Author: OFF

As we told you on October 3rd, the Department of Justice is crafting an “administrative rule” to implement House Bill 4045, the “concealed handgun privacy” bill. A meeting to discuss the proposed rule was held on October 5th. You can see a transcript of the meeting minutes here.

Interested parties may submit comments about the rule in writing until December 7th, 2012 to the Rules Coordinator at the address listed below, or by e-mail to:
carol.riches@doj.state.or.us.
Carol Riches
Rules Coordinator
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street N.E.
Salem, OR 97301-4096

You may also provide oral or written comments at the rulemaking hearings, which will take place on the following:

DATE: November 26, 2012
TIME: 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
PLACE: Department of Justice
1215 State Street
Redwood Conference Room
Salem, Oregon 97301-4096

OR

DATE: November 27, 2012
TIME: 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
PLACE: Department of Justice
1515 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Marquam Conference Room
Portland, OR 97201

The proposed rule follows. We encourage you to submit your suggestions either in writing or in person if you have comments on the proposed rule.

137-004-0900 Public Records Requests for Concealed Handgun License Records or Information

(1) A public body, except the Judicial Department, may not disclose records or information that identifies a person as a current or former holder of, or applicant for, a concealed handgun license, unless:
(a) The disclosure is made to another public body and is necessary for criminal justice purposes;
(b) A court enters an order in a criminal or civil case directing the public body to disclose the records or information;
c) The holder of, or applicant for, the concealed handgun license consents to the disclosure in writing;
(d) The public body determines that a compelling public interest requires disclosure in the particular instance and the disclosure is limited to the name, age and county of residence of the holder or applicant;
(e)(A) The disclosure is limited to confirming or denying that a person convicted of a person crime, or restrained by a protective order, is a current holder of a concealed handgun license;
(B) The disclosure is made to a victim of the person crime or to a person who is protected by the protective order, in response to a request for disclosure that provides the public body with the name and age of the person convicted of the person crime or restrained by the protective order; and
(C) The person seeking disclosure provides the public body with written proof that the person is a victim of the person crime or is protected by the protective order; or
(f)A) The disclosure is limited to confirming or denying that a person convicted of a crime involving the use or possession of a firearm is a current holder of a concealed handgun license;
(B) The disclosure is made to a bona fide representative of the news media in response to a request for disclosure that provides the name and age o f the person convicted o f the crime involving the use or possession of a firearm; and
(C) The person seeking disclosure provides the public body with written proof that the person is a bona fide representative of the news media.
(2) Requests seeking records or information on the basis of a compelling public interest pursuant to subsection (l)(d) shall:
(a) Be considered by public bodies on a case-by-case basis;
(b) Be made in writing and signed by the requestor;
(c) Be addressed to the custodian of public records of the public body that possesses the records or information; (d) Identify the records or information being sought;
(e) State with specificity the reasons why the requestor contends that a compelling public interest requires disclosure ofthe requested records or information; and
(f) Include any documentation that supports the requestor’s contention that a compelling public interest requires disclosure.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public body that receives a request for disclosure under subsection (l)(e) or (l)(f) of this rule may conduct an investigation, including a criminal records check, to determine whether a person described in paragraph (l)(e)(A) or (l)(f)(A) of this rule has been convicted of a person crime or a crime involving the use or possession of a firearm or is restrained by a protective order.
(4) As used in this rule:
(a) “Convicted” does not include a conviction that has been reversed, vacated or set aside or a conviction for which the person has been pardoned.
(b) “Custodian” has the meaning given that term in ORS 192.410.
(c) “Person crime” means a person felony or person Class A misdemeanor, as those terms are defined in the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, or any other crime constituting domestic violence, as defined in ORS 135.230.
(d) “Protective order” has the meaning given that term in ORS 135.886.
(e) “Victim” has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.007.

Stat. Auth.: 2012 OL Ch. 93, Sec. 2(4) Stats. Implemented: 2012 OL CIl. 93, Sec. 2(4) Hist.: DOJ 14-2012(Temp), f. & cert. ef. 8-21-12 thru 2-8-13

As we told you on 8.29.12, the Department of Justice will be adopting a permanent administrative rule to implement HB 4045, the “CHL Privacy” bill.

