If the item in question is functioning properly, please don’t feel it is necessary to take any corrective action.
Author: OFF
I think this might be a legal issue.
This looks cool, but I don’t see how this does not become a short barrel rifle needing the approval of big sister. 
Maybe Target Really Is A Good Name For That Place
07.08.14
As you know, Target Stores have decided they do not want anyone to come into their stores with a firearm.
Persons who have contacted Target to express their displeasure with this foolish and dangerous policy have received the following email:
Hello ,
Thank you for reaching out to us.
We’ve listened carefully to the nuances of this debate and respect the protected rights of everyone involved.
Target’s approach has always been to follow the local laws, and we continue to do so. In return, we respectfully request guests not bring firearms into Target stores – even in communities where it is permitted by law.
This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.
We’ll share your viewpoint with Target leaders.
Sincerely,
The Target team
[THREAD ID:3-FNWHSJ]
We want to thank an OFF supporter who forwarded the following links which demonstrate that Target really is a target and their policy of excluding gun owners is a great reason to shop elsewhere.
UPDATE.
Some folks who sent emails opposing this ludicrous policy have received the above email but in place of “We’ll share your viewpoint with Target leaders” were told “Thank you for support on our position.” So it seems like in addition to being unable to keep their customers’ data safe, and keep their stores from being shooting galleries…they can’t read.
By the way,Fred Meyer Stores actually contribute to the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation.
Target Is OFF Target
07.02.14
Target stores have announced a new policy of “no guns.”
Bowing to the money of Michael Bloomberg and the astro-turf “activism” of “Mom’s Demanding Gun Sense in America”, Target stores now are telling customers that their legal firearms are not welcome.
Target did not say they were asking people not to open carry. They said they were asking people not to carry any guns, concealed or not, long gun or handgun.
PLEASE take the opportunity to let your voice be heard via one (or more) of the following avenues:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/target
Go to Target’s Facebook page and post a new message telling them you will not shop in Target stores until they welcome lawful carry.
Email: press@target.com
Email Target Corporate and let them know you won’t shop in their stores until they welcome lawful carry again. Let them know that it was bad enough that Target’s lack of security lead to the breach of millions of customers’ financial information last fall. Now they want to deny you the security of being able to protect yourself.
Phone: 1.800.440.0680 or (612) 696-3400
Call Target Corporate. Let them know you cannot patronize a business that will not allow you the right to lawfully carry and exercise your God-given constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Mail:
Target Corporation
1000 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Send a letter to Target corporate and express your disapproval of their anti-rights stance. Millions of law abiding citizens carry for self-defense every day and harm no one.
http://pressroom.target.com/leadership
John Kitzhaber’s Jihad
06.27.14
Governor Kitzhaber Gears Up For Universal Background Checks In 2015
OFF recently learned that the Oregon State Police have a new policy dealing with firearms purchase denials. Gun dealers in Oregon were sent a letter from the State Police telling them of a revision in OSP policy and stating: “This revision will include enforcement action involving persons attempting an unlawful firearms transfer through a licensed firearm dealer, during a voluntary private party check or a background check at a gun show.” We were also informed that the State Police had sent a bulletin to troopers informing them of this policy, but were unable to acquire a copy until now.You can see that bulletin here.
Note that the bulletin says the following:
(Emphasis added.)
FICS will report the Denial of a Firearm Transaction to OSP Dispatch.
The incident will be dispatched as a call for service,including suspect name,dealer location,and reason for denial. Sworn personnel will respond and take appropriate enforcement action.
After enforcement is completed, OSP personnel will clear the CAD call with a reportable clearance code.
Investigative consideration- The statutes above require you to prove the suspect“knowingly”was aware they are not qualified for these transactions. The suspect’s culpable mental state will need to be determined.
OFF has now spoken to two four persons who attempted firearms purchases, were denied and had State Troopers dispatched to “investigate.”
In the first instance, a buyer was attempting to purchase a pistol and the dealer received a notice of a “delay” on his computer terminal. Oddly, the “delay” provided no estimate of when the OSP expected to have the issue resolved, so the dealer called OSP and was told “We are working on it.”
