Author: OFF

Posted on by

Lead Ammo Ban Hearing Scheduled

09.09.14

 

We’ve been warning for some time that an attempt to ban lead ammo would be coming. Now the first hearing on the subject has been scheduled.

On Sept. 16 in Hearing Room D at the State Capitol at 2PM, the House Interim Committee On Agriculture and Natural Resources will be holding a “informational meeting” on lead ammo.

Governor Kitzhaber is reported to be behind a push to ban lead ammo. At this point there has been no proposed legislation made public so it’s unclear if this will start as a ban on lead ammo for hunting, or a total ban on lead ammo. You can rest assured that if it starts with hunting it won’t stop there. Make no mistake, this is a political effort, not an environmental one.  The anti-gunners see this as one more way to attack the rights of gun owners.

Having failed in Oregon to ban firearms, this is yet another attack on possession of ammunition.

 This hearing is open to the public, however only invited testimony will be taken. We still encourage you to attend.

 The Chairman and Vice-Chair of the committee are both pro-gun and pro-hunting so the fact that this hearing is taking place at all before any bill has been made public may be an effort to get in front of the issue. However, it is still a dangerous policy. It’s unlikely that anything said at this meeting will prevent a lead ammo bill from being drafted and introduced. So now, even before the elections, we need to start letting legislators know that we will oppose any effort to further curtail ammo supplies.

Please contact Chairman Brad Witt Rep.BradWitt@state.or.us
and Vice Chair Sal Esquivel     Rep.SalEsquivel@state.or.us

Urge them to oppose any effort by the environmental extremists and the well funded anti-gun lobby to ban lead ammo.

You can find an excellent source of information and talking points here.

Posted on by

If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me.


police beat
8.02.14

“…here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.”

In the wake of the events in Ferguson this does not seem like the kind of sentiment any police officer would want to broadcast.

But it gets worse.  How about this:
“But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment.”

Or this:
“Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you.”

We all know there is zero guarantee of that. You could well do everything you are told and still end up assaulted, raped or dead. The fact is, bad people become cops just like they become doctors, plumbers, teachers and gun rights activists.  That’s life and human nature. And while a lot of good people put on a badge and a cop uniform every day there will always be those who abuse their positions.  That’s why the referenced quotes are so disturbing.

They reflect a level of arrogance and disrespect for the people the police  are sworn to serve. To be told not to “show your anger and resentment” implies that you  are a subject of a civil servant who must be obedient and subservient when being questioned by your “betters.”

The author of this unfortunate piece has played right into the hands of those who believe some police are out of control.

Posted on by

Kitzhaber’s Jihad Continues

08.12.14
troopers

On June 27th we told you about John Kitzhaber’s war on gun owners.

In the last legislative session, Kitzhaber and his cronies in the legislature attempted to pass a bill that would have required that you ask the permission of the State Police before giving a gun to your oldest and best friend.  You might very well not be allowed to lend a handgun to your girlfriend without the consent of the state, while you were out of town on business.

In a letter from Legislative Counsel to Senate Republican Leader Ted Ferrioli dated Feb 5, 2014, they stated:

“Therefore, for example, when a man gives his firearm to his girlfriend to use for protection without any compensation in return or any sort of expectation of a return date, a court would most likely see the transfer as a gift that would require a criminal background check under an amended ORS 166.436.”

It was just plain dangerous and served no purpose other than to expand the vast database of gun owners and place more roadblocks in the way of law abiding gun owners.

The Oregon State Police ID unit has an abysmal history of conducting the checks it is currently tasked with and frequently delays or denies purchases that should be approved. Resolving one of their mistakes can become a second career for a person who has been unjustifiably prevented from purchasing a firearm.  For some, this can be life threatening.

During the hearings for the bill, SB 1551, we pointed out that it made little sense to expand background checks to all transfers when no action was being taken against persons whose criminal background prohibited them from buying guns when they attempted to do so. Oddly, at that hearing, the State Police testified that they had no statutory authority to take any action when a felon, or someone who was otherwise legally prohibited from buying a gun tried to do so.

