09.01.2022
As you know, the Salem Keizer School Board recently voted to ban parents and other adults with concealed handgun licenses from their property if lawfully armed.
This policy, like so many forced through by leftist school board members, is mindlessly dangerous. And now parents are fighting back.
Local parents have banded together to recall three of the members who needlessly endangered the kids in the schools they control. They are already getting death threats.
The residents promoting the recall have shared the following information on the members they are working to remove.
Former Board chair, Osvaldo Avila, supported removal of SRO’s when data included 170+ interactions involving weapons in 2021-2022 school year. He also voted to ban lawful background checked concealed carry.
Karina Guzman Ortiz has supported putting a ban on expulsion and suspension for students despite the growing number of disciplinary incidents occurring in our schools since the cancelation of School Resource Officers. She also voted to ban concealed carry on district grounds.
Current Chair, Ashley Carson-Cottingham, is in support of graphic books in the district libraries that portray teenagers giving and receiving oral sex. She voted to ban concealed carry on district grounds, is against renewing the SRO contract, and is in favor of the transgender policies that were created without parent input.
Volunteers will be collecting signatures for the recall at 752 Hawthorne Ave. NE (corner of Hawthorne & Center – Center Street Plaza) Salem, OR 97301-4675 Friday Sept 2nd from 2pm-6:00 pm and Friday Sept 9th from 9am-12pm
If you are registered to vote in the Salem Keizer School District please stop by and help remove these people from office.
THE PARENTS BEHIND THIS RECALL ARE ALREADY RECEIVING DEATH THREATS:
Contacts for Salem Keizer Education First, the parents protecting children.
https://www.skeducationfirst.com/
https://www.facebook.com/skeducationfirst
https://twitter.com/SKeducation1st
08.05.2022
Ballot Measure 114.
As you know IP 17 is now Ballot Measure 114. It has been approved for the November election.
Possession of those items outside your home will be a criminal offense. If you are caught in possession of a standard capacity magazine INSIDE your home you will be required to prove that you had it before the law went into effect. There will be no presumption of innocence.
You could be charged multiple times for possession of the same magazine.
You will need a “permit” to buy any firearm which will require a class that may only be taught by police, which virtually no police agency will be able to provide, and all your private information will be in a published database.
The “permit” this measure requires does not even allow you to purchase a firearm. It includes an Oregon State Police background check that has no time limits and permits any kind of investigation police agencies choose to dream up. If you can somehow actually get a permit, it only allows you to attempt to make a purchase with another mandated background check that can take literally forever.
While clearly unconstitutional, if it passes, virtually all gun stores will have no ability to actually sell any firearms until the unfunded permitting system is created. Many police agencies have said they see no way to comply with it.
We have created a PAC specifically to fight this extreme and dangerous measure. Please visit and share the Stop 114 website for details on the measure and a downloadable fact sheet you can share with you family, friends, and local gun dealers. https://stop114.com/
Official Fiasco Status
08.05.2022
There are two items of importance in this alert.
First, now the Salem Keizer School Board is planning to place their students in danger by banning self defense and lawful firearms possession on their property.
Please take a moment to contact them to oppose this dangerously foolish policy.
You can view their agenda here.
https://salkeiz.k12.or.us/wp-content/uploads/school-board/agendas/sb-agenda-20220809-en.pdf
You can send a message to the school board using this link:
https://alignact.com/go/protect-our-schools
Your contact information is required to make sure the system is not abused. It will not be shared.
Second, today the “Explanatory Statement Committee” on Ballot Measure 114 (the gun ban initiative) met to consider public comments made about the proposed statement.
The statement is supposed to be a simple and understandable description of what is in the measure.
The proponents of the measure, once again, demonstrated mind blowing ignorance about every aspect of how firearms work and current law.
They insisted that a person could meet the requirements to “fire” a gun in a classroom. They also continued to completely deny the fact that most shotguns will be outlawed under the measure.
One backer of the measure stated the she was “terrified” of firearms and had a visceral reaction of fear to them. Yet, in spite of her admitted, irrational behavior, she dominated the conversation on what the statement should say.
There was far too much nonsense in today’s hearing to recount, but some things were particularly outrageous.
The committee decided to include, in the explanatory statement, that “Concealed carry license holders may qualify…” for the proposed required permits to purchase. This is flat out false. There are no CHL classes that would qualify for this permit. Not only do CHL classes typically not cover state and federal law, but they are rarely taught by police and most classes don’t have live fire components.
(One proponent of the measure actually objected to the word “grandfathered” because it was “gendered language.”)
Whenever the opponents attempted to point out the obvious flaws and misrepresentations in the proposed statements, the proponents demanded that they “move on.”
The committee has not yet voted on this version. If they do not agree on the version they worked on today, the version that was made public previously (which received hundreds of objections) will be printed in the voter’s guide
In short, it’s obvious that the explanatory statement will be nothing more than a state sanctioned effort to mislead the voters in an effort to pass a very dangerous ballot measure.
