d like to recap them for you here.

The first case, US v Hemani, dealt with a man who was convicted of being in possession of a firearm while being an “unlawful user of a controlled substance” in this case, marijuana.

Hemani was  a dual citizen of the US and Pakistan. As noted in the story linked above:

”Suspecting Mr. Hemani and his family members of terrorism-related activities, the government conducted a search of the family home in 2022. Throughout the process, Mr. Hemani proved cooperative: he surrendered a gun he kept in the house, pointed agents to some marijuana on the property, and consented to an interview during which he told law enforcement agents that he used marijuana about every other day. More than six months after the search, and relying solely on Mr. Hemani’s admitted use of marijuana, the government prosecuted Mr. Hemani under 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(3) for knowingly possessing a gun in his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. “

Ultimately, he and his family were cleared of any terrorist-related crimes, but the Feds, doing what the Feds do, had to nail him on something even if it had nothing to do with what they originally accused him of. So they charged him with having a firearm while using pot. This is a federal offense that can send you to prison for 15 years.

In most of the United States marijuana is not illegal.  But the feds still consider its possession to be unlawful, and it has been their position that you cannot purchase or possess a firearm if you use or possess pot. While enforced very selectively (many Oregon pot dealers and growers possess firearms, as do countless Oregonians who only use pot), the Feds can still come after you if it suits their purposes.

The Supreme Court threw out his conviction. They took the position that the law in question was so overbroad that it simply could not be justified in the case of an occasional user of a substance most of the country considers legal.

What makes this case interesting for gun owners, well beyond the pot issue, is the fact that the court rejected one of the state’s main justifications for the law and the conviction:

“The government analogizes its construction of §922(g)(3) to what it calls “habitual drunkard” laws, which it submits enjoy deep roots in the country’s history and are “relevantly similar” to the regulation it wishes to enforce…”

SCOTUS said of this position;

“The government’s analogy fails on every metric it invites the Court to consider.”

Here is the court’s response to the state’s position:

“The government’s claim that historical laws targeted habitual drunkards for the same reason §922(g)(3) targets unlawful users—because they regularly use intoxicants—is difficult to square with the historical record. Around the time of the founding and for decades following it, a habitual drunkard was generally someone who “for any considerable part of his time [was] intoxicated to such a degree as to deprive him of his ordinary reasoning faculties…” 

But here is the part that we think is most important, as you will see:

“The historical laws the government identifies usually provided some form of process before an individual lost any of his liberties, even temporarily: a vagrant could be sent to a workhouse or jail generally only upon a conviction; a habitual drunkard could be assigned a guardian or committed to an asylum usually only after proceedings before something like a probate court; and surety statutes typically required a proceeding before a justice of the peace or a comparable officer before a bond could be ordered. By contrast, on the government’s account, §922(g)(3) automatically divests an individual of his constitutional right to bear arms the moment he becomes an unlawful user and until he ends his drug use—all without any pre-deprivation process.”

The court correctly notes that even these somewhat antiquated laws about vagrants and “habitual drunkards” require some kind of due process before the accused loses their rights. As you know, Oregon’s “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (Red Flag) law provides no such safeguard, a point we have been arguing since it was first created thanks to a “pro-gun Republican” lawmaker who wrote and promoted this travesty.

It is our hope that at some point this important distinction will help us unravel Oregon’s absurd ERPO law and restore some justice to people who are punished based on what someone says they might do in the future.

The second case of major importance is “Wolford vs Lopez”. In this case, the Supreme Court threw out Hawaii’s laws that essentially made the entire state off-limits to concealed carry.

Hawaii has a long history of outright antagonism against Second Amendment Rights, something the state appears to be oddly proud of. When the Supreme Court ruled in the “Bruen” case that states cannot create absurd barriers to people’s rights to carry firearms for self-defense, Hawaii did what New York did.  They said “fine, you can own a firearm for self-defense, you just can’t carry it anywhere.”