This prompted a letter from Ferrioli to Legislative Counsel inquiring whether this was, in fact, true.  LC responded on May 5, 2014 with a letter that stated:

“Despite these statutory limits on the departments sharing of records and information, there is no Oregon statute limiting or prohibiting the department from notifying a local law enforcement agency when, during a firearm criminal background check, the department finds that the prospective recipient of the firearm has been convicted of a felony, has a criminal warrant for the person’s arrest or has been committed to the Oregon Health Authority or is subject to a firearm prohibition order under ORS 426.130, or that the firearm has been stolen. There are also no constitutional provisions that would prohibit this kind of notification. Under ORS 181.548 and 166.412, the information cannot be released to the public. However, there is nothing preventing the department from sharing the information with a law enforcement agency for the purpose of enforcing criminal laws or apprehending an offender.”

In short, OSP was wrong. They had every authority to inform local police that a criminal act was taking place and enforcement could commence.

On June 18th, the Oregon State Police sent a letter to gun dealers advising them of a new “policy.”  From now on, every time a firearms purchase was denied, a State Trooper would be taken off the road to conduct an “investigation.”

The problem is, vast numbers of “denials” are issued in error or for reasons that have nothing to do with criminal behavior. So, scarce State Police resources are being squandered as a result of mistakes and lousy record keeping on the part of the State Police ID Unit.

But things are worse than we first reported.   The number of “investigations” has grown of course, but while we keep hearing of people being questioned for denials no one can explain, we cannot document a single case where anyone has been arrested been taken into custody.

We do know of an ever growing number of cases where Troopers are dispatched to “investigate” with absolutely no idea why they are conducting the investigations. This, in spite of the fact that the OSP’s own “training bulletin” states :

“The incident will be dispatched as a call for service,including suspect name,dealer location, and reason for denial.” Emphasis added

In every case of which we have been informed, the Trooper had no idea why he had been dispatched.

In the two cases we know of where the media has reported on this issue, both reports attempted to place responsibility for this new policy, not on Kitzhaber who ordered it, but on Ted Ferrioli for simply pointing out that the OSP did have the authority to act on attempted illegal purchases and requesting that something be done when truly prohibited persons were trying to buy guns.

In a report by OPB, Chris Lehman said: “The new policy is apparently in response to a request from Republican state senator Ted Ferrioli.”

In an article by Jake Thomas in the Portland Mercury, he said: “Governor John Kitzhaber, prompted by one of the Oregon Legislature’s most powerful Republicans, has quietly introduced a new policy aimed at changing that, the Mercury has learned. ” Emphasis added.

It’s simply not credible that the Governor has sent a order to the only police he directly controls at the request of a Republican Senator, but in any event, what Ferrioli requested was action when prohibited persons tried to buy guns, not every time the OSP ID unit mistakenly flagged a person.  And certainly Ferrioli did not ask that Troopers be pressured to take action when they had no probable cause.

In one case we know of, a person attempted to purchase a rifle. After being denied, he spoke to the responding Trooper who agreed he had no information that would suggest the buyer had done anything illegal. The buyer then left, only to get a call from the Trooper who apologized but informed the “suspect” that he “had to” cite him.

The Trooper met the “suspect” at an agreed upon location where the “suspect” was given a ticket for “attempted unlawful purchase” with a mandatory appearance date. Neither the “suspect” nor the Trooper had any idea what the  reason for the denial was.   This is all the more concerning since the “training bulletin” given to the Troopers says:

“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.”

When the “suspect” contacted the courts to inquire about his mandatory appearance. he was told everything had been dropped!

In an equally troubling case, a person who attempted a purchase last March received a “delay.”  The following April he was stopped and charged with a DUI. In May, he was placed in a “diversion” program.  Neither the charge of DUI nor the diversion would have prevented him from buying a gun.  In June, he failed to meet some requirement of the diversion so a warrant was issued. In July a Trooper was sent to investigate him based on the attempted purchase the previous March, before he had ever been charged with anything!

In every case we know of the Troopers seem to be trying to do the right thing. So far, we know of no cases where a real bad guy has been stopped or arrested. If there are any, the Governor and OSP are certainly keeping it to themselves. Even our friends in the “approved” media don’t seem to be getting any information.