You can help us fight this absurd attack on constitutional rights and common sense by donating to our Political Action Committee.
https://oregonfirearms.ejoinme.org/MyPages/DonationPage/tabid/70447/Default.aspx
If you prefer PAYPAL there is a donation button on this page:
https://www.oregonfirearms.org/join-support-off
Thank you.
07.26.2022
Yesterday, the “Explanatory Statement” committee met and adopted a proposed “explanatory statement” for the voter’s guide for IP 17, now ballot measure 114.
This, as you know, is the measure that will virtually end the sale of firearms in Oregon.
As expected, the deck was totally stacked. The only statement even considered was the one drafted by the proponents of the measure.
Neither of the opponents of the measure voted to approve the draft but the committee was weighted against them so it was adopted.
The proposed statement is a total fraud, as it was intended to be. It is intentionally misleading and contains outright falsehoods.
There is still time to send in your objections to this obvious attempt to mislead voters.
We have attached a copy of the draft statement so you can read it for yourself, but we’ll point out some of the more egregious elements.
First, no matter how much the proponents tried to hide it, the measure outright bans most modern shotguns. Period. Tubular magazines on most shotguns are capable of holding more than 10 rounds of certain ammunition. Therefore they will be banned.
The proponents attempted, lamely, to argue that shotguns were exempted because of the exception for “lever action firearms.” And no matter how much the opponents attempted to clarify that “lever action” is not the same as “pump action” the proponents insisted that was simply “argument” or “speculation.” And clearly it is not.
Tubular fed, semi-automatic shotguns were not even discussed. The language they did insert in the statement only confuses the issue more. Under the section “Regulates Large Capacity Magazines” they state: “ Particular application to certain firearms set forth in measure.” Whatever that means.
The measure requires that if you already own a “large” capacity magazine, you may only remove it from your property to go to a range or hunting trip. But it must be unloaded and removed from the firearm and locked separately from the gun. As anyone with a tubular fed shotgun knows, this is not a matter of simply pressing a magazine release and requires disassembly of the firearm.
The measure allows you to keep magazines you already own, if they don’t leave your property, but you can be charged with a crime if you cannot prove you owned them before the ban. Under the measure, it becomes your responsibility to prove your innocence. And, of course, nothing prevents you from being charged again and again for the same magazines since conventional magazines contain no identifying marks.
The proponents also included a clearly false description of the database police will keep on anyone applying for a “permit to purchase” a gun. Their statement says: “Requires State Police to maintain electronically searchable database of permits, information is exempt from public disclosure.”
But the plain language of the measure says the State police shall annually publish, the required report. There is nothing in the measure that exempts the report from public disclosure.
The statement also misleads voters by suggesting that the live fire requirement in the mandated classes for the “permit to purchase” can be completed with “hands on demonstration of basic firearms handling” by the instructor, when in fact, the student will need to be firing the gun. And of course, since you would need a gun to demonstrate that you could load, unload, and fire it, and you can’t buy a gun without the required permit, first time buyers will have an almost impossible hurdle to overcome.
The whole statement was designed to confuse and mislead voters and is totally unacceptable .
There is still time to send your objections to the Secretary of State. The committee is scheduled to meet again to consider objections.
You can email your objections to:
Talking points:
The explanatory statement is seriously flawed.
The statement refused to acknowledge that most modern shotguns will be banned under this measure. That is NOT speculation.
The statement falsely claims that the database of gun permit applicants is exempt from public disclosure. That must not be allowed to remain in the statement.
The statement ignores the lack of training facilities or people qualified to provide the training. This is a critical element of the measure.
The statement misleads voters about the live fire requirements.
The statement ignores the complete lack of funding for this expensive measure.
The statement fails to clarify many mandates that will be created later by the Oregon State Police without public input.
The flawed, proposed statement can be seen here.
Yesterday’s entire (painful) meeting can be viewed here. https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/mediaplayer?clientID=4879615486&eventID=2022071017
07.25.2022
Last week we asked you to send comments to the “Explanatory Statement Committee” about the content of IP 17, the gun ban ballot measure.
Now, thanks to the request of one Republican and one Democrat legislator, there is another committee that needs to hear from you.
As noted by the Secretary of State:
The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) received a written request from a member of the Legislative Assembly from each major political party requesting a racial and ethnic impact statement pursuant to ORS 137.685 for Initiative Petition 17 that is related to crime and likely to have an effect on the criminal justice system. The CJC is responsible for preparing an impartial, simple, and understandable statement explaining the racial and ethnic impact.
To submit written public comments, please email them no later than July 28 at 10:30 AM to elections.sos@sos.oregon.gov.
The Secretary of State will hold a public hearing to receive testimony on the the racial and ethnic impact statement for IP 17 .