The dealer asked the customer to wait (hoping for an approval) and then a State Trooper arrived looking for the customer. The trooper took the customer to the parking lot for an “investigation” where the trooper explained he did not know the specific reason for the denial. He was only told the customer had a Federal hold for mental health issues.
The customer told the trooper that he had never been involuntarily committed as the law requires for such a denial. We were told by both the dealer and the customer that the trooper was professional and apologetic for the intrusion and was clearly not comfortable being pulled off patrol for this “call for service.”
The trooper reported that the new rule came directly from the Governor. The customer was not arrested or further detained. No action was taken against him but he was denied the purchase.
A similar event took place yesterday. A customer attempted a purchase and was denied.
The customer had no idea why, as he had purchased firearms in the past and even had had a concealed handgun license.
After leaving the store, a State Trooper came to the business looking for the customer. The trooper then went to the home of the customer. The trooper told the customer that he did not know why he had been dispatched and had no record of any criminal history of the “suspect.”
Again, the report from the denied party was that the trooper was professional and apologetic for the intrusion and that the trooper informed him that this new policy was directly from the Governor. Again, there was no arrest, and no action was taken against the customer. But of course, once again a State Trooper was removed from patrol to “investigate” a person who was attempting to purchase a firearm when there was no evidence that the buyer was attempting an illegal purchase.
No arrests were made.
We believe this policy is a prelude to another attempt to require universal background checks in the coming legislative session. You will recall that when Floyd Prozanski attempted to pass this in 2014, he was ridiculed because it was well known that when a person failed a background check as the result of past felonies there was virtually never any police action or prosecutions.
So to respond to that criticism and lay the ground work for a new bill, the Governor has ordered State Police to leave patrols to respond to every denial, no matter how unjustified. The two buyers we spoke to were lucky. They were not hauled off to jail pending completion of an “investigation.” But both had to deal with the embarrassment of being detained and questioned by the State Police. (One in front of his children.)
This new policy illuminates the failures in the background check system and is nothing more than another politically motivated attack on gun owners. Furthermore, it’s an outrageous misuse of scarce police resources. The State Police have long complained about being understaffed. Now they are being dragged off of traffic patrols to enforce what at very least should be handled by local cops.
Please remember if you become the subject of one of these “investigations” that you are not required to answer any questions without the advice of a lawyer.
Ashland Shoots Down Loaded Carry Ban
06.18.14
Last night, the Ashland City Council voted against an ordinance that would have banned open, loaded carry of firearms in the city.
There had never been a problem in Ashland until a few busybodies tried to make one. Their efforts failed. Your efforts are responsible for this victory. Congratulations.
More here.
Supreme Court Rules You Cannot Buy A Gun For Another Approved Person
06.17.14
|
Today the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that if you purchase a firearm and transfer it to another “approved” buyer, you are a “straw purchaser” and may go to prison. The ruling is in the case US vs Abramski, a case to which Oregon Firearms contributed to an Amicus brief. The buyer of the gun purchased a gun legally and transferred it to his uncle who was also an approved buyer. The uncle took possession of the gun after passing a background check. Abramski (a former police officer) was charged with a “straw purchase.” “The Obama administration had argued that accepting Abramski’s defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them.” Clearly this transfer had nothing to do with crimes or people who are ineligible to receive firearms. This ruling will vastly complicate any future transfers of legitimately owned guns.
|
Lead Ammo Ban Coming
06.11.14
A Ban On Lead Ammo Is On The Horizon“There is no proposal to ban or limit use of lead ammunition in Oregon, but developments outside of Oregon could affect the use of lead ammunition within the state,” Don’t you believe it. “The California legislature passed a law banning lead ammunition to protect endangered California condors…” “Historically, Oregon has had condors, though none are known to live here now, however, there are efforts to re-establish populations in northern California and if they are successful, it is only a matter of time before condors begin frequenting the southern portions of Oregon. “ Rest assured this will be the excuse needed to ban lead ammo. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is working with Oregon State University to “survey a random sample” of Oregon hunters “about their use and knowledge of lead ammunition.” While you most likely will not be included in the survey, you can still make your voice heard. “Persons not chosen for the survey are welcome to provide comments on lead ammunition directly to the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife at a special email address: ODFW.Wildlife@state.or.us” For more info please see this link. |
Early Summer Update 06.09.14
With the primary elections behind us, and the summer having arrived, it’s time to catch up.