But the OSP Troopers are caught between the proverbial rock and hard place.  They are being told to “investigate” but they don’t know why. They are being pressured to cite “offenders” and have no probable cause. In one case we were informed of, a responding Trooper determined he had no probable cause to take any action against a denied buyer. He took his concerns up the chain of command to his Captain who supported his decision. Now that Captain has been demoted. Numerous Troopers have implied that they have no doubt that his decision not to take action against the buyer was the reason for his demotion.

It’s clear that this policy and the actions Troopers are being forced to take are purely political. Dangerous offenders are not being taken off the street but qualified buyers are having their rights violated by the Governor and higher-ups at the State Police who do the Governor’s bidding. Scare resources are being squandered so the anti-gun zealots in Salem can say they are “taking action.”  Troopers are being put at risk of making unjustified arrests. Careers are being ruined and morale is suffering for political gain.

If you were not concerned about the millions of your dollars Kitzhaber threw away on Cover Oregon, you may want to consider how easily you could be the next victim of his holy war.

OFF Logo vector

Posted on by

Corrections Officers Get Fifed.

08.08.14

barney fife

In the 2014 legislative session, Oregon Firearms worked with representatives of the Oregon corrections officers to craft a bill that would allow them to transport their personal firearms to and from work.

The Department of Corrections forbade the men and women who worked in prisons from having any protection while commuting to their jobs. This led to some unfortunate outcomes, like, well.. death and stuff.

An early version of a bill to fix this was so poorly drafted that House Rep Jeff Barker, the chair of the Judiciary Committee and one of the sponsors of the bill, asked us to help repair it. The final version of HB 4035 left a lot to be desired as far as we were concerned. The biggest problem was that it only applied to contracts “entered into or renewed” after the bill went into effect which was 91 days after the 2014 legislature adjourned. At the time of the passing of the bill, some CO’s were already under contract and some had no contract and so none of those people were covered by the bill.  We would have preferred that the bill apply to all CO’s immediately. But the unions reps were ok with it, so that’s what was passed.

From the outset, the bosses at the Department of Corrections made it clear that they opposed the bill. They would rather lose officers than deal with their perceived “liability” of allowing trained law enforcement to be armed while on long commutes in rural, sparsely populated areas. And it seems they may have gotten the last laugh, at least for now.

As you can see, the bill allowed corrections officers to “possess firearms in the officers’ personal vehicles”.  But dopes that we were, we never included in the bill that they be allowed to have ammo.

In a rule certified by Rules Coordinator Birdie Worley and approved by Administrator Elizabeth Craig, corrections officers are now allowed to possess firearms under the very limited circumstances defined in the rule, but may only possess “that amount of ammunition that the personal firearm is designed to hold.” Spare ammo or magazines are not allowed. (See page three of the rule.)

We’re pretty sure this is NOT what the bill sponsors had in mind.  But this is what happens when you make the laws and let others make the rules.

Still, there’s a work around for everything isn’t there?

hi-cap pistol

 

Posted on by

Corvallis City “Civil” Servant

08.07.14

45

As you may know, the City of Corvallis is considering a ban on loaded carry although they have been successfully sued in the past for harassing a person openly carrying a loaded handgun. The person who won that lawsuit donated the money to the Oregon Firearms Federation, so maybe we should be happy that Corvallis has not learned its lesson. But, it’s still amazing to see how arrogant, nasty and flat out stupid elected officials from that city can be.

When a resident wrote to the Mayor and members of the council urging them not to proceed with restrictions on open, loaded carry, he got this response from Joel Hirsch City Council Ward 6:

People should not have to feel fear or experience intimidation because fanatical gun advocates insist on making sure everyone sees the gun they are carrying. 
 I also believe that the 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted and that as we elect fewer conservatives and appoint more rational judges, gun laws will be changed to protect us from guns, and to more accurately reflect the majority. 

 Enjoy them while you can. I have no sympathy, empathy, or respect for the pro open-carry position and will do everything in my power to limit citizen’s exposure to guns and gun advocates. Sorry. 

Mahalo,

Joel Hirsch

City Council – Ward 6

HIrsch’s email is:

ward6@council.corvallisoregon.gov

if you want to share your thoughts with him.

Posted on by

Rolling Stoned

07.16.14

It would be almost impossible to imagine something more inane than this bit of  4th grade drivel. But I bet the clowns at RS will.

“Popular among handgun-owners, pistols are defined by their built-in barrel and short stock.”
(Pistols are now popular with handgun owners!)

“Revolvers, named for their rotating chambered cylinder, placed second in the ATF’s ranking of guns found at crime scenes more than 46,000 recovered in 2012, the most recent year for which statistics were kept. “

“Rifles were created to improve the accuracy of smoothbore muskets, for which the musket ball was often an (sic) bad fit due to manufacturing complications.”

“Like rifles, shotguns are fired from the shoulder and may release a single projectile. Unlike rifles, however, one pull of a shotgun’s trigger may also spray the target with round pellets, or shot. Additionally, the explosive that creates the energy to fire the gun occurs in the fixed shell of a shotgun rather than the metallic cartridge of a rifle.”  

 

Ginny Burdick
Ginny Burdick approved this message.

 

 

Posted on by

Politicize Disaster

07.15.14

“This isn’t complicated: Making a political issue of the tiny coffins of dead children in the wake of a school shooting isn’t just a thing that helps pass strong gun-control, it’s practically the only thing in the last quarter century that’s moved the needle on anti-gun-violence laws.”

There is nothing that is beneath those whose only goal is to eliminate liberty. Armed, free, people are their biggest fear. Why not wallow in the blood of the innocent if it advances your goals?

But it’s crucial to remember that virtually everything they are demanding was in place in Connecticut when those children were murdered. What was not in place was any ability to respond to a killer. 

So when logic fails, revert to something utterly inane. Remember, the people are sheep.

hate NRA_cartoon

Posted on by

Racist Gun Owners

07.15.14

Gary Smerta, a resident of one of the districts in Colorado that recalled its State Senator over his vote expanding gun control, said “Because almost all murders are young minority males killing young minority males. It’s like 90 percent. Take out domestic violence, after that there’s nothing left.” 

Smerta’s comments were intended to make the “point” that efforts to implement gun control were misguided for most of the country.  Referring to a neighbor, he said “Amanda has no chance of getting killed in any meaningful sense… she can walk in every neighborhood. If she got killed, it’s gotta be somebody she knows, or she was dealing, or buying with a lot of cash, or something like that.”

Smerta called for imposing new restrictions on urban blacks saying “In the last 12 years, 9,000 more murders would have taken place in New York City, and they all would have fit that description of male minorities, 15 to 25.”

Smerta’s insensitive comments were immediately criticized by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense whose spokeswoman, Shanonn Watts, said “It’s typical of gun owners to try to place all the blame for gun violence on minority youth. All gun owners are responsible for the carnage.”

Wait, just kidding. All those quotes were made by Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former Mayor of New York who is backing “Moms” and “Mayors Against Guns” an organization that has had quite of few of its members arrested, some for gun crimes.

But wait, there’s more. Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” website  says the following “About a third of U.S. children live in homes with guns. That wouldn’t pose a risk if guns were stored responsibly. But because many guns are not, American kids are 16 times more likely to be accidentally shot and killed than kids in other developed countries.”  But look at another quote from the same Rolling Stone interview quoted above:

“Let’s say Amanda’s trying to break in. ‘Excuse me, Amanda, I’ve gotta go get my gun to shoot you. Now, where did I put that combination to that lock? And the bullets were where? I don’t know what the f%#…how do you turn the safety off?’ Are you kidding me? The last thing you want to do when somebody breaks in and puts a gun toward you is try to go for a gun. That’s really stupid. I don’t know if you’re going to get shot one way, but I guarantee you’re going to get killed the other way. “

                                                   The man is dangerous loon. Guns save lives.

bullet car

Posted on by

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.

Richmond, CA

Apex, NC

Miami-Dade, FL

Aurora, CO

Owensboro, KY

Apex, NC

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.

Posted on by

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.

 “Starting today we will… respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target-even in communities where it is permitted by law.”

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 

 

Posted on by

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.