UPDATE 07.27.2022 The in-person meeting has been cancelled. Remote only now!
|
9:30 AM – 10:30 AM Thursday July 28, 2022 Register to attend online via Zoom
|
Basically the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission needs to hear from the public about the potential impacts of the ballot measure on different racial communities.
These comments should not take a position on the ballot measure or make statements opposing it. The measure will be on the ballot so comments opposing the measure won’t matter.
What is needed are some points about how this measure is almost sure to have a massive negative impact on minorities.
Some talking points:
The measure requires a “class” before a person can apply for a “permit” to purchase a firearm. Since this class requires live fire, low income urban residents will have the hardest time finding an approved class.
The required “class” must be taught by police or those approved by police. If the police in minority areas choose to simply not provide the class, minority residents will be required to find a class far from their home at unlimited expense.
The measure gives police unlimited ability to require any information they want when approving a person for a “permit.” This discretion has enormous potential for abuse and can be applied selectively.
There are no time limits on the multiple background checks required for a permit and there are no limits on the cost for the “class” that is required. At this time even the sponsors of the measure have admitted they have no answers for these concerns. These issues are certain to impact low income communities disproportionally.
The existing racial statement covers none of these issues. Please send your comments with your concerns before July 28th to elections.sos@sos.oregon.gov.
The statement, along with additional information and documents, will be shared on the Secretary of State’s website.
GUN BAN MEASURE APPROVED FOR BALLOT. COMMENTS NEEDED.
IP 17, the gun and magazine ban initiative, has been approved for the ballot.
We need you to share your input on the measures’s contents.
The Secretary of State has formed a committee to write an “explanatory statement” for the voter’s guide, supposedly to describe what the ballot measure does.
We need your comments to go to that committee. The committee is scheduled to meet to accept public comments on August 3rd, but you may email comments now to elections.SOS@sos.oregon.gov
It is essential that the committee hear from gun owners in Oregon. We know the Secretary of State has stacked the deck so it is critical that voters actually know what they will be voting on.
Do NOT send comments opposing the measure. That will not matter. What we need are emails pointing out what is actually IN the measure so we can at least try to get an honest assessment of what the measure does. Just pointing out that the measure is a bad idea does not help.
Please contact the committee and point out any or all of the following facts about the measure and ask that they be included in any statement published in the voter’s guide.
The measure outright bans the new purchase of most sporting shotguns because of the magazine capacity limit. Most shotguns which have tubular magazines can hold more than 10 “mini shells” making them illegal to purchase. This will have a profound effect on youth trap and skeet shooting in Oregon.
The measure requires live fire training before a person can apply for a permit to purchase a firearm. There are virtually no facilities that will be available for this training. For first time gun buyers this could well require that you have a gun before you can get a permit to buy a gun.
There are no exceptions for the permit to purchase requirement for police of Federally licensed gun dealers.
The “permitting agent” can demand “any additional information” to issue the permit opening up endless opportunities for abuses.
The measure only allows those approved by police to provide the required “training” to apply for a permit. Police in Oregon are underfunded and understaffed. There is no plan in place to actually provide any training and virtually no rural police have the facilities or manpower to provide classes. Police in urban areas are already not responding to most violent crimes.
The Oregon State Sheriff’s Association has estimated that if a person somehow could complete the required training, the permitting process would cost sheriffs almost $40,000,000.00 annually. There is nothing in the measure that provides any funding and the fees included would not come close to covering the costs. There is no estimate on the cost or impact on small local police departments.
While the measure caps the cost for a permit, there are no caps on the costs for the required training, which is unlikely to be available anyway. This will mostly affect low income communities.
The measure requires that the required class (taught only by “law enforcement approved” trainers) include training on state and federal law, transfers and storage, and the “impact of suicide on the country as a whole.” There is no indication of who would be qualified to instruct on these issues or how they become approved.
The measure requires that a sheriff or local police department issue a permit within 30 days after a background check has been completed by the State Police. But there is NO limit on how long the State Police can take to complete the background check and NO penalties if they do not complete it. There are no estimates of the cost of these checks to the State Police.
The measure requires a public list of persons who attempt to purchase firearms. Victims of domestic violence will be at risk for all their private information being made public along with their efforts to purchase a firearm for self defense.
The measure creates a whole new category of victimless crimes at time when the police are grossly underfunded and real criminals are being released onto our streets.
The measure requires a permit from local police (which may be impossible to get) just to apply for permission from the Oregon State Police simply to buy a firearm. But it also removes the one safeguard that protects gun buyers if the State Police do not complete their background check.
State and Federal law allow the transfer of a firearm if the state police don’t complete a background check in 3 business days. This measure removes that safeguard. So a single mom with threats against her and her children could literally wait forever to get permission to get a home defense firearm.
You can add any other issues you find in the measure as points the committee needs to address.
As we said, the deck is stacked. The proponents got to pick their committee members, but the opponents were picked by the anti-gun Secretary of State.