As we pointed out, this bill is a very poorly drafted piece of legislation, so crafting an “administrative rule” that makes sense will be a challenge.

When we told you that this rule was going to be created and that OFF would be part of the committee to write it, many of you asked if this meeting would be open to the public. We have been informed that it will be.

Members of the public will NOT be allowed to actually participate at the meeting, although they will be allowed to attend. There will be an opportunity for all members of the public  to comment later.

The meeting will be held this Friday at 9am. It will be held in DOJ’s Robertson building, located at 1215 State Street in Salem. We  do not have a room number at this time. As you enter on the main floor, please check in with the receptionist, who will provide a visitor badge and direct you to the conference room where we will be meeting.

We will let you know when and how public comments will be taken as soon as that information is available

As you know, the Oregon Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, HB 4045 the “CHL Privacy Bill.”

While HB 4045 started out as a simple and understandable bill to protect private information about concealed handgun license holders, it was twisted by Floyd Prozanski into a complex, poorly crafted, and easily misunderstood pile of legalize. We warned about this here, here and here.

A recent event in Clackamas County proved how little this bill has done to protect CHL holders.

Almost immediately after a shooting incident in a Clackamas Fred Meyer store, the shooter was identified as a CHL holder. Long before there had been an opportunity for an investigation, the CHL holder’s private information had been disclosed to the press by the Clackamas County Sheriff. While there are conflicting reports about  the confrontation, the shooter has been convicted of nothing and may very well have been acting in self defense.

Recently the Department of Justice adopted temporary rules to implement HB 4045. You can see those here. As part of the process to adopt permanent rules, DOJ will convene an advisory committee to make recommendations to the Department in order to “obtain a broad range of perspectives.”

OFF has been invited to be part of this committee. We welcome feedback from our supporters. Please feel free to share any ideas or concerns you have and would like to see addressed by this committee. While we do not yet have a date for the meeting we have been informed it will be in mid to late September.

We Can’t Even Shoot On Our Own Property?

Jerry Conrady and his wife have been fighting to be able to continue to safely shoot on their own rural property. This is their story in their own words, why it should matter to you, and how you can help.

Lincoln County is attacking Oregon residents’ rights to shoot on private property. If Lincoln County wins the repercussions for shooters in the State of Oregon will be staggering. Every county will be able to use the following cases as precedent to require anyone on private property to obtain a condition use permit before discharging a firearm. Your support is needed.

Jerry Conrady and his wife own 120 acres in rural Lincoln County. Mr. Conrady is a State certified teacher, has a degree in Gunsmithing from Lassen College and is an Eagle Scout. Mr. Conrady’s wife is an estate paralegal and writer. Neither have any form of criminal record. Mr Conrady gives out free gun locks at Portland gun shows.

Currently the Oregon Revised Statute allows for landowners and their guests to discharge firearms outdoors on private property without any permits. The Conradys and their guests have been doing so since they purchased the property in 2002 with no complaints or negative comments from anyone. In 2008 Mr. Conrady proposed building an indoor range in the center of his property. A small group of their neighbors, backed by someone with a good deal of money is now attempting to sue the Conrady’s into poverty and submission.

There are currently two cases pending:

Case number 111143 in which, after the County threatened to sue them if they didn’t stop shooting on their property the Conrady’s filed a suit asking a Judge to read and interpret the law. Instead of ruling on the law in question, the Judge determined that the County has a right to regulate shooting ranges. The County has taken that to mean that anywhere an individual discharges a firearm is then considered a range and thus they have the right to regulate the discharge of firearms on private property and that anyone who wishes to do so must apply for a conditional use permit. This case is currently in the Appeals Court.

Case number 112006 in which 5 of the Conrady’s neighbors are suing them for an “abatement of a nuisance”. Even though the Oregon Revised Statute says that noise from firearms cannot be regulated and does not fall under the nuisance statutes, the same Judge is allowing the case to go through and Lincoln County has jumped on board with the Plaintiffs. The remedy they’re seeking? First they want warrantless search and seizure. They want to be able to enter the Conrady’s property at any time for any reason and arrest anyone suspected of shooting, whether a firearm is present or not. Keep in mind that the Conradys are law abiding citizens who do not currently have nor have ever had a criminal record. They hold concealed weapons permits in multiple states and Mr. Conrady holds an FFL. If they were criminals they would never have passed the checks that allow them these privileges. The Plaintiffs also want the house that the Conrady’s are building on their property with approved permits removed, as well as their well and septic and anything else the County deems an improvement related to a shooting range. There are no improvements as no range was ever built as the County has been told multiple times.

This case will be heard November 6th.

The Conradys don’t shoot 24 hours a day 7 days a week. They try to be respectful of their neighbors including voluntarily reducing their shooting hours. In addition, they are not the only people in the area who shoot. Several neighbors on Mr. Conrady’s property line discharge firearms on their property whenever they want, yet is it only the Conrady’s who are being sued.

Oregon Revised Statutes 166.170, 171 and 176 state that NO conditional use permit is necessary for a landowner and guests to discharge firearms on private property. In fact, Counties cannot restrict the discharge of firearms on private property in rural unincorperated areas. Lincoln County is attempting to get around this statute by claiming the Conrady’s were running a shooting range and that anywhere a firearm in discharged is a shooting range, thus they have the right to regulate all shooting. They have yet to define the difference between a commercial shooting range, private shooting range on private property or a landowner and guests discharging firearms on private property. The Conradys never ran a range. They created a non-profit and did what was necessary to prepare to apply for a conditional use permit to build a range. They sent letters and emails and left phone messages for the County asking for guidance which never came. Mr. Conrady had to finally send a letter to the County Commissioners before the county attorney finally responded with a contradictory and confusing letter that baffled every attorney the Conrady’s spoke with and left them wide open to litigation.

The Conradys have been fighting this battle for 4 years now and it’s taken a dramatic personal and financial strain on them. They are no longer fighting for just their rights but the rights of every shooter in the State of Oregon. If they lose, anyone who wants to set up a target or shoot at a can will have to have permission to do so first. It’s once again time to show that shooters will not be bullied.

If you’re interested in supporting the Conradys and your rights call the Lincoln County Commissioners and voice your opinion at 541-265-4100 or write or email them. Anyone who would like to assist with their defense fund may do so as follows:

MAKE CHECKS TO: GERALD CONRADY TRUST ACCOUNT
Send to:
Gerald Conrady Trust
Care of Attorney Russell L. Baldwin
P.O. Box 1242
Lincoln City, OR 97367

In the wake of the Colorado shooting, we all expected the media and the victimhood promoters to do all they could to use a crime to attack your rights as gun owners. But the anti-rights vultures never fail to find a new low to sink to.

We all know that Oregon is cursed with one of the worst congressional delegations in the country, given that 6 out of 7 of our members of Congress are foaming-at-the-mouth gun haters.

But every time we think we have reached a new low, the bottom feeders who “represent” us pull out their shovels and dig a little deeper.

Let’s take a look at a “survey” that Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer emailed out today. You can see it here:

Question 3 of his survey asks:

“Should the gun show loophole be closed, so that the people who buy weapons in the open-air gun bazaars, like what occurs in Portland at the Expo Center, be required to submit to the same background checks and record-keeping as people who buy from licensed gun-dealers.”

Let’s put aside that no Portland Expo show we have ever been to has ever been “open-air.” Does a rabidly anti-gun Oregon Congressman NOT know that private sales at Oregon gun shows have been banned for 12 years? Blumenauer was one of the main forces pushing for a ballot measure that banned private transfers in 2000. And now he is unaware that this is current law? Should this guy really have a job of this importance if he doesn’t know a law he pushed actually passed?

Question 4 says:

“Should people with a history of domestic violence be able to purchase guns and carry concealed weapons?”

Is this member of the Oregon Congressional delegation REALLY unaware that people with even the most minor “domestic violence” convictions are banned from owning guns or even a single round of ammo FOR LIFE and have been for 16 YEARS!?

Earl is a shameless liar who is counting on the ignorance of the people in his district to promote his anti-rights agenda. You may want to take a moment to answer his bogus survey.

You may also want to check out the following links to see more on the never-ending debate between those of us who take responsibility for ourselves and those who rely on the forces who “responded” to Hurricane Katrina.

Kevin Starrett vs Oregon University System

A MESSAGE FROM KEVIN STARRETT

Early this week, KATU TV in Portland invited me to debate Penny Okamoto of Ceasefire Oregon. I accepted. Soon thereafter they called back to tell me that if I came I would be required to leave my firearm unsecured in my car.

I declined their invitation. A few hours later, in a display of breathless ignorance, they called our Foundation seeking someone who would comply with this ridiculous and ignorant demand. Imagine their surprise when I answered the phone. The following day they called again to ask if they could send a satellite truck to my home to tape the show remotely. I agreed. They opened the show, which will air tomorrow morning at 9 AM, with a somewhat lengthy explanation for why I was not in their studio.

Shortly into the debate Okamoto refers to the “guns Kevin has to kill people with…”

It’s interesting to note that this is the same idiot who says “We need to stop selling these machine guns that are basically built just to kill humans”. Her website demands a ban on “assault weapon ammunition.” Despite Okamoto’s utter and staggering ignorance of the most basic facts, she was the best KATU could get.

In a press release posted on their website, KATU said: “According to Tamerlano, an employee pointed out that the company had a no-gun policy when Starrett wanted to bring his gun with him to the taping. The station then decided to strictly enforce the policy.”

To set the record straight, the only time a firearm came up was when KATU called back to inform me that I would have to agree to be disarmed, I never brought up carrying a gun when I initially agreed to participate. One has to wonder what they mean by “The station then decided to strictly enforce the policy.”

In the body of the press release, KATU includes this gem: “KATU’s SVP and general manager, John Tamerlano, said Fisher Communications, which owns KATU, has had a no-gun policy since 9/11 that prohibits anyone from bringing a weapon onto its property. The only exception is given to law enforcement officers such as police officers or FBI agents.”

Why their paranoia about firearms does not extend to police is curious, but what is weirder is that they developed this policy as a result of 9/11. Would it not have made more sense to implement a company policy that prohibited anyone from crashing airliners into their studio?

The website release ends with this incomprehensible statement “This version corrects process in which the station decided to enforce the no-gun policy.”

If you are in the KATU viewing area you can watch the entire sideshow tomorrow at 9 AM, but for the misleading press release and a short snip of the “debate” you can click on this link.

Note, archives of previous episodes of the show are available here. We presume the full video of this episode will be as well

UPDATE. THE ENTIRE SHOW CAN BE SEEN HERE..

If you’d like to get in some shooting and help Bruce Starr in his bid to be Oregon’s Labor Commissioner, here’s your opportunity.

Bruce has been a solid pro-gun vote in his time in the Oregon Legislature, and now in spite of every dirty trick thrown at him by ethically challenged Secretary of State Kate Brown, he is seeking the office of Labor Commissioner.

On August 16th friends of Bruce are hosting a fundraising shoot at Mitchell’s at Salem Clay Target Sports in Gervais Oregon.  For all the details you can contact Mike Fitz at fitz@staroilco.net or call him at 503 283 1736. Or you can simply download this flyer.

Come out and have some fun for a good cause.

As you know, the United Nations is working on an international treaty to regulate small arms.

This treaty has been the subject of speculation and the rumor mills for several years. It now appears that it may very well be finalized soon.

While many are claiming it will not infringe on American’s Second Amendment rights, every major pro-gun organization disagrees and considers it a massive threat.  If Hillary Clinton promises it’s good for you, it’s safe to say something very dangerous is being cooked up.

According to Ted Bromund of the Heritage Foundation, a suggestion was actually made to regulate police cars!

Obama told the Brady Campaign that he was working “under the radar” to enact gun control. We could see the results of this in the ATF’s “Fast and Furious” operation.  Guns sent to drug cartels with the approval and assistance of the Obama administration were intended to inflate the number of American firearms confiscated in Mexico and give a boost to efforts to restrict sales in America.  As of now, we have no idea how many innocent people have been killed with these guns, but for the first time an Attorney General  has been held in contempt, and anti-gun organizations have actually praised this operation!

Now with an international treaty pending, Obama and Clinton have another opportunity to attack gun rights while claiming to protect them.

The good news is that there is opposition in congress. Congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois has sponsored HB 3594 opposing the treaty. The bad news is that not a single member of Oregon’s Congressional Delegation has cosponsored, including the only Republican, Greg Walden and NRA darling Kurt Schrader.

Of course, treaties must be ratified by the Senate, and while there is opposition there too, Oregon has two Senators who are as consistently anti-gun as any members of the Senate.

Still they need to hear from you. Please contact Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley and tell them to vote NO on any small arms treaty foisted on us by the United Nations

TUESDAY UPDATE TO THE UPDATE. KATU HAS NOW OFFERED TO SEND A SATALLITE TRUCK TO OUR PLACE TO DO THE DEBATE.

Special Update. Late Monday, July 23, OFF’s Director, Kevin Starrett, was contacted by KATU television to be part of a TV show they would be doing about gun control in the wake of the Colorado murders.  After agreeing to appear, KATU called Kevin back and informed him that he would not be allowed in the studio armed, something he has done many times before (and one time needed to be.)  If someone claiming to represent gun owners DOES appear on this show, scheduled to air Sunday, be advised that they agreed to this hysterical and paranoid policy.

2010, the Democrats in Congress attempted to pass a bill they called “The Disclose Act.” This bill was intended to intimidate advocacy organizations by requiring them to turn over the personal information of their donors.

You can refresh your memory of this debacle here and here. When the original bill was drafted, the NRA opposed it, until they received a “carve out” and were exempted. Initially they were the only organization exempted. At that point, they gave it their blessing and threw countless advocacy organizations under the bus. For more, see here and here.

Fortunately the bill eventually failed although every member of Oregon’s Congressional delegation except Greg Walden supported it. Now with little notice it’s risen from the ashes and is due to be voted on on Monday July 16th in the US Senate.

The current version does not seem to have the exemption for the NRA, so it should be interesting to see where NRA will come down on the bill. (As of this writing, we have seen nothing from NRA or GOA about this bill.)

The Senate Republicans have promised a filibuster. The news on this is coming in very late and without a lot of details. We will continue to monitor this and keep you informed.

The winner of our 4th of July raffle has been announced.

Kevin Kriske of Troutdale won the Black Rifle Company AR-15 with a Hi-Lux Optics Scope, and finish by Sur-Tac Gear.

This beautiful rifle was a donation of MK Tactical in Hillsboro Oregon (who also donated the case) and the Black Rifle Company of Clackamas.Hi-Lux Optics provided the scope. Sur-Tac donated the Cerakote Finish. Rich’s Guns in Donald handled the transfer. The winning ticked was drawn by Dawn Phillips who is the legislative aid for pro-gun House Rep Kim Thatcher and one of the hardest working friends we have in the legislature.

We want to congratulate Kevin and thank everyone who helped our cause by purchasing tickets for this rifle.

The companies that donated to our cause are all great friends of gun rights and we cannot thank them enough for their generosity. Please consider patronizing these companies for your firearms needs. They have done much to support our cause.

MK Tactical

Black Rifle Company

Sur-Tac-Gear

Hi-Lux Optics

Rich’s Gun shop

Eric Holder Held In Contempt of Congress.
How Did Your Representative Vote?

Eric Holder, the Attorney General who has been lying to Congress to cover up information about the Obama administration’s scheme to smuggle guns to Mexican drug gangs, has been held in contempt of Congress.

The Brady Campaign and many Democratic politicians have actually been defending this murderous scheme.

You may recall that some time ago Obama informed the Brady Campaign that he was working on gun control “under the radar.” Now it’s clear what he meant.

But how did your member of Congress vote?

Every single Democratic Oregon Congressman voted to protect the lying Attorney General whose policies have cost countless lives, including Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and scores of Mexican civilians.

The entire purpose of this scheme was to boost the number of American guns confiscated from Mexican crime scenes in order to implement more restrictions on law-abiding American gun owners.

NRA endorsed Congressman Kurt Schrader of Oregon’s 5th Congressional District voted with three other Oregon Democrats to protect Holder.

Please remember, none of this would have ever happened without the tireless efforts of David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh, who are virtually never acknowledged in the press unless they are being attacked. But they broke the story long before the mainstream media ever touched it.

As far too many of you know, the Oregon State Police ID Unit  was shut down for most of Sunday, crippling multiple gun shows, halting countless sales and costing dealers, buyers and gun show hosts untold thousands of dollars. If you ever wondered why we oppose background checks, this should tell you. All OSP has to do is throw a switch or blow a fuse and gun sales end. Both their phone lines and their new “computer system” were unavailable. But there is a bigger, more constant problem we need to address.

Several years ago OFF was receiving so many complaints about the awful treatment people were receiving from the State Police ID Unit when they attempted to make firearms purchases that we arranged a meeting with them.

At the time both dealers and buyers were frequently lied to about the process, and attempts to contact OSP for an explanation of a delay or denial were routinely ignored.

During our first meeting, OSP gave us a copy of a manual they said they provided to gun dealers that explained “the rules.”  On the very second page we noted information that was false and against state and Federal law.

During that meeting we were promised that service would improve, the error in the manual would be fixed and staff would be retrained so they would no longer dispense false information to dealers and buyers. For a long time things did seem to improve. The complaints we got dropped off to almost zero. Calls to the challenge line were, as promised, being returned promptly. We have never approved of background checks, but it did seem like an effort was being made to do a better job. Still we believed that because of several factors, including a $10.00 fee and the fact that OSP was databasing info on the gun being purchased, and thereby creating a gun registry, that this job was better done by NICS directly. In 2011 we introduced a bill to do just that. It passed out of House Judiciary only to die in Ways and Means when the Public Employee Unions came out to testify that the Oregon economy would collapse if OSP was not doing gun purchase background checks.

Now it seems we are back to the bad old days.  The number of complaints we receive about unjust delays has once again started climbing, but what’s worse is the new attitude of the OSP ID Unit.

Where once if you received a  delay or “pend” you were promised a response in 24 hours, now OSP is telling people not to bother them and not to expect a call back. Their “challenge line” has an outgoing message saying you will be delayed at least a month and don’t even bother to leave a message before a month has gone by since they will NOT call you back. This is an astonishing response from a State agency. “We are going to deny your rights and you’d better not ask us about it.”

The attitude of the OSP ID Unit is outrageous and unacceptable. The outgoing message tells people that their “standard delay” is 35 days. But that does not mean you will even get a response then. They can extend their delay forever.

Clearly, a right delayed is a right denied.

Think of the person who has a reasonable fear for their safety. The State Police tell them “tough, it’s your problem.” and then to add insult to injury tell that person, “don’t bother us with questions.”

It is important to note that with or without the OSP’s approval you are entitled to the gun after three business days as long as there has not be an outright denial.  As you would expect, there is nothing in their message that informs callers of this and it is the policy of the OSP not to inform buyers or dealers of this fact. NICS, on the other hand, informs buyers of their rights.

The State Police ID Unit has turned itself into a dictatorial gun control agency that routinely denies people their rights and then demands that it not be questioned about it. This has to stop.

First, call the challenge line to listen to the arrogant and outrageous outgoing message if you press 1 for a “delay”. That number is 503-373-1808.

Then call Patricia Whitfield and demand to know why her agency is treating taxpaying Oregonians like an unwanted nuisance when they are denied their rights by her agency.

Whitfield’s phone number is 503-934-2305.

Her email is patricia.whitfield@state.or.us

A sample cut and paste message follows:

——————————————————————————————————–

Ms. Whitfield,
I am astonished by the attitude of your unit when dealing with firearms purchase delays. The OSP ID Unit is a state agency tasked with serving the residents and taxpayers of this state. When your unit delays a firearms purchase, they are denying a right. To treat callers to your “challenge” line as though they were an unwelcome annoyance is outrageous and unacceptable.
If you cannot complete your checks quickly you should at least inform delayed buyers of their rights under State and Federal law. If this situation is not improved, I can assure you that I will do all in my power to see that the Legislature turns these checks over to NICS.