SCOTUS notes in its ruling:

“The Second Amendment cannot give way to “the spirit of Aloha” in Hawaii, …any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple (Bruen) or the Windy City (McDonald). Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate the meaning of fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees that apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.”

In this case, “Hawaii also relies on an 1865 Louisiana statute enacted as part of the notorious Black Codes to disarm blacks and leave them defenseless against attacks.”

This is particularly ironic. However, thankfully, the court was having none of it.

“Against this history, Hawaii’s claim that this tainted artifact from Louisiana’s Black Code illuminates the original understanding of the right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken seriously.”

It remains to be seen what Hawaii will dream up next to keep its citizens disarmed and defenseless.  As we have seen, states have shown no reluctance to ignore the Supreme Court and so far have faced little pushback. In our Federal case against Measure 114, (Oregon Firearms Federation v Kotek,) the judge pointedly ignored the Supreme Court’s direction from Bruen and has never been held accountable.

That case now languishes in the worst court in America, the Ninth Circuit.  While we believe the court will do all it can to not rule on it for as long as possible, one more case out of Virginia is a positive sign for gun owners.

As you know, Virginia recently elected a leftist extremist to be governor, much like Oregon continues to do.  In the wake of her election, Virginia passed a sweeping ban on modern firearms and magazines.

But as noted in Ammoland:

“A Virginia judge has issued a statewide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Commonwealth’s new ban on so-called “assault firearms” until December 31, 2026, handing Virginia gun owners a major victory just days before the law was scheduled to take effect.

The ruling came Thursday in Crump v. Katz, the state-court challenge to Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s sweeping gun-control package. The judge read the preliminary injunction from the bench and made clear that the assault-firearms ban is now enjoined statewide while the case proceeds.”

Needless to say, the state will be pulling out all the stops to overturn this injunction, violate their own constitution, and turn as many of their citizens as possible into criminals.  But for now, this is certainly welcome news.

For whatever reason, the US Supreme Court has been avoiding ruling on cases concerning modern firearms and standard capacity magazines, although several of these cases are before them.  These delays are a minefield for gun owners, especially those who occasionally travel across state lines. And, as noted, the Ninth Circuit is stalling on making decisions that will affect Oregon gun owners looking at the prospect of Oregon’s Supreme Court approving Mz 114. Should that happen, our Federal case will probably be the only thing standing in the way of a de facto ban on firearms sales and massive restrictions on possession in Oregon.  No matter what happens, we can expect the Oregon legislature will continue to do all it can to obstruct Oregonians’ rights.  Our fight will continue.  But we are pleased to have been able to share some positive news.

Thank you for your support.

Primary Wrap Up

06.01.2026

The dust has settled on Oregon’s primary, and the general election is looming.

In November, Oregon voters will get to pick our next governor. Last election, we got to choose among 3 liberal women. This election, the race will be between two liberal women. 

To make matters worse, Washington County  Democrats elected two open communists to house seats previously held by liberals. A solid move to the left.

On the plus side, Ed Diehl’s efforts to block the Democrats’ gas and vehicle tax extortion were an overwhelming success. So, hat tip to the many, many people who made that happen. There were a lot of unnamed heroes in that fight.

Obviously, we are disappointed that  Ed Diehl did not get the Republican nomination for governor. However, we were happy to see OFF-supported Dwayne Yunker win in HD 3.

Yunker has been the most courageous and outspoken member of the House. So of course, his fearlessness and willingness to stand up meant one thing:  He would get a Republican primary opponent.   But the people of the district knew better than the cabal of phonies pushing his opponent, and Yunker won.

In Senate District 6,  Cedric Hayden was forbidden from seeking reelection as a result of his participating in the walkout that cost the most conservative Senators their seats. 

You will recall that the walkout was engineered by Senate Republican Leader Tim Knopp.  Knopp had no chance of winning another election in his district, so walking out cost him nothing, unlike the other Republicans who walked out.  After they accumulated their ten unexcused absences and lost the right to run for reelection, Knopp returned to the Senate and provided the quorum the Democrats needed to pass everything the other Senators walked out to stop.  As you know, Knopp has been repaid for helping the Democrats with a very lucrative job running Kotek’s hilariously named Prosperity Council. The council’s job appears to be coming up with economic ideas Kotek will ignore.