No pro-gun organizations will be represented. A fifth member will be chosen from among 3 candidates picked by the other committee members. The list of potential fifth members was provided by, once again, the anti-gun Secretary of State and reads like a who’s who of liberal activists.
We are NOT expecting fairness in this proceeding but we must make sure the committee hears from us. Please send your comments today to elections.SOS@sos.oregon.gov . Include a reference to IP 17 in the subject line.
You can see a video of the committee’s first meeting here: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/mediaplayer?clientID=4879615486&eventID=2022071016
Links for future committee meeting videos can be found here: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/citizen_engagement/Pages/NonLegislative_Video.aspx
They appear under “Live and Upcoming News Conferences and Non Legislative Events.”
07.15.2022
Today the Secretary of State announced:
“For each ballot measure to be voted on at the General Election, the explanatory statement committee is responsible for preparing an impartial, simple, and understandable statement explaining the measure, not to exceed 500 words. Upon completion of this task the statement is filed with the Secretary of State Elections Division, so that a public hearing on the statement may be scheduled. If a statement receives comments during the public hearing, the explanatory statement committee must meet to review comments and consider revisions to the statement.”
For ballot measure 17, the gun ban ballot measure, the committee will include Elizabeth McKanna, Margaret Olny, and HK Kahng.
McKenna is one of largest donors and lenders to the measure. (The ACLU also donated $10,000.00)
Olny is a lawyer who regularly works for left wing causes. Kahng’s Linkedin page lists him as “Web developer and infrastructure wiz, eager to create, launch and nurture applications that help build organizations and communities by facilitating collaboration , streamlining processes and sharing knowledge.”
UPDATE 07.20.2022 A 5th “neutral” member of the committee was picked from a list provided by the Secretary of State: Judge Lynn Nakamoto.
The first meeting for the anti-gun ballot measure IP 17 committee is scheduled for this Monday at 2pm.
The legislative website currently has all of the committee’s meetings listed at the following URL:
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/citizen_engagement/Pages/NonLegislative_Video.aspx
After the meeting, video of the meeting will be available in the Archive section of the Oregon State legislative website.
According to the Secretary of State: “The committee is not required to take public testimony at each meeting, the Secretary of State’s Office will hold a public comment meeting on Wednesday, August 3, 2022, from 1 – 3 p.m…. Additional information will be publicized when information is available.”
We have been in contact with numerous police departments and Sheriff’s offices. All have agreed that complying with this measure will either be exorbitantly expensive or impossible. None have said they will be offering the “training” required to apply for the permit to purchase that sheriffs and local police will be tasked with administering.
In addition to all the more well known provisions of the measure, most people are unaware that it will ban the new purchase of most shotguns because of the definition of “high capacity magazines.” (Almost all modern tubular fed shotguns are capable of holding more than 10 “mini-shells.”)
Tune in if you can and be prepared to provide comments when that opportunity becomes available.
07.09.2022
Yesterday the sponsors of IP 17 turned in signatures for an overtly racist ballot measure. On the same day, a newly appointed Yamhill County Judge invalidated a local ordinance protecting gun owners.
Out-of-state, paid signature gatherers were reportedly telling signers that the ballot measure was about “background checks.”
IP 17 will ban modern firearm’s magazines, outlaw most modern shotguns, and create a “permitting” system designed to prevent low income minorities from purchasing firearms.
With crime skyrocketing in Portland and the poorest residents most at risk, “Lift Every Voice Oregon” is pushing a permit system that will require anyone trying to purchase a firearm for home defense to take a live fire class from local police.
Ironically, the same people who are pushing this measure are working overtime to defund and abolish police.
In addition to the added background checks and fingerprinting, IP 17 requires a class, which can only be taught by instructors “certified by law enforcement.” The class requires instruction on state and Federal law, the impacts of “suicide on the country as a whole,” and live fire.
It also requires instruction on storage, transfer, and purchase of firearms.
The measure does NOT require any police agency or “authorized” instructor to actually provide classes and it does not define or explain who would be qualified to teach the class or how a person becomes qualified to instruct on state and Federal law and suicide. The measure does not indicate where, when, or how often classes would be available, if at all.
The measure does not address who must, or can, provide live fire shooting facilities or what they may charge for their use.
The Multnomah County Sheriff has stated they are “unable to speculate or comment on what MCSO will or will not be providing if this initiative becomes law.”
So people in the most crime ridden parts of Portland will now have get (and pay for) the permission of the undermanned police (if they can find a police agency willing) simply to get permission to then ask the STATE POLICE for permission to purchase a home defense firearm. After an applicant completes the required class, he will have to wait 30 days before the first permit is approved. Under the measure he can then wait literally forever for the State Police to provide the second approval.
Because of the way the measure is crafted, the future sales of most shotguns will be banned and existing ones will no longer be allowed to be transferred or taken outside of your property unless disassembled.