First of course, are the results of the primary elections.
Dr Monica Wehby will be facing anti-gun radical Jeff Merkley for US Senate. While we endorsed Wehby’s opponent, Jason Conger, we wish her the best in this important race.
Oregon Congressional races will be interesting.
In the First Congressional District, Suzanne Bonamici (who made a career of anti-gun activism when she served in the Oregon Legislature) will be facing Jason Yates who is a staunch supporter of gun rights.
In the Second District, Greg Walden has once again secured the endorsement of the NRA in spite of his anti-gun votes.
In the Third District, Earl Blumenauer, one of the most militant anti-gun extremists in the Congress, faces no real opposition.
In the Fourth, long time incumbent Peter DeFazio will once again be running against (and no doubt defaming) Art Robinson. Robinson is a staunch supporter of gun rights and an OFF member. DeFazio is a hard core leftist who is long past his expiration date in Congress.
The Fifth District race may be the oddest.
Incumbent Democrat Kurt Schrader will be facing Tootie Smith who is a Clackamas County Commissioner. Schrader has been an open supporter of more restrictive gun control yet he, once again, has received the endorsement of the NRA, who in their candidate ratings completely ignored the fact that there were two pro-gun candidatesrunning in the Republican Primary. Schrader, a Democrat, got the NRA endorsement and Republicans Tootie Smith and Ben Pollock, both pro-gun, were never even mentioned.
Smith won that primary against newcomer Pollock and will have an uphill climb against Schrader, a millionaire with an NRA endorsement despite his anti-gun record.
Now onto the battle for control of the Oregon Legislature.
If there were any races you missed, you can see complete results here.
There are some races we’ll be watching closely in the general election.
In Oregon Senate District 3, OFF-supported Dave Dotterrer will once again face off with anti-gun Alan Bates. In their last match up, Dave came very close to defeating Bates and we think he has an even better chance this time. Bates is totally out of touch and needs to be replaced.In Senate Distict 4, anti-gun militant Floyd Prozanski will face newcomer Cheryl Mueller. Mueller is the daughter of former Senator Gary George and the sister of current Senator Larry George. Both Gary and Larry have been consistent supporters of gun rights. Our hope is that it runs in the family.
Senate District 8 will be between current House member Sara Gelser and Betsy Close, who holds the seat now. Close was appointed to this seat and will now be running to keep it. Close was endorsed by OFF and when she served in the Oregon House was a rock solid supporter of gun rights. Gelser is best known for her attempts to ban firearms ownership by foster parents.
In Senate District 11, current Senate President Peter Courtney is being challenged by Patti Milne. Courtney is fiercely anti-gun and best known for his use of dirty tricks and unethical behavior to promote his radical agenda. Milne recently resigned her seat as Marion County Commissioner to run against Courtney. Milne is supported by OFF and is 100% pro-gun. When she served in the Oregon House in the 90’s Milne introduced Oregon’s first Constitutional Carry bill. She is truly a pioneer for gun rights in Oregon.
In Senate District 13, our hero, House Rep Kim Thatcher, is running against Democrat Ryan Howard. Thatcher has been perhaps Oregon’s most prolific creator of pro-gun legislation. It was her dogged efforts that brought us privacy for CHL holders. She is running to fill the seat being vacated by Senator Larry George.
In House District 9 pro-gun activist Casey Runyan will be taking on Caddy McKeown. Casey got lots of media attention when he openly challenged the presence of anti-gun celebrity Mark Kelly at a hearing for an anti-gun bill in Salem.
In House District 25, our pick, radio talk show host Bill Post, beat Barbara Jensen who had been recruited by Julie Parrish who thought Post was too conservative. Post won handily and has no Democratic opponent. While a third party candidate could still file to run, at this time it looks like Bill will win this seat which is being vacated by Kim Thatcher who is running for Senate.
House District 28 will almost certainly be won by Democrat Jeff Barker whose Republican opponent dropped out of the race. Barker has been one of the strongest supporters of gun rights the Oregon House has seen in a long time. Barker has repeatedly taken on his own party to protect Second Amendment in Oregon.
House District 41, previously held by anti-gun extremist Carolyn Tomei will see a race between Kathleen Taylor (D) and Tim Mc Menamin.(R) Tim is an OFF member and solid pro-gun supporter.
Many seats will have only one candidate running. There are 24 races with no Republican candidate and 10 with no Democratic candidate.
On another note, OFF will be raffling another rifle. It’s an AR donated by our friends at RRC Firearms and you can get all the details here.
If you are in the Cottage Grove area on June 14th, please consider coming to “Incite Liberty!” at the Western Oregon Exposition Fairgrounds. OFF will be there along with some great speakers and supporters of freedom. All the details are here.
Finally, we’d like to remind you that there is now a great way to support our efforts at the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation that won’t cost you a penny.
If you shop at Fred Meyers, they will contribute to our Foundation if you use a Rewards Card. You don’t lose any of your points! You keep them all and they donate to OFEF. Hard to beat that deal. It’s easy to sign up and all the details are here.
Now get out there and enjoy the weather!
OFEF SUBMITS AMICUS BRIEF AGAINST CT. GUN BAN
05.24.14
Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation and Gun Owners of American Fighting Connecticut Gun Ban
OFEF has contributed to an amicus brief in a lawsuit against Connecticut’s unconstitutional firearms and magazine ban. You can read it here.
As attempts are made across the country to eliminate your Second Amendment rights, it is more and more critical that we engage the gun grabbers in court.
“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
– George Orwell
We’re Having A Party
03.24.14
Well, we’re not really having it, but our friends are and you’re invited.
As you know, the City of Ashland is considering Portland style restrictions on gun owners. In spite of the fact that “open carry” has never been an issue there, the City Council is preparing to bow to the pressure of a small group of malcontents who would feel safer and be less offended if all firearms were hidden from view and good people were prohibited from protecting themselves.
Despite the fact that the proposed ordinances would not in any way affect CHL holders and despite the fact that those without CHL’s could still openly carry firearms if they were unloaded, some folks are just always looking for a way to attack your rights. They’re not doing it to stop crime. They’re not doing it because there is any kind of problem in Ashland. They’re just doing it because they think they can.
But not everyone in Ashland is so mindlessly fearful and many are stepping up to respond to this pointless attack.They’ve asked us to reach out to you and invite you to an “Open Carry” day in Ashland on March 29th.
It’s not a rally, it’s just an opportunity for people who believe in liberty to get together, meet, and enjoy the company of other patriots. There will be food (free!) and an opportunity to sign their pro-gun petition. You can drop off a donation of food for the Ashland Food Bank.
You can download all the details here Ashland Open Day 29th.
Whether you can make it or not our friends in Ashland ask that you drop one more note to the City Council expressing your views on their proposed ordinance.
Please take a moment to like the Ashland activists’ brand new Facebook page and visit their webpage.
This event is intended to be a opportunity to make friends and promote freedom. Remember, “open carry” is not just a way of making a statement. For some, it’s their only option to stay safe. Would you want your 20 year old daughter denied the right to protect herself because of the baseless fears of a few ignorant people?
Come on out, join the fun,and say “no” to disarming the good guys.
Sample message follows to the City Council follows.
_______________________________________To the Ashland City Council,Please vote no on any ordinance that denies people the ability to stay safe while in your city.
Banning “loaded carry” in Ashland will have no effect on crime. But it will deny many people the right to defend themselves.
I urge you to keep Ashland safe. Vote “no” on restricting the rights of gun owners.
_____________________________________________________________________
More on Portland Slime Moving South
03.19.14
Last night, the Ashland City Council held another meeting to consider adopting Portland style gun restrictions.
The meeting, described as “standing room only,” drew gun rights activists opposing the ordinance and anti-gunners determined to convince the city to enact new restrictions.
The irony of the whole issue is that Ashland has never been a place where open carry was either common or a problem of any kind. The people behind the proposed new abuses of civil rights were not responding to crime, threats or even real events. They simply saw Ashland as fertile ground for new attacks on liberty.
It’s this reality that may become the great vindication of the open carry movement. There are many (even gun owners) who have complained that open carry is an unnecessary provocation that will bring on unwanted attention and new regulations. However, open carry has never been an issue in Ashland and the rights of gun owners are still under attack. One has to wonder what the benefit of avoiding “provocation” is, if places like Ashland will bow to the pressure of a few malcontents to create pointless and unneeded new restrictions.
In fact, as several city council members correctly pointed out, the successful passage of an ordinance of this kind, in a place where even the police concede it serves no purpose, could well make Ashland a magnet for those who chose to send a message by openly carrying legal firearms.
Remember, those with concealed handgun licenses will still be able to open carry virtually anywhere. Those without licenses may still carry as long as the firearm is not loaded. If the mere sight of an openly carried gun is giving some Ashland residents the chills, enacting this ordinance will accomplish nothing except encouraging open carry by protestors. The local police will then be in the very unenviable position of having to figure out what their “reasonable suspicion” will be every time they want to stop someone with a firearm. It’s hard to imagine that the police will consider this a good use of their time.
OPB reported the crowd was “mostly respectful” without giving any examples of any incidents, but gun owners who were present told us that one council member, Carol Vosin (the main proponent of the ordinance) received an escort to her car after the meeting, by men openly carrying firearms. (The local police of course.)
It was this same hypocrite who testified in the past that stopping gun owners would be no different than drunk driving checkpoints before it was pointed out to her that those are not legal in Oregon.
You can see other reports on the meeting here, here and here.
The council has requested another draft of the proposed ordinance, this time with no added restrictions of guns carried in vehicles. So we are making headway, but we still need to do all we can to kill this senseless assault on freedom.
Please consider another message to the Council.
Sample message follows.
_______________________________________
To the Ashland City Council,
I find it amazing that you would devote so much time to considering an ordinance banning the loaded carry of firearms in Ashland. No one has been able to demonstrate that this is even an issue in the city and your own police have told you it’s not a problem. But you seem determined to MAKE it a problem. Please keep in mind, if you pass this pointless and unneeded ordinance, license holders may still openly carry firearms and those without licenses may still openly carry firearms that you and your police will have no way of knowing are loaded or not without constant and possibly illegal stops by law enforcement. Those who are offended by, or fearful of, the sight of an openly carried gun will continue to be offended and afraid and you will succeed in making Ashland the perfect gathering place for proponents of open carry. I can assure you most of them will carry openly and spend no money.
Surely your time could be better spent addressing real problems. Open carry is not one of them.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee
Ashland To Hear Anti-Gun Ordinances (Again!)
03.12.14
| We have been informed that on Tuesday March 18, the Ashland City Council will (once again) consider adopting Portland style gun restrictions.These pointless regulations are intended only to harass legitimate gun owners and will have no effect on law-breakers.The Council meeting starts at 7PM and will be at the Ashland Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main St. If you cannot be at this meeting, consider sending a message to the Ashland City Council.
An excellent article about this assault on gun rights can be seen here.
A sample message follows: _____________________________________________
To the Ashland City Council: I strongly object to any proposed ordinance that creates or expands restrictions on law-abiding gun owners in Ashland. Not only do you risk running afoul of Oregon’s preemption statute and exposing yourself to costly litigation, but you send a message to the most law-abiding segment of our society that they should visit and spend money elsewhere. I urge you not to consider any new restriction on gun owners. |
They’re Done, We Won!
03.07.14
The 2014 Oregon Legislature has adjourned. In spite of a flurry of last minute maneuvers the anti-rights crowd failed to pass their gun registration scheme, or anything else.
There is one, and only one, reason for that. You. In a story in today’s Oregonian, OFF members were singled out as the driving force behind the activism that killed SB 1551, Prozanski’s gun registration bill.
You have much to be proud of. Not only did you kill that very dangerous bill, but your efforts helped us pass two pro-gun bills.
We’ll have more to say about the session in the coming days, but for now, take a moment to pat yourself on the back.
You did it…again.
03.06.14 Update On SB 1551
The twists and turns of SB 1551 are continuing.
The bill started life as an attempt by Floyd Prosanzki and other anti-rights legislators to create a universal gun registration scheme in Oregon of the type being used in other states to confiscate guns from people whose only crime was owning Constitutionally-protected firearms.
If passed, SB 1551 would prohibit you from giving or loaning a gun to your best friend, or even your girlfriend.
Although Prozanski denied that the bill would have that effect, his own attorneys said it was true.
Because of the tireless efforts of gun owners, the bill stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was sent to the Senate Rules Committee because that committee stays open after others have closed.
This was an effort to keep the bill alive long enough for the sponsors to twist arms or figure out some other way to get it passed. When it looked like they had no hope, Prozanski proposed to “gut and stuff” the bill with entirely new and unrelated language. His new proposed language can be seen here.
The new language has nothing to do with the original bill, but because the original version had a public hearing, the new bill can be moved with no public input at all. In this way the legislature can pass bills without your having any opportunity to testify for or against the bill. That’s how things are done in Salem.
So what would the new bill do?
The universal background checks and registration that the proponents claimed were essential are gone. In their place, new restrictions have been added to prohibit persons with “mental disorders” who have been ordered by the court to submit to “outpatient” treatment from purchasing or possessing firearms.
Oregon law already allows the court to prohibit persons with “mental illness” from having or buying firearms. (ORS 426.130), so what does this expansion to “mental disorders” mean?
According to Legislative Counsel, the lawyers for the legislature, “mental disorder” is not defined.
In ORS 426.005 a person with a “mental illness” is defined as:
“a person who, because of a mental disorder, is one or more of the following:
(A) Dangerous to self or others.
(B) Unable to provide for basic personal needs and is not receiving such care as is necessary for health or safety….
ORS 146.133 says a person may be compelled to undergo “assisted outpatient treatment” (i.e. FORCED outpatient treatment) if the person has a “mental disorder.” But nowhere is the term defined.
Do you have a “mental disorder” because you’ve been depressed? Anxious? Have PTSD? Or do you suffer from clinical paranoia simply because you are a gun owner?
This guy thinks so. So does this guy. And these folks, and these and these and these.
The people in Connecticut were called “paranoid” (a “mental disorder”) and now they are facing felony charges for owning modern rifles.
It’s important to note that all this new language does is create another class of prohibited persons and add more names to the Federal databanks.
It further stigmatizes people who may actually need and want help.
It does not provide a dime of assistance to those in need of mental health treatment.
The amendment also requires that Sheriffs and local police be informed if a prohibited person attempts to buy a gun. That is, no doubt, a reaction to our pointing out how rarely anything is actually done about people who try to buy guns when they are prohibited. And it’s fine idea if safeguards are included to protect people who are denied as a result of mistakes made by the state police, an all-too-common occurrence.
We have been informed that more amendments are coming, and there may even be a brand new bill. That bill may come from Republicans and deal only with contacting police when a prohibited person attempts a purchase. We still believe that safeguards must be attached to any bill that does this.
It makes no sense to act on complicated legislation like this in the last hours of the session, when tempers are flaring and everyone wants to go home. But for some legislators, pride and a desire for revenge are more important than thoughtful legislation.
Please let your legislators know you oppose any 11th-hour attempts to ram through poorly crafted legislation. You can find your Oregon legislators by using the “Find My Legislators” tab on this page. They will be the ones listed under “Senate” and “House” after you provide your address.
Thanks for keeping the heat on.