The Republican nominee for Hayden’s seat is Jack Tibbetts.  Tibbetts was one of the very few candidates our PAC endorsed and supported. We are looking forward to Tibbetts being a solid voice for gun rights in the next session. Tibbetts won over House Rep Jamie Cate, whose tenure has been, to put it mildly, suboptimal.

Finally, in House District 11, OFFPAC endorsed and supported Ken Jackola, who won over Angelita Sanchez for the Republican nomination.  We are extremely pleased by this outcome since the very last thing the Republican Caucus needed was a win by Sanchez.

Both Tibbetts and Jackola got a big boost from their friends at the Oregon Conservative Alliance who who have been doing great work finding and supporting good candidates.

We have a long way to go, and the general election promises to be ugly. Neither candidate for governor has much in the way of accomplishments to run on, so expect Kotek to claim that Drazan “loves Donald Trump and will ban abortion” and expect Drazan to say “Vote for me, Kotek sucks.”

One thing we learned this past session when HB 4145 was neutered is that if the Republicans are willing, they have the ability to stand in the way of attacks on our rights.  In a world full of deal-making, that deal, whatever it was, was made because you demanded it.  Let’s keep that up.

The Far Left Agrees

 

04.30.2026

In these troubling and challenging times, there is not much that people agree on. But three far-left, Second Amendment-hating, big-government-loving, cartel media outlets have agreed on one thing.

Christine Drazan should be the Republican nominee in the race to replace Tina Kotek.

The Oregonian, which also endorsed Measure 114.

https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2026/04/editorial-endorsement-may-2026-republicans-should-choose-christine-drazan-for-a-gubernatorial-rematch.html

Willamette Week, which also endorsed Measure 114.

https://www.wweek.com/news/2026/04/29/wws-may-2026-endorsements-statewide/

The Yamhill  News-Register, which also endorsed Measure 114.

https://newsregister.com/article?articleTitle=primary-would-best-serve-us-by-returning-kotek-drazan–1775838138–54964–

The media outlets that want you disarmed support Drazan. There must be a reason.

It’s coming.

 

4.22.2026

April 28th is the last day to register to vote in the May primary election.

Democrat Kotek is running with no significant opposition.  She will win the Democrat Primary even though some of her strongest supporters have refused to endorse her.

Rest assured, they will all come back to help her win the general election rather than risk having a Republican become governor.

The Republican primary is a different story with different polls showing different leaders.  Once again, the Republican vote will be split, potentially handing Republican voters a primary winner that garnered a small percentage of the Republican vote.

Of all the candidates, it is clear that several of them have no chance of winning. They lack the money to get their message out and they lack the votes to win the primary.

One of the top three candidates is going to become the Republican nominee.

We have made no secret of our position that Christine Drazan is the worst possible choice.  Her rhetoric does not match her record. She has consistently sided with the enemies of firearms ownership. She has taken credit for things she has never done. As House Republican leader, she chose payoffs over standing up to the far left.

That’s where we stand.  But wherever you stand, please participate.  Recent years have given gun owners many reasons to wonder what the point of participating is.  Time after time, the people who campaigned on platforms of “fighting for your rights” rolled over and let the Democrats shove more unconstitutional crap down our throats.  So, we get it.

But while it’s easy and understandable to be frustrated and cynical, at this point in time, elections are all we have. 

If you are not registered to vote, you can do so here: https://sos.oregon.gov/voting/Pages/myvote.aspx?lang=en

We strongly recommend that you deliver your ballots to a secure drop-off location or your county clerk’s office. Do NOT rely on the mail.  And do not wait till the last minute.

When MZ 114 was on the ballot, the now disgraced Secretary of State, Shemia Fagan, declared it passed before all the votes were counted.  Remember, every statewide office is held by a Democrat who is opposed to your rights. Please register if you have not, and vote.

Drazan 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

4.20.2026

This will probably be the last in this series, although we could go on. Some have wondered “what does this have to do with guns?”

What it has to do with is integrity, principles, and honesty.  Drazan recently sent out a mailer listing the unnamed anti-gun bills she claimed to have “shot down.”

These claims are absurd. She had no power to “shoot down” anything.  The only “power” the Republicans have to kill a bill the Democrats want is to give up something in return, and if you have watched what has happened to gun rights in the last 10 years, you know the Republicans have not been willing to stand up for much, and Drazan most certainly did nothing to “shoot” anything down.

There are no perfect candidates, but when push came to shove in the worst of times, Drazan collaborated over and over. Make no mistake, she was not alone in these sell-outs, and if any other legislator was asking(or in Drazan’s case …demanding) to be your governor, we would be sharing their history as well.

4) After endless nights of rioting, Christine Drazan voted to hamstring police and restrict riot control tools.

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Measures/Overview/HB2928

5) After a staffer for Tina Kotek was arrested at an ANTIFA riot, Drazan voted for a bill that eliminated the staffer’s crime.

HB 3164 removed language that made refusing to obey a lawful order a crime.

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB3164/Enrolled

6) Drazan voted to change Oregon’s State Song because it included the words “Free Men.”

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Measures/Overview/HCR11

7) Drazan voted to eliminate Columbus Day.  HB 2526 could have simply added a day to recognize Native Americans; instead, it said the following:

“…Christopher Columbus, a man who is known to have “discovered” the Americas, came upon land that was already inhabited by Indigenous People, his historically cited contributions being either inaccurate or facially not worthy of celebrating; and Whereas Columbus’ voyage to the Americas opened the door to heinous crimes against humanity, including but not limited to the introduction of transatlantic slavery and genocidal acts against Indigenous People…

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2526/Enrolled

8) While Drazan promotes herself as someone who “took on” House Speaker Tina Kotek, the truth is she negotiated a deal that eliminated what little leverage the Republicans had left in exchange for a “promise” which, of course, Kotek broke. The reality is, for all her tough talk, Drazan got solidly rolled by Kotek.

“But Kotek has gestured toward bipartisanship. Earlier this year, she cut a deal with Republican lawmakers to give them an equal number of seats on the redistricting committee in exchange for Republicans agreeing to stop slowing down the legislative session.”

Drazan agreed to speed up the process to help implement the Democrats’ agenda, but Kotek reneged on the “districting committee” deal. The Republicans got nothing.

9) Let us not forget this unforgivable sellout that Drazan agreed to for what else? Money.

https://www.oregonfirearms.org/and-now-we-know

When the Democrats snapped their fingers, Drazan jumped. Is this someone you will trust with your gun rights and a Democrat legislature?

Christine Drazan Voted To Place Tampons In Kindergarten Boy’s Rooms.

Twice.

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Measures/Overview/HB3294

Christine Drazan

 

George Floyd was a violent drug addict and convicted felon.  He died fighting police with a massive amount of illegal drugs in his system. Derek  Chauvin, the police officer Floyd was fighting at the time of his death, was charged and convicted of murder even though it was proven that Chauvin was following all department guidelines and Floyd was violently resisting arrest. Chauvin has faced numerous attempts on his life in prison. The US Supreme Court has refused to review his case.  After his conviction this is what Christine Drazan posted on Twitter.

 

HB 4145 Is Law.

 

04.07.2026

Tina Kotek has (finally) signed HB 4145. It’s hard to quantify the importance of this victory. After all, in the 2026 session, the Republicans lost on every other issue important to their base.

If you are wondering how this happened, it happened because of you.

After years of broken promises, failed leadership, disastrous “deals,” and sell-outs, the Oregon Republicans finally listened to you and stood up.

This time the “deal” was for us.

We have been encouraging gun owners for a long time to let the Republicans know that you expected them to fight for you and your rights, not just for a few dollars for their districts. For too long, they ignored you and allowed terrible, unconstitutional, and dangerous legislation to pass. Until now.

Your calls and emails finally made the Republicans do the job you hired them to do.

All we can say is, “It’s about time, and we look forward to this kind of courage in the future.”

HB 4145 started as another one of the Democrats’ annual attacks on liberty, property, and the Constitution. In its final form, it became a bill that delayed the worst provisions of MZ 114 and bought gun owners more time to avoid arrest and fight this insanity in court.  If the Oregon Supreme Court invalidates MZ 114, HB 4145 does nothing. Either way, that’s a positive outcome.

Senator David Brock Smith wrote in an email press release:

“The Oregon Senate unanimously passed House Bill 4145 today, delaying the implementation of Measure 114. Senate Republicans successfully removed the bill’s harmful gun control regulations that would have further eroded Oregonians’ Second Amendment rights while criminals continue to break the rules.”

But not only did the Republicans manage to kill the worst parts of that bill, they somehow forced the very anti-gun Senate President, Robert Wagner, to author the amendment that fixed it, and they got the pathologically anti-gun Senator Lisa Reynolds to carry it on the Senate floor. A double humiliation for the Democrats.

For too long, the Republican Caucus was a foggy swamp where spines went to die. But because of your relentless efforts, the Republicans have seen the light. 

This victory is even more remarkable because of the fact that on virtually every other issue, the Republicans lost.

Senate Republican Leader Bruce Starr noted in a press release: “Meanwhile, the Democrat supermajority largely doubled down on the same agenda that has contributed to rising costs and declining outcomes the state faces.”

He continued: “Democrats advanced legislation moving the state in the wrong direction, including SB 1507, a $311 million tax increase on businesses, farmers, and manufacturers, and SB 1599, which rigs the referendum election process by moving the election from November 2026 to May 2026.”

He added: “While we were able to make meaningful progress on several fronts, the reality of one-party control meant too many common-sense solutions were ignored.”

House Rep Werner Reschke said, “On March 2nd, Democrats passed SB 1599, which changed the election date from November to May. This is a slap in the face to every Oregonian who followed the petition process.”

In a fundraising email after the session ended, Senator Christine Drazan highlighted bills passed by the Democrats:

“$311 million in new taxes on the businesses keeping Oregon families employed.

A gas tax scheme so unpopular that they literally changed the rules to keep you from voting on it.

A bipartisan bill to keep needles away from schools — killed. Dead.”

House Rep Jamie Cate wrote in a post-session email:

“This contrast was perhaps most apparent with Democrats passing a bevy of bills targeting ICE in just about every avenue possible, but killing bills like SB 1573, which would have banned needles and other drug paraphernalia from being distributed within 2,000 feet of a school.”

Meanwhile, the Democrats bragged about their victories. In a March 6th press release, Senate Majority Leader Kayse Jama wrote:

”That is why we are investing in Oregon families to lower the cost of living and giving Oregon new ways to stand up to the Trump administration.”

He went on to list some of the bills they passed.

According to the release, Senate Democrats:

• Gave Oregonians the right to sue federal agents or agents from another state operating in Oregon (HB 4114).

• Required law enforcement to be identifiable and unmasked in most situations (HB 4138).

• Banned landlords from disclosing immigration status and other personal information (HB 4123).

• Directed school districts to make plans for what to do when ICE comes on school property (HB 4079).

• Prohibited discrimination in education related to immigration or citizenship status (SB 1538).

• Defended privacy in health care treatments (SB 4088). (For illegals)

• Defended hospitals as places for healing (SB 1570). (For illegals.)

• Brought participation from immigrant and refugee Oregonians into the implementation of Oregon’s Sanctuary Promise law (SB 1594).

• Prohibited state and local governments from cooperating with the federal government on the sale of public lands (SB 1590).

• Invested in legal services for immigrant and refugee Oregonians facing frequent disruptions to federal rules for immigration processes (HB 5204).

In a press release from the Senate Democrats dated March 5, House Rep. Chaichi said:

“Fascism isn’t knocking at our doors anymore; it is knocking down our doors without warrants” and then listed the anti-ICE bills the Democrats passed.

In release after release, the Democrats claimed victory while Republicans noted losses.

In the face of all these losses, your unrelenting pressure compelled the Republicans to “make a deal” for gun rights.

While no one is admitting to the terms of the deal, the two most speculated about were the Republicans promising to provide quorum for the Democrats’ bill to change the date of the tax referendum election or the Republicans’ providing votes to promise millions in taxpayer money to remodel the Moda Center for the Trailblazers. Whatever they agreed to give up worked for the benefit of gun owners. And this only happened because of you.

While on virtually every other issue, the Republicans allowed the Democrats to run over them, because you never stopped reminding them who hired them, gun owners scored a victory.

Whether this is due to a change of “leadership” is an open question.  But with Christine Drazan no longer the failed House Minority Leader and Daniel Bonham gone from the Senate, gun owners scored a rare win.

It’s gratifying to see what our elected officials can do when they listen to the people who hired them.

To the Republicans in both Houses, we say “Welcome aboard.”

This victory lays the groundwork for future wins.  The Republicans demonstrated what they can do when they have the will, and we look forward to them displaying this same will in the future.  But never underestimate the part you played.

Your willingness to keep the pressure on the Republicans was noted on the Senate floor by Senator Brock Smith, who said that the messages from gun owners to legislators made the difference.  And Senator Starr said: “Senate Republicans will continue listening to voters and fighting for accountability, affordability, and better results for the people of Oregon.”

Your commitment to making your voices heard made this happen. Thank you for your activism.

As you know, Oregon Firearms depends solely on your support to keep you informed and active on 2nd Amendment issues.  If you value our efforts, please consider whatever donation you can afford to keep us in this fight.  You can donate securely online here:

https://oregonfirearms.ejoinme.org/MyPages/DonationPage/tabid/70447/Default.aspx

That page also has information if you prefer to donate by mail.

OFF is Oregon’s only pro-gun organization that will not compromise or make excuses for elected officials that won’t stand up. We appreciate your support.

Bad Bill, Now Good Bill, Passes.

03.06.2026

Today, the Oregon House overwhelmingly agreed to the changes made by the Senate to HB 4145 and re-passed the bill.

As amended, the bill now simply moves the implementation date of the clearly unconstitutional MZ 114 to Jan 1, 2028.

The timing of this vote was interesting for several reasons.  First, Oregon Republicans were able to reference a brand-new decision out of, of all places, a Washington DC court, which struck down magazine bans.   While that decision only applied to the defendant in the case, it was still welcome news because finally a court took notice of some painfully obvious facts that other courts have ignored or dismissed.

Here is a video that explains it. The case itself is available here.

The second reason the timing was interesting was because it appears it was a forgone conclusion.  Hours before the vote was taken, militantly anti-gun House Rep Dacia Grayber sent out an email claiming the bill had passed and was on its way to the Governor.  She wrote:

“After passing through the House, HB 4145 was amended in the Senate. The new amendment—which now heads to the Governor’s desk after House concurrence—pushes the implementation date of these important gun safety laws to January 1, 2028. Voters will have to wait until then to see the state finally act on the limits they approved almost four years ago…..

I am deeply disappointed and frustrated by this outcome.”

Grayber has been shameless in exploiting her day job as a firefighter to recount, endlessly, the same stories of gunshot victims every time an anti-gun bill comes along.  Although she still lists “firefighter” as her “job,” much like the legislators who say they are “doctors,” her legislative and campaign duties leave little time to actually provide any of the medical care she uses to promote her anti-gun agenda.  Her legislative website says :

“Every time the alarms go off as I race to my fire engine, I think of all the barriers to what we were told was possible, and then I do my best to smash them. “

We want to thank her for the heads up, as unintentional as it was.

Oddly, the National Rifle Association sent out an email urging its members to oppose the bill. Their email expressed a fear that the bill could be “further amended on the floor.”  In Oregon, bills are not amended on the floor.  Fortunately, legislators, and we hope, NRA members, disregarded this peculiar advice.

Jason Kropf, who wrote the original and very bad bill, carried the amended bill on the floor looking defeated and promising to come back again next year with more anti-gun bills. And, as is his practice, once again flat out lied.  Kropf, in his explanation of the history of Mz 114, said that after a Federal Judge ruled 114 constitutional, there was no further challenge in Federal Court.  Our Federal challenge to the law is still very much in the 9th Circuit. And while they are in no hurry to make a ruling that will probably be overturned, once again, Kropf is just plain wrong.

The bill now heads to the Governor, Kotek, who, as you may know, is starting to lose support from her base of far-left activists.

She still has to sign the bill, so it ain’t over till it’s over, and as you know, Kotek has been known to take her sweet time signing things she does not like.  But as of right now, things are looking positive for gun owners.

To everyone who made a phone call or sent an email, this victory belongs to you.  Thank you for your efforts and activism.

Elections are coming up. Be prepared to ask candidates some hard questions, and congratulations on a job well done.

Amended 4145 Passes Senate

 

03.05.2026

Today the Oregon Senate passed the amended HB 4145 one day ahead of schedule. The vote was unanimous in favor.

The amended version removes all the bad language and pushes back the implementation date of Mz 114 to January 1. 2028.

The bill was then rushed over to the House where it was placed on the schedule. The House closed up shop for the day without acting on it.

It has now been moved to tomorrow’s schedule.  As we are running out of time in this session, anything can happen. We will keep you informed.

4145 Amended And Moved To Full Senate

 

03.04.2026

Today, HB 4145 was “gut and stuffed” with the “dash 9” amendment.

This amendment replaces the entire bill, as we reported yesterday. With the amendment, the only change in current law would be the implementation date of the almost-impossible-to-get “permit” and the ban on magazines.

The new date would be Jan. 1, 2028.

The law is still garbage, but this is far less damaging than the original bill.  It now goes to the full Senate floor, where if it passes, it will need to go back to the House for concurrence with these changes.

We can only assume that your pressure on the Republicans created the environment for this positive change.

But the bill still needs to pass the full Senate, and there are no guarantees there.  Democrats may still want to have the 2022 implementation date so they can entrap as many Oregonians as possible for their purchase of magazines.

Please take a moment to remind Senate Republican Leader Bruce Starr that we still expect him to do all he can to make sure this bill passes in its amended form.  We will keep you posted on the progress of this legislation.

Senator Bruce Starr

ANTI GUN BILL ON THE MOVE

 

03.03.2026

HB 4145, the Democrats’ latest attack on gun rights, is now scheduled for a “work session” tomorrow at 8 a.m. in the Senate Rules Committee.

Work sessions are where bills are amended and voted out to the floor of the House or Senate for a full vote. No public testimony is taken at work sessions.

HB 4145 has already passed the House, so this work session will be to move the bill for a vote of the full Senate.

As you know, Republicans have now allowed the passage of Kotex’s tax bill, SB 1599 (which she signed in record time) in spite of overwhelming opposition by the people of the state.

There has been a new amendment proposed by Democrat Senate President Wagner. The “dash 9” amendment removes almost all of the language of the existing bill and replaces it with new implementation dates for the “permit to purchase” requirement and the ban on ammunition feeding devices.  This is a classic “gut and stuff,” but if adopted, would remove the new price increases, the immunity for permit “issuing agents” who don’t do their jobs, and the longer waiting periods for permits to be issued. It also removes the disgraceful requirement that any legal challenges only take place in Marion County. The new implementation dates would be Jan 1 2028.

If the amendment is not adopted, the current bill will most likely be moved to the full Senate for a quick vote.  If that happens and the Republican Senators stay on the floor as they did for the tax bill, there will be little reason to bother voting for any of them ever again.

This link should include a camera icon to allow you to watch the work session live: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2026R1/Committees/SRULES/2026-03-04-08-00/Agenda