But urban minorities will not be the only people who will find the legal purchase of a firearm almost impossible. Many smaller police departments and sheriffs do not have their own shooting facilities and rely on private gun clubs to train. Most rural sheriffs are grossly underfunded and undermanned. There is nothing in the measure that defines what is required to be “authorized” by law enforcement. But no matter who is approved, they will need access to a firing range to even begin this process.
The personal information of anyone attempting to purchase a firearm will be collected in a publicly available database.
Oddly the same people who regularly point out that minorities are arrested and jailed in disproportionate numbers are creating a whole new class of victimless crimes, sure to incarcerate more minorities.
Meanwhile in Yamhill County, Judge Ladd Wiles has thrown out the county’s Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance stating “The Ordinance is declared void in its entirety.”
Wiles just replaced Judge Cynthia Easterday on June 30th. It’s not clear why Easterday’s term was not renewed. However it is interesting to note that Wiles is, or was, married to Amanda Marshall.
Marshall, you may recall, was the US Attorney who worked tirelessly to imprison the Hammonds, ranchers in eastern Oregon. The Hammonds were accused of arson on federal land for starting fires which they hoped would stop invasive plants.
After receiving their sentences, Marshall, then US Attorney for Oregon, appealed their sentences demanding more time in prison.
Wikipedia described her actions this way:
“In what was described by one source as a “rare” action, the government (represented by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Oregon, led by U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall) successfully appealed the sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It upheld the mandatory-minimum law, writing that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The appeals court vacated the original sentence and remanded the defendants for re-sentencing. The Hammonds filed petitions for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which the court denied in March 2015.
More recently Marshall was involved in efforts to recall Yamhill County Commissioner Lindsey Berschauer. Coincidently, Commissioner Berschauer was one of the two Yamhill County Commissioners that passed the ordinance that Judge Wiles invalidated.
This apparent conflict of interest was ignored by those seeking to invalidate the ordinance, though they were outraged when the county hired attorney Tyler Smith to defend it. Their outrage stemmed from the fact that years ago, Commissioner Berschauer was married to the cousin of Smith’s wife. It’s unclear if Judge Wiles and Marshall are still married but their connection certainly seems far less tenuous than that of Berschauer to Tyler Smith.
While we do not yet have a copy of Judge Wiles’s decision, we believe his reasoning was sufficiently flawed and convoluted to create grounds for an appeal. It certainly creates guide posts to craft new and better ordinances for any county with the courage to stand up to an oppressive state.
Given Secretary of State Shemia Fagan’s open hostility to gun owners, we fully expect the signatures for IP 17 to be approved and the measure to be on the ballot.
We are committed to doing all we can to expose what this ballot measure actually contains. We have reached out to numerous organizations whose members or customers will be seriously affected by this dangerous and misleading measure and look forward to hearing back from them.
IP 17 contains elements that are clearly unconstitutional. However, that can’t be litigated until and unless it becomes law. It is our hope that with your help we can prevent that from happening.
You can support what will, no doubt, be a costly effort here.
07.01.2022
As we prepare to celebrate Independence Day, let’s not forget what we are celebrating.
The blood of countless patriots was spilled to free us from a tyrannical and unaccountable government determined to control and oppress us. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?
The recent Supreme Court Decision striking down New York’s unconstitutional ban on self defense outside the home is reverberating across the country. As you may have heard, this decision is poised to impact multiple other 2nd Amendment cases nationwide.
We believe that, long term, we will see many local restrictions overturned as a result of the ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs Bruen. The key words here being “long term.”
In the short term we are facing a challenge whose severity cannot be overstated.
Almost immediately after the decision came out, New York started crafting language to create as many obstacles and impediments to the court’s ruling as they could. Other states are sure to do the same.
At a time when crime is skyrocketing and Soros funded DA’s are making sure criminals are not punished, places like New York are not only doing all they can to prevent people from having self defense firearms, they are also trying to outlaw things like body armor.
It has never been more clear that the state is doing all it can to keep the populace defenseless in the face of rising mob violence.
And Oregon is following suit.
The sponsors of gun ban initiative IP 17, believe they have enough signatures to put this measure on the ballot. Oregon’s Secretary of State, who will verify the signatures, is a rabid anti-gun extremist who has never hidden her disdain for gun owners and OFF in particular, so we have little doubt the measure will be approved for the ballot.
If that happens you can rest assured that the cartel media will promote and misrepresent what it actually does.
While the proponents of the measure will probably receive massive influxes of cash for media buys, they will certainly be getting most of it for free from the controlled establishment press.
As such, it is essential that people know what this measure actually does so they can share this information with others.
It is not an overstatement to say that, for many, this measure would essentially ban the future purchase of firearms.
That is NOT an exaggeration.
Section 2 of the measure calls for the “regulation of sale, purchase, and otherwise transferring of all firearms.”
Section 3 creates a mandate for a “permit to purchase” a firearm. Any firearm.
As you know, Oregon already requires the permission of the Oregon State Police before a person can purchase a firearm. Firearms may not be purchased or transferred without approval of the State Police through the Oregon background check system.
Oregon State Police have no statutory time limit on how long they can take to conduct a background check. There are many cases of people waiting over 2 years for the completion of a check. Requests for information or corrections from OSP are routinely ignored.
While current law allows a transfer to take place after 3 business days if the OSP has not completed the check, in practice that virtually never happens because dealers fear retribution from the ATF. (This ballot measure removes even that one small and rarely used safeguard.)
IP 17 creates a second and far more onerous “permit to purchase” that will be required before you can even start the often frustrating process of getting permission from the State Police.
Under the proposed “permit to purchase” you must apply for the new permit from the police chief or Sheriff of your jurisdiction.
That will require an additional background check and fees.
The applicant must provide any information the “permitting agent” demands.
The applicant must complete a “firearms safety course.” (Keep in mind this is required just to ask for permission from the sheriff, to then ask permission from the State Police to simply buy a firearm. Not to carry one.)
Here is how the “safety course” is described:
8) As used in this section, “proof of completion of a firearm safety course” means the following:
(a) Proof of completion of any firearms training course or class available to the general public that is offered by law enforcement, a community college, or a private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by a law enforcement agency, and that includes the components set forth in paragraph (c) of this subsection; or
(b) Proof of completion of any law enforcement firearms training course or class that is offered for security guards, investigators, reserve law enforcement officers, or any other law enforcement officers, and that includes the components set forth in paragraph (c) of this subsection;
(c) A firearms training course or class required for issuance of a permit-to-purchase must include:
(A) Review of federal and state laws in place at the time of the class and other safe practices related to ownership, purchase, transfer, use and transportation of firearms;
(B) Review of federal and state safe storage laws in place at the time of the class and other safe practices related to safe storage, including reporting lost and stolen guns;
(C) Prevention of abuse or misuse of firearms, including the impact of homicide and suicide on families, communities and the country as a whole; and
(D) In-person demonstration of the applicant’s ability to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency. This requirement may be met separately from the other course requirements in subpargagraphs (A), (B) and (C) of paragraph (c), which may be completed in an on-line course, provided the on-line course has been conducted by a trainer certified by law enforcement.
(d) Proof of successful completion of a training course in order to meet the requirements for a concealed handgun license issued under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 may be submitted for a permit as a substitute for the requirements in paragraph (c) of this subsection, provided the completed course included each of the components set forth in paragraph (c) of this subsection.
(9) The department may adopt rules to carry out the provisions of this section.
The required course must be taught by “instructors certified by law enforcement”, not NRA certified instructors.
There is no requirement that these classes actually be made available anywhere. There is no definition of who is qualified to “review state and federal laws.”
There is no limit on what you will be charged for the “safety course.” The “instructors” will be required to have a range for live fire.
There is no time limit on how long the “permitting agent” can take to issue the “permit to purchase” as long as the “permitting agent” says he needs more time to determine if the applicant is qualified.
A person attempting to purchase a firearm could wait forever to get permission from the sheriff to then ask for permission from the State Police, which could also, literally, take forever.
In any location where law enforcement does not, or will not provide live fire training, a firearm’s purchase would be impossible.
The measure also requires a published database of persons attempting to purchase firearms lke that just released to the public in California.
The database can include any information the State Police decide to include. That means your name, date of birth, physical description, and home address and phone number.
The measure also outlaws the possession, sale, manufacture, or transfer of new firearm’s magazines over 10 rounds (the kinds most common in modern firearms), and the prohibition of having existing magazines outside your home unless they were transported locked up in route to a range.
In light of recent court decisions, the magazine ban will almost certainly be found unconstitutional. However, if enacted by Oregon it will be law until challenged in court where our anti-gun Attorney General will certainly defend it at your expense.
The magnitude of this ballot measure simply cannot be overstated. If you think Oregonians would never pass something this dangerous, keep in mind what kind of government the residents of Portland keep reelecting. Keep in mind that Oregon voters overwhelmingly approved a measure to legalize hard drugs which has resulted in unprecedented crime and overdose deaths.
Voters often don’t read what is actually in ballot measures and rely on the emotional and inaccurate, but well funded campaign pitches by their sponsors. This measure will be no different. Please be prepared to help us fight this insanity or the things our forefathers died for could become a memory.
Scappoose Backs Down
06.28.2022
On June 21st we informed you of the Scappoose School District’s planned consideration of a policy that would ban law abiding, concealed handgun license holders from being anywhere on school property while legally armed.
This meant that parents and guardians who had the means and will to protect children from attack would be legally prohibited from doing so.
In the wake of the Uvalde, Texas debacle this was clearly an insane policy consideration.
We asked you to take action and you did. The school board has concluded that there is no rational basis to change a policy that has been working safely for over 30 years.
We thank you for taking time to help the school board come to a sensible conclusion.
We want to thank the people who took the time to track down the contact information for school board members, which was not available on the District’s website that we were later able to add to our alert info.
Thanks also to radio talk show host Lars Larson who responded to our last alert and helped get the word out so we could put the brakes on this dangerous proposed change.
School boards are passing these restrictions one at a time, and it’s only because of alert citizens who are monitoring the agendas of Oregon’s many boards that we are able to stop some of these very bad decisions.
Thanks again to everyone for your activism. Scappoose children are safer because of you.
Gun owners had a few brief hours of elation after the release of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs Bruen.
They were quickly whipsawed back to reality mere hours later when the Senate passed sweeping new gun restrictions. The US House joined the Senate the following day to send the legislation to Joe Biden for his signature.
The left immediately, and predictably, lost its collective mind and declared the ruling the end of the world. It was only the decision on Roe v Wade, released the following day, that distracted them from their hyperbolic hyperventilating on guns and how blood would run in the streets.
(They quickly promised that indeed, blood would run in the streets.)
The new attack on gun rights is S 2938. The bill was cheered by Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer as a victory, but, as he has been saying for about 40 years, is only a “first step.”
Republican Senator John Cornyn, one of the masterminds behind this latest attack on your rights and the US Constitution would have cheered the passage of the bill, but his lips were glued to Schumer’s backside and hence he was silenced.
Once again, Republicans have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. At a time when the Democrats are panicking about coming elections because their policies have America teetering on the brink of total destruction, the Republicans throw them a life line and spit in the face of the people who elected them.
It’s as predictable as congressional sex scandals.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called the bill a victory and claimed it protected the 2nd Amendment. Clearly the Senate bar is still open and free.
The bill bribes states to impose unconstitutional, “pre-crime” red flag laws which, in spite of the flaccid assurances to the contrary, will be misused against people who have committed no crime.
It further complicates failed background checks. In Oregon, the State Police, who are tasked with conducting background checks, do such an abysmal job that many have come to conclude it is the single role of OSP to prevent law abiding people from legally obtaining guns.
The bill also creates new obstacles for 18-20 year olds when trying to purchase firearms.
It adds new and confusing regulations on who must now obtain an FFL.
That’s what the Democrats got. In exchange for their fealty, the Republicans, and America’s gun owners got… nothing. Another brilliant deal expertly negotiated by the brain trusts wearing the Republican Jersey.
But at least gun owners got some good news in the Supreme Court decision on gun rights. Right?
Well SCOTUS did strike down one element of New York’s arcane, byzantine, elitist, and incomprehensible pistol license law.
They said New York’s rule that licenses to carry would only be granted to those who could successfully bribe a NYPD official was unconstitutional.
In the brief moments before the next day’s Roe v Wade decision was made public, the taking heads and idiot politicians were calling the ruling “seismic” and predicting that it would have unimaginable effects on gun laws in many states.
Tina Kotek, the Democrat candidate for Oregon Governor, was apoplectic.
Her comments were bizarre even for her. According to Kotek, the ruling will “make communities less safe” by requiring New York to have concealed handgun license laws that are more like…Portland’s.
While the two other “leading” candidates for governor, both of whom have pretended to be “pro-gun,” did weigh in on the abortion ruling, they were nowhere to be found on the SCOTUS decision about firearms.
New York’s Governor immediately promised to do all she could to undermine the ruling by crafting legislation that would create insurmountable obstacles to getting a permit in New York, or to put it another way, continuing to do what they are doing now.
New York’s mayor declared that his town was not the “wild, wild west.”
Oh. It’s because of “that bill.” It wasn’t a “bill” but in deference to his limited attention span we’ll let that go.
But he wasn’t finished.
“When you are in an environment such as New York City — highly densely populated, 8.8 million people — simple disputes can elevate into gunplay.”
Yes we know. That was actually known to happen before the court’s ruling. From time to time.
State and city overlords are seeking to turn as many places as possible into “sensitive locations” where they hope to ban concealed carry, within a thousand feet.
That would include government buildings, schools, bars, libraries, restaurants and even cemeteries, which across the country have regularly been the scene of shoot-outs between people with concealed handgun licenses. Of course, they also want the subways to be off limits. Because we certainly don’t want people to be fearful in now bucolic NY subways.
While certainly welcomed, if for no other reason then to watch the earth-scorching melt down of the leftist bed wetters, gun owners should not consider this court ruling a massive victory. The courts made it clear that states can still keep a long list of restrictions on concealed carry licenses. The decision essentially validates the entire concept of prior restraint on a fundamental right.
While the court commented on the fact that no other right comes with a requirement for prior government approval, its validation of the permit process undermines the very concept they promoted in the ruling.
And by making clear that impediments like training requirements, fees and “sensitive location” restrictions were allowed, they created a road map for tyrants, like the governors of New York and New Jersey, to continue to make the right of self defense unattainable by most people.
If the state says a permit is $1000.00 a month, requires 100 hours of training by police and live fire, in a city where that is all but impossible, the court’s ruling will have little practical effect on the disarmed and endangered serfs of New York.
Here are the Senators who sold out.
If We Save Just One Life
UPDATED 06.22.2022
06.21.2022
The fight to protect kids in schools is a district by district battle.
While some school districts in liberal enclaves have predictably voted to put a big target on the backs of the kids in their “care,” other districts have heard you loud and clear and backed off of the foolish policy of disarming the good guys.
Now the Scappoose School District is considering a policy to prohibit staff and parents from being legally armed on their property.
The most recent revelations about what happened in Uvalde, Texas have demonstrated beyond any doubt, the lunacy of disarming people who would protect kids from attackers if only it were allowed.
We have all seen the videos of police preventing parents from attempting to save their children, even as armed, trained police waited outside of the crime scene doing nothing while kids died.
This is not acceptable. The best intentions of the police will never beat an armed citizen already on the scene.
But now, incredibly, the Scappoose School District wants to disarm responsible, armed, adults as a response to the acts of deranged criminals. It simply makes no sense.
The Scappose School Board is scheduled to vote on this inexcusable policy on June 27th. They need to hear from you. Your efforts in the past have made a difference so please make your voice heard again.
As of the time of this alert, the Scappoose School District has no contact information for individual school board members, not even their names! Oddly, they have a gallery of photos, but zero identifying information.
The school establishment is trying to make this debate about “arming teachers” and “increased insurance.” Both arguments are fabricated straw men.
No one is talking about “arming teachers.” That should be their decision. And the insurance argument is another bit of slight-of-hand. All that responsible people are requesting is that they leave the policy the way it is. No change, no insurance issues.
No one should be denied the ability to pick up their children, attend a school function, or meet with a teacher simply because they have accepted the responsibility to protect kids.
Please contact the School Board and let them know that you strongly oppose this change and urge them to protect the kids and not bow to the woke mob.
Scappose School Board
schoolboard@scappoose.k12.or.us
A suggested message follows that you can modify if you choose.
UPDATE: Thanks to several people who ferreted out the email addresses and names of the Scappoose School Board:
Tim Porter (Superintendent): tporter@scappoose.k12.or.us
Will Kessi : wkessi@scappoose.k12.or.us
Summer Hoag: sstutsmanhoag@scappoose.k12.or.us
Phil Lager: plager@scappoose.k12.or.us
Michelle Graham: mgraham@scappoose.k12.or.us
Jim Hoag: jimhoag@scappoose.k12.or.us
Gwen Klobes: gmklobes@scappoose.k12.or.us
Branda Jurasek: bjurasek@scappoose.k12.or.us
____________________________________________________________________________________
To the Scappoose School Board,
I strongly oppose any effort to deny responsibly armed adults the ability to protect children and themselves while on school property.
We have seen the tragic results of assuming that the police alone will stop an attacker.
This issue is NOT about arming teachers. It is about using common sense and recognizing that people who are licensed to carry firearms do not suddenly become dangerous or irresponsible when they step foot on your property.
Please reject this dangerous and foolish proposal.
Betsy Johnson
06.11.2022
Betsy Johnson has a long history of standing up to her own party and defending the rights of gun owners.
Now that she is running for governor she has folded up like a Goodwill hide-a-bed.
We have heard from many gun owners who were supporting Johnson because she impressed them as a no nonsense, no BS, straight shooter. Well not anymore.
This kind of disgraceful capitulation is just one more example of craven, self aggrandizing phonies selling out your rights.
She has promised to enforce a ban on “assault weapons” and magazines.
She has parroted the left’s absurd demands for “more intensive” background checks in a state where qualified people are denied gun transfers sometimes for many months. And we can tell you from personal experience that Johnson is well aware of that.
We now have three liberal women running for governor.
One who has always promised to take your guns.
One who is NOW promising to take your guns.
One who has refused to defend your gun rights.
Should be an interesting election.
Eugene School Board To Turn Children Into Targets
On June 22nd at 7PM, the Eugene 4J School District is planning to place bullseyes on the backs of school kids by banning licensed, concealed carry in their schools.
In the wake of the horrifying debacle in Uvalde Texas, where the failure of police to act, and a ban on lawful concealed carry cost the lives of 19 children and two adults, Eugene school board members are determined to copy that deadly policy.
The meeting will be held remotely to control the agenda and deny as many people as possible the opportunity to oppose this insanity.
If you wish to testify you will need to follow the instructions at this link:
The anti-gun forces are doing all they can to gin up support for this new plan to get more kids killed. There is simply no limit to how disgraceful these people can be.
You can see the Lane County Democrats call to action here:
You can see Bloomberg’s call to action here:
This issue is NOT complicated. The same people who are working to demonize and defund the police want to make certain that NO ONE will be able to protect children against an attack. It’s sick, it’s disgusting, and it’s coming.
If you live in the district, or know people who do, and whose children are at risk because of this twisted agenda, please act and share this information.
School Board member’s contact info can be found by scrolling down on this page:
