Author: OFF

Post Office Court Case Says No Guns in Post Offices.

For some time there has been confusion about the legality of carrying
a firearm in a Post Office.

Many Post Offices have signs posted stating it is unlawful. However,
Federal law does NOT prohibit possession of firearms in Post Offices
for “any lawful purpose.”

In our book “Understanding Oregon’s Gun Laws” we stated that we knew
of no successful prosecutions for persons carrying guns in Post Offices, but otherwise committing no crime.

Unfortunately we now have one.

It’s important to note that is was NOT decided in our circuit, but
also important to note that the conviction stemmed not from any
violation of law, but of a “rule” which is a very troubling development.
To see the entire ruling, use this link.

Those of you who live in the Portland area know that the three counties near Portland (Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington) share an odd “regional” government called “Metro.”

Many are not really sure what Metro does or why it’s needed but that has not made it go away.

Among other functions “Metro” is responsible for various parks and facilities such as the Portland Zoo.

Many of these locations have signs posted saying that no firearms are allowed and there are no exceptions. The zoo rules allow no one to have a firearm there.

Of course, Metro has no authority to create any restrictions on persons with concealed handgun licenses.

Some time ago we contacted Metro to inquire where they believed they got the authority to impose these rules.  As you would expect, rapid responses are not part of big government.

We did hear from Metro’s CEO and he did agree that there may be a conflict with state law.

In September we made a public records request from Metro asking for all rules and restrictions dealing with firearms at facilities and locations they control. While we still have not received those we have received a copy of an executive order dealing with firearms and license holders that clearly contradicts their stated policies.

While we believe that Metro is reexamining all of its firearms restrictions, until they have corrected the many unlawful rules at locations they control, we want you to have a copy of their executive order which clearly states that license holders are NOT subject to their restrictions.

It is our expectation that Metro will be revising the rules and signage at their facilities, but until then, know that if you are a CHL holder, the restrictions do not, and cannot, apply to you.

9.30.09 Anti-Gun Efforts Begin Long Before “Special Session.” Firearms Possession On School Grounds In The Cross Hairs.

In February, the Oregon Legislature will be meeting for a “special session.”

Although our legislature is supposed to meet only every two years, it is now a forgone conclusion that they will be in Salem annually.

But they are not waiting until then to begin their assault on your rights, so it’s essential that you start responding right away.

Today, at a joint session of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees the attacks began.

As you may know, in the 2009 session OFF passed SB 603. This bill did several things.

One of the things it did was correct a mistake in Oregon law. The old law (still in effect until January 2010) said that a person with a felony conviction could petition the courts to have his rights restored to purchase a firearm. However, that person was still not allowed to OWN a firearm.  SB 603 corrected that and allowed a person to ask to both buy and own.

It seemed like a no-brainer. But today the Oregon Department of Justice came to asked that this correction be reversed. It was their position that because of SB 603, a person with multiple felony convictions could walk out of prison and legally get guns. This is, of course, absurd.

All the bill does is allow a person who could ASK to have his rights restored to actually get them restored. There is no guarantee that the petitioner would be successful. But it was clear that neither the Department of Justice, nor most members of the committee really understood current law or the effects of the bill.

Although this was not a public hearing, we were asked to respond to the DOJ and we made it clear that the language in SB 603 was not a mistake, nor was it unintended. It was a well crafted attempt to fix an existing error. If this language is stripped from the bill, the law may very well return to its previous nonsensical version.

But that was just a down payment on what was next.

As you know, the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation has filed a lawsuitgainst the Oregon University System for attempting to enforce illegal anti-gun rules.

Just as in the Medford School District, which threatened a teacher there for having a CHL, the Oregon University System has draconian anti-gun regulations that Oregon law does not allow them to adopt.

But, not content to wait until the courts rule on either case, OUS has sent out their hired hack, Neil Bryant, to try to convince the legislature to write new rules to strip license holders of their ability to be on University property.

Bryant was the Chair of the Senate Judiciary in 1999. He was one of the driving forces behind an attempt to ram through legislation to end private transfers at gun shows. This bill was actually supported by a “pro-gun” state group  back then, and it was ignored by the NRA. OFF opposed it and it was defeated by one vote.

Now Bryant is back as a lobbyist  trying to attack the rights of the most law-abiding people in the state, concealed handgun license holders.

It’s interesting to note that while this hearing was a joint session of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the Chair of the House Committee, Jeff Barker, wanted no part of it. So he dismissed his committee when this issue came up. Only  ultra-liberal  House Rep Jefferson Smith stayed in the room.  Smith commented that Oregon might be “better off” with a patchwork of different rules and laws in different places, a nightmare our “preemption” statute was passed to address.

Bryant told the Committee that college students should not be allowed to be on campus with lawfully owned guns because they drink too much. He asked what would happen if a bunch of drunken college students decided to “pass a gun around.”  He wondered aloud about what armed students would do if they “broke up with their girlfriend” or were “angry at a professor.”

At no point did Bryant actually give an example of any problems on any college campuses. At no point did Bryant explain why these same students could be trusted off campus. But he did mention our lawsuits as the reason he  was asking for new restrictions.  (We can only conclude that the Oregon University System is convinced they will lose.)

Bryant also stated in the hearing that Jeff Maxwell, the Western Oregon University student who was unlawfully arrested for having a handgun on campus, was given a “public hearing.”  As many of you know, that’s untrue. Maxwell was “tried” by a kangaroo court of students in a closed session where even Jeff’s family was denied access.

Bryant suggested, and the Senate Committee agreed to the creation of a “work group” to try to come up with new laws to restrict gun rights on college property.

Bryant suggested that the group consist of  legislators, school board members, officials from K-12 schools, district attorneys, campus security, police and sheriffs. Almost as an afterthought he said a representative from “gun rights group” should perhaps be invited.  At that suggestion, Senator Susanne Bonamici said that if a pro-gun representative was included, she wanted someone from an anti-gun group like Ceasefire Oregon. (As if the deck were not stacked enough.)  Neither Bryant nor any member of the committee suggested having any representation from student organizations.

There is no question that the anti-gun establishment is running scared and is working overtime to find a way to disarm license holders. It is essential that we act before this misguided movement can pick up steam.

Both the attempted gutting of SB 603 and the attack on gun rights on college property will likely be considered at the February “special session.”  Please contact the Senate Judiciary Committee and let them know that you will not stand for any attacks on your rights.

Chair Floyd Prozanski is the person who most needs to hear from you. It was he who agreed to put together the “work group” being  assembled to craft these new restrictions.

If you are a student, or will be in the future, or if you have a child or grandchild who is a student, it is critical that Prozanski hear your voice. Remember, this is NOT just about colleges. If these efforts are successful, a parent with a CHL will not be allowed to pick up  a child at school  while in possession of a self defense firearm. Tell Prozanski that you want to be represented at this “work group.”  (You may even want to serve on it yourself.) This group will be forming immediately. You MUST act right away. A sample e-mail and contact info for Senator Prozanski follows:

Capitol Address:
900 Court St. NE, S-417
Salem, OR 97301
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1704
District Address:
PO Box 11511
Eugene, OR 97440
District Phone:
541-342-2447

sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us

___________________________________________________________________

Dear Senator Prozanski,

I am very concerned that the improvements made to Oregon law under SB 603 will evaporate if the Department of Justice has its way. It’s clear that they have misunderstood current law and the changes that SB 603 makes. 603 does NOT allow felons to get guns. It only allows them to petition the court to review their status. Please don’t fall for the scare tactics the DOJ is using.

I am also very concerned about the formation of a “work group” to explore new ways to erode the rights of concealed handgun license holders. The Oregon University System’s position that license holders cannot be trusted on their property makes no sense. If the system is so concerned about “drunken college students” behaving irresponsibly, they should consider banning cars from campus. Cars kill far more college students than firearms do. If you do go ahead with the formation of this group, I urge you to not stack the deck with countless anti-gun bureaucrats and only token representation for gun owners.

Yours,
__________________________________

 

If you think dealing with the legislative system is frustrating, you don’t know the half of it.

Those of you who followed the case of Jeff Maxwell, a Marine Corp veteran who was arrested at Western Oregon University for exercising his Second Amendment rights, know how long we have been involved in our efforts to get justice for him.

It has been a very long and complicated journey,

Although we were able to quickly get the criminal charges against him dropped, getting the Oregon University system to comply with the law is another matter.

As those of you who have followed our defense of the Medford teacher know, these processes can take a ridiculously long time. (We are still awaiting the Appeals Court decision on that issue.)

This case was complicated by a number of factors. First, there were several ways we could have approached it. Each had their own strengths and liabilities.

Second, other organizations got involved in the issue, As a result, there was a major possibility that we would be working at cross purposes with people who were trying  to reach the same goal we were.

When multiple players are addressing the same legal issue, their cases could be consolidated, or one group might be bumped out of the process altogether. While any legal strategy comes with a chance of  losing, we felt very strongly that we had to have a plan that had the greatest chance of success for Maxwell and all gun owners. We also had an obligation to protect  Jeffery from any additional liability.

Frankly, this took a lot longer than we expected. For those of you who have so generously uted, we thank you for your support and your patience.

As you know, early on we considered a Federal Deprivation of Civil Rights lawsuit. At one time, we felt strongly that that was the best way to go.

As this case developed,  our attorneys concluded that that path might not be the most beneficial. There were a number of reasons why. One, there was a distinct possibility that the Federal Courts might simply refuse to hear our case.  Because another organization had served notice of their plans to challenge Maxwell’s suspension in state court, the Feds might very likely have taken the position that they would not rule until the State had reached a conclusion.

Had that happened, there would have been little we could do for  a long time. But there were other considerations.  Our attorneys informed us that should the Feds hear our case, and our side lost, Maxwell could be personally liable for attorney’s fees.

We have always been clear that our Foundation would pay for Jeffery’s legal bills, but we were not comfortable allowing him to be in the financial cross hairs. We can budget for known lawyer’s bills, and our supporters have been very generous, but to have him be technically responsible instead of us made no sense.

So, after much consideration and discussion, with a lot of input from  friends in many quarters, we chose another route that we believe will allow us to reach a conclusion to this matter and isolate Jeffery from any future potential liability.  Jeffery has been involved on all stages of this process and is on board with this strategy.

On August 7th, our attorneys filed a Petition for Judicial Determination of Validity of Rule.

Since our Foundation is the plaintiff instead of Jeff Maxwell, he cannot be liable for any negative outcomes in the future. The law also requires that the plaintiff not be  a party to any current dispute, so the Foundations becomes the perfect party to address this issue.

There are other reasons why we believe, win or lose, that this will be the best way to go.

As you know, we have been involved in numerous legal actions when we felt there was no legislative remedy. As you also know, courts are really accountable to no one and they reach some bizarre conclusions. If the case was just about Jeff, the courts may have found a creative way to either affirm Jeff’s suspension from school, or reverse it while never addressing the rule itself. Then we could face this same battle again.

We have sued the Oregon University System in the past with no resolution. The way this case is crafted, we believe that we have a far better chance of getting an answer that applies to everyone.

This step unfortunately, is but the first of a long trip.  The actual legal battle will go on for some months. But it’s a battle that must be fought.

Once again, we thank you for your support and patience.  We thank the courageous legislators who have stepped up to challenge the law-breakers at the University System , especially Senator Brian Boquist and Representative Kim Thatcher and we ask that you continue to stand with us as this lengthy process unfolds.

 

An amendment to a defense bill that would have allowed concealed handgun license holders to carry in any state that allowed concealed carry was narrowly defeated in the US Senate today.

Senator John Thune of South Dakota submitted an amendment to a defense bill that would have required any state that issued a concealed handgun license to recognize the CHL’s of other states.

The amendment lost by only two votes.

(The text of the amendment is copied below.)

As written, it was not a bad amendment and many gun owners are disappointed that it failed. But there are a few things to keep in mind. First, it received votes from Senators who are historically anti-gun. Second, it came very close to passing in a legislature dominated by anti-gunners. (Of course, both Oregon Senators voted against it, but that is no surprise.)

But there are other considerations.

As you know, OFF worked hard to get Oregon to recognize other state’s permits this past session. We do not believe that an American should have to ask permission to exercise a right, but as long as the permit system is alive (against our wishes) we will work to allow your license to be valid in other states, and other states’ permits to be valid here.

Still, we are not sure that this proposed amendment was the best way to go about this.

Most gun owners wonder why a driver’s license is good anywhere in the country but a CHL is not.

That’s a good question. But keep in mind, driver’s licenses were always the domain of the states. Now, the FEDs have moved in to use them as a backdoor national id card.

If the states do not comply with Federal mandates on driver’s licenses. they will not be acceptable ID for boarding planes or entering Federal buildings. The long and belligerent arm of the Federal Government has stepped in on driver’s licenses.  What happens when they do the same on CHL’s?

While it is unknown at this point, it is certainly a cause for concern. So while the narrow defeat of this amendment is not a “win” for gun owners, it may not be the worst thing that can happen to us.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Looking for something to do on your weekends?

Why not come out to some local gun shows and meet the hardworking volunteers who man the OFF table?

You can stop by at the following shows:

July 24-25-26
PORTLAND, OR
Expo Center – I-5 Exit #306B
OREGON’S LARGEST 3 DAY SHOW!
Fri 12-7, Sat 9-6, Sun 9-4
Adm: $9 3 day pass $21, 2 day $14

There will be a Utah permit class there:
Carry in 29 states. Utah Concealed Carry Class is available this weekend at the Expo Gun show (upstairs) on Saturday between 1:30 and 6:30pm. Please pre-register by calling Beavercreek Armory @ 503-629-9310

Aug. 1-2
PENDLETON, OR
Pendleton Conv. Ctr
1601 Westgate I-84 to Exit #207
Sat. 9-5, Sun. 9-3 – Adm: $6

AUGUST 15-16
Portland, OR
Kliever Armory (Near Marine Drive on 33rd)
10000 NE 33rd Drive. Portland, OR
Hours: Sat. 9 am -5 pm, Sun. 9 am -3 pm

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TEXT OF THUNE AMENDMENT:
SA 1618. Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Coburn) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:
At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1083. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) Findings.–Congress finds the following:
(1) The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.
(2) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.
(3) Congress has previously enacted legislation for national authorization of the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.
(4) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms to individuals, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without need for a permit.
(5) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.
(6) Congress finds that the prevention of lawful carrying by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.
(7) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(8) Congress therefore should provide for the interstate carrying of firearms by such individuals in all States that do not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by their own residents.
(b) In General.–Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:“§926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof–
“(1) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that–
“(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
“(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;
“(2) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that–
“(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
“(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
“(b) A person carrying a concealed firearm under this section shall–
“(1) in a State that does not prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes, be entitled to carry such firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern the specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a resident of the State; or
“(2) in a State that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, be entitled to carry such a firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a person issued a permit by the State in which the firearm is carried.
“(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.
“(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to–
“(1) effect the permitting process for an individual in the State of residence of the individual; or
“(2) preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.”.
(c) Clerical Amendment.–The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
“926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.”.
(d) Severability.–Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
(e) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

 

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States has revealed itself to be as bad as any of us could have imagined.

While it was to be expected that any nominee of Obama’s would be troubling, Sotomayor has made it clear from her record and non-answers in her confirmation hearing that she considers the Second Amendment to be little more than an irritant to her.

Furthermore, there is strong evidence that Sotomayor is also a liar.

Even the National Rifle Association, which had refused to take a stand on her nomination, has finally issued a statement opposing her. Gun Owners of America took a similar stand from the very beginning.

Sotomayor is very bad news and they can dress her up, but in the end, her racist comments and animosity to self-defense make her a very dangerous choice on a court as closely divided as the US Supreme Court.

Both Oregon Senators are as opposed to the Second Amendment as Sotomayor is. But we think they should know you oppose her nomination. Please consider contacting Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden and tell them you do not believe a person with the radical beliefs of Sotomayor should be sitting on the Supreme Court.

Listen to Sotomayers answers to simple questions. They are intentionally vague, but her history is not.

You can cut and paste the following text into their webforms or modify them as you like.

Thanks for your action

Senator Ron Wyden
(503) 589-4555

Senator Jeff Merkley
(503) 362-8102

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Senator,

I am appalled at the positions Judge Sotomayor has taken in regard to the Second Amendment and my right to self-defense. Furthermore, her repeated racist comments make it clear that she lacks the judgment to sit on the Supreme Court.  I strongly oppose her nomination.

Yours,

__________________________

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LEGISLATURE GOES HOME

Late last night, the Oregon legislature adjourned “sine die.”  “Sine die” is Latin for “let’s take a few months off and then come back and raise whatever taxes and fees we overlooked since January.”

Those Latins were very efficient with language.

This session is over. In normal times, Oregonians would not have to fear for a greater loss of money and liberty until 2011, but the days of our bi-annual session seem to be almost certainly, just a happy memory.  The legislators will be returning to the Capitol in February.

As you know, in the last hours of the session, the Oregon legislature voted to expand the Brady Bill by forcing us into compliance with HR 2640, an NRA -backed gun control bill passed in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings.

Interestingly, the NRA chose not to support the Oregon bill, HB 2853, (pdf) but they also refused to oppose it.  Their “neutrality” on the bill created some cover for legislators who promote themselves as pro-gun. (In all fairness, they all promote themselves as pro-gun, which in some cases is quite humorous.)

HB 2853 will soon be law. The inaccurate databases that so often prevent legitimate gun sales will increase. The data-mining will continue. For a complete count of who voted to protect your rights in the Senate, click here. To see if your House Rep voted to protect your privacy click here.

There is no question that gun owners suffered a defeat on HB 2853.  But while we lost that battle, your efforts made the bill far less bad than it was when it started. The bill was amended over 10 times. Many people who would have been unfairly ensnared by it are somewhat safer. People will no longer be considered a “danger” to themselves because they are “mentally retarded” and while far from being a good bill, much was done to reduce the damage this bill will do.

It is impressive how many legislators actually stood up for your rights and privacy and voted “no”. You can rest assured that this vote will be used against them in the next election.

Campaign mail will go out saying  that legislators who voted “no” on the bill were helping mentally ill people get guns to commit massacres across our state. Knowing that, it took a lot of courage to cast a principled vote. We’re pleased so many did. But keep one thing in mind; we only got the good votes we got because of your activism. Your constant contact, your e-mails and phone calls are entirely responsible for the many votes we actually did get against this problematic legislation.

For that, we are extremely grateful.

We know how hard you worked this session. Many of you forwarded your e-mails and the responses. We are proud to have the most active, informed members in the history of gun rights in Oregon. Thank you.  And even though we lost this skirmish, your willingness to step up brought us victories in an environment where few thought we could make progress on gun rights.

Because of your communications, and only because of them, we were able to pass SB 603. (pdf) SB 603 addressed three different issues in Oregon law.

First, SB 603 finally gave us a legal definition for the term “readily accessible” for the purposes of transporting a handgun in an automobile. Present law provides no such definition, so people passing through our state really had no way of knowing if they were obeying the law. And neither did the police.  What is “readily accessible” in a Mini-Cooper ?

Without a definition, motorists were always at risk of arrest and prosecution simply for trying to go from one place to another with a handgun. Now we have a clear (and good) definition. This is long overdue.

But SB 603 did more. It corrected an error in current law that allows a person who had a felony conviction to not only petition the courts for the right to buy a firearm, but also to own a firearm.

That’s right. Under current law, you can go to court and ask to have your rights restored to buy a gun, but you’re not allowed to own it!  This has now been corrected.  The bill also addresses another problem with current law.

Under Oregon statutes, a person who has only one felony conviction, which did not involve a homicide or a weapons charge, has his rights restored 15 years after the end of his probation or parole.  But a careful reading of the law reveals that while that person can no longer be charged as a “felon in possession” they can still be charged with a misdemeanor crime of unlawful possession of a firearm.

While 603 does not completely reverse that error, it does make clear that a person who successfully petitions for a restoration of rights, gets all rights back. He cannot be charged with either “felon in possession” or a misdemeanor charge of “unlawful possession.”

In a legislative session dominated by anti-gunners in both Houses and with an anti-gun governor, this was unexpected progress, but none of it would have happened without your constant efforts to make legislators “see the light.”

Of course, our efforts to pass a clean and straightforward bill to protect the privacy of CHL holders was thwarted by one freshman House Rep. Judy Steigler managed to convince the House Judiciary Committee to take a strong bill that kept your private records private, and turn it into a roadmap for revealing this information.  Luckily, at least for now, most sheriffs seem determined to keep that information out of the hands of anti-gun media outlets. For that we praise them, but a law would be better.  This issue is NOT over. We will continue to work to ensure that private information, given as a result of a demand by the law, does not fall into the hands of people who would use this information to harm gun owners.

As the summer begins, we are thankful the legislature has wrapped up, some progress was made, and most damage contained.  Your efforts, as always, were key to our ability to keep a largely anti-gun legislature mostly in check.  Thank you for all you do, and your continued support.

Have a safe and happy summer.

After a procedural move that passed this bill back to the Ways and Means Committee, HB 2853 was added to the Senate floor session today. The bill passed.

The bill now goes to the Governor for his signature.

As you know, we have opposed this bill though all its various incarnations. Many of you have fought hard to stop this expansion of the failed Brady Bill. We thank you for all your efforts. We lost this battle, but the fight goes on.

We are quite sure that this bill, which will put us into compliance with the Federal Bill HR 2640, will cause more people to be denied legitimate firearms transfers. More people will face the inconvenience and burden of trying to prove that they are allowed to exercise a “right.” Some of those people will now be forced to ask for relief from the “psychiatric review board.”

What follows is a vote count.

A “Yes” vote is a vote to further erode your rights.

A  “No” vote was a vote to protect your rights. Please take a moment to thank the legislators who stood up for your rights.

Jason Atkinson-R NO

Alan C Bates-D YES

Suzanne Bonamici-D YES

Brian Boquist-R ABSENT (Because of a family emergency. Counts as a NO vote.)

Ginny Burdick-D YES

Margaret Carter-D YES

Peter Courtney-D YES

Richard Devlin-D YES

Jackie Dingfelder-D YES

Ted Ferrioli-R   NO

Larry George-R   NO

Fred Girod-R  NO

Mark Hass-D YES

Betsy Johnson-D NO

Jeff Kruse-R NO

Rick Metsger-D YES

Laurie Monnes Anderson-D YES

Rod Monroe-D YES

Bill Morrisette-D YES

Frank Morse-R YES

David Nelson-R YES

Floyd Prozanski-D YES

Diane Rosenbaum-D YES

Martha Schrader-D YES

Bruce Starr-R   NO

Chris Telfer-R NO

Joanne Verger-D YES

Vicki L Walker-D YES

Doug Whitsett-R  NO

Jackie Winters-R YES

The NRA-supported expansion of the Brady Bill passed the Oregon House in an evening session tonight. That is bad news. The good news is how many legislators stood up and voted no.

House Rep Jeff Barker cited the NRA’s position on the bill as part of his explanation for his support of it.

Here is a list of Oregon House Reps who said no to an expansion of the failed Brady law and took a stand for your rights and privacy.

Barton
Bentz
Bruun
Cameron
Esquivel
Freeman
Garrard
Gilliam
Gilman
Hanna
Huffman
Kennemer
Krieger
Maurer
Olson
Richardson
Smith G.
Sprenger
Thatcher
Thompson
Weidner
Whisnant
Wingard

Each and every one of of these no votes is the direct result of your action.Thank you.

As  usual, Representative Kim Thatcher took the lead in opposing this terrible bill and standing up for gun owners rights in a hostile enviornemnt. Thatcher deserves your thanks and support.

The bill will now be voted on in the Senate. Please use this link to send the simple message, NO on 2853.

BRIDE OF BRADY UPDATE

As you know, HB 2853 has advanced beyond its last committee hearing in the full Ways and Means Committee and will now go to the floors of the House and Senate.

You can read who voted to protect, (and oppose) your rights, here in an alert from yesterday.

If this bill passes into law it will be the first significant piece of gun control in over 10 years.

The bill has been amended 10 times and although it is now far more restricted than in earlier versions, it still opens a wider door to abuse and misuse of the records that are already delaying and denying legitimate firearms transfers. But, as Representative Chip Shields pointed out yesterday, the Feds are promising to send Oregon some money to get in line, and that was good enough for him.

Of course it is disappointing to see Oregon legislators willing to sell out their constituents for a few bucks, but this legislative session has made the “sell out” second only to the “vote sale” as a regular practice.

Keep in mind, this bill is NOT intended to allow the Oregon State Police to know who is excluded from a firearms purchase because of mental illness (or in the words of the bill, “mental retardation”.) The State Police have repeatedly told us they already have access to that information, and it is the State Police who preform background checks in Oregon, not the Feds.

This bill is intended to share this information with the Federal government, currently run by an openly anti-gun administration. Let’s face it, for years we have heard stories of abuse of records by various federal agencies and administrations. Only two days ago, anti-gun militant Senator Frank Lautenberg and others introduced a bill he  called the”Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009.”

In a press release he stated “from February 2004 to February 2009, there were 963 cases in which a known or suspected terrorist attempted to buy a gun. In 90 percent of those cases – a total of 865 times – they were cleared to proceed with that purchase”

So now we will be turning over a vast new database of names to a government that tells us, with a straight face, that  “known” terrorists are among us, buying guns and explosives and they (the Feds) are doing nothing. Why are “known terrorists” not in jail?  Is it rational to trust this government with more, easily abused data? How will you feel if you are unjustly denied a firearms purchase, but now you must petition a “psychiatric review board” to request that your rights be restored?

We were told the Federal law this bill forces us into compliance with (HR 2640) was a reaction to the Virginia Tech shootings. But even the law’s supporters, (the NRA and the Brady Campaign) have to admit, this bill would have done nothing to stop that crime.

The anti-gunners have a large majority. This bill comes with the promise of bucks from the Obama administration, and it’s very easy to say we don’t want mentally ill people getting guns. There is no question we are facing an uphill battle. But please take one last shot.

Even if you have already contacted your own Senator and House Rep, please let them know one more time that you don’t want the Feds meddling with the gun rights of Oregonians.

Time is very short. This bill could  reach the floors of the House and Senate literally at any moment.

Your can learn who your representatives are by using this link.

Your local Senator and local House Rep will be the last two people listed.You can save even more time by using this link and have your message sent directly to your representatives.

Please feel free to cut and paste the suggested text below or modify it as you see fit.  Thank you for all your efforts supporting liberty and privacy.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am writing today to express my strong opposition to HB 2853. As you know, this bill will force us into compliance with HR 2640, the “Veterans Disarmament Act.”  This dangerous piece of legislation will cause countless new delays and denials of legitimate firearms purchases and turn over private information to the Federal government while doing nothing to prevent violent crimes.

Every new expansion of the failed “Brady Law” creates hardships for the law abiding while those declared “a danger to themselves and others” continue to walk our streets. Please stand up for your constituents and vote NO on HB 2853.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“Bride Of Brady” Passes Out Of Ways And Means Full Committee

HB 2853, the bill that will expand the failed Brady law passed out of the Ways and Means Committee tonight in a late session.

The following list shows the vote count. Those who voted “No” stepped up to support your rights.

Those who voted “Yes” voted to expand a system that has denied countless gun owners lawful purchases.

The battle now goes to the full House and Senate Floor. No matter what happens, we are committed to continuing the fight and thank you for your willingness to stand for liberty. Please have no doubts that your hard work had a powerful effect on those who voted no. Several legislators commented on the mail they received from you. Anti-gun militant, Vicki Walker, talked about having her e-mail box “lit up” by OFF members. The NRA’s “neutrality” on this bill was, of course, a setback, but the battle is not over.

Please don’t stop now.

Sen. Margaret Carter, Co-Chair    YES
Rep. Peter Buckley, Co-Chair     YES
Sen. Betsy Johnson, Vice-Chair NO
Rep. Nancy Nathanson, Vice-Chair    YES
Sen. Alan C Bates Yes
Sen. Fred Girod NO
Sen. Rod Monroe   YES
Sen. David Nelson  YES
Sen. Joanne Verger   YES
Sen. Vicki L Walker   YES
Sen. Doug Whitsett  NO
Sen. Jackie Winters  YES
Rep. Chris Edwards   YES
Rep. David Edwards YES
Rep. Larry Galizio  YES
Rep. Bill Garrard  NO
Rep. George Gilman  NO
Rep. Bob Jenson  YES
Rep. Tina Kotek   YES
Rep. Dennis Richardson NO
Rep. Chip Shields  YES
Rep. Greg Smith    NO

HB 2853, a bill intended to expand the failed Brady law and force Oregon into compliance with the Federal “NICS Improvement” act passed out of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Public Safety today. The Federal bill was opposed by many state-wide pro-gun organizations, Gun Owners of America, the American Legion and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.  It was supported by the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign against gun ownership.

The committee is a joint committee so it includes both House Reps and Senators. Because of the timing (so late in the session) there was virtually no notice that the “work session” was scheduled. As we move towards the end of the session expect this to continue. Bills will be scheduled with little or no notice, making it virtually impossible for you as a voter to know the progress of legislation.

The committee invited testimony only from the supporters of the bill. Opponents were not allowed to testify. (In the interest of fairness no doubt.)

HB 2853 has been sold as a bill to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally ill (or in the language of the bill, “mentally retarded”) and who are a “danger to themselves and others.”

The obvious question is why are people who are a danger to themselves and others free and walking the streets?  Even if a person accepted the fantasy that a law can keep guns out of the hands of bad people, what about knives, cars and power tools?

The Brady law was supposed to prevent criminals from getting guns. It failed. What it DID do was prevent law abiding people from getting guns. The Oregon State Police told us they had over 8000 “delays” last year. They had no statistics on how many people challenged those delays or how many people were successful in getting the record corrected.

If HB 2853 passes, you can rest assured that the incomplete and incorrect records the government keeps will ensnare a vast new collection of innocent people attempting to purchase firearms. But, now, instead of only having to beg the State Police to correct your records, you will be forced to petition the “Psychiatric Security Review Board” to correct your records. (Imagine explaining that to your significant other.)  And of course, if you move or are attempting a purchase in another state, you will be forced to seek relief from the Feds. Good luck.

The bill, as you might expect, comes with the promise of Federal money. (If they can print it fast enough.)  No doubt, that was a major element in the seduction of those who voted for it. But the fact remains that this bill vastly expands a failed system and puts more gun owners in the crosshairs of the most anti-gun administration on the history of our country.

Three members of the Subcommittee stood up for your rights today and voted NO.

They were:

Sen. Doug Whitsett    sen.dougwhitsett@state.or.us

Rep. Tim Freeman    rep.timfreeman@state.or.us

Rep. Greg Smith    rep.gregsmith@state.or.us

They deserve your thanks.

Those who voted to go for the money and expand the Brady law were:

Sen. Joanne Verger, Co-Chair   sen.joanneverger@state.or.us

Sen. Vicki L Walker    sen.vickiwalker@state.or.us

Rep. Chip Shields, Co-Chair rep.chipshields@state.or.us

Rep. Jeff Barker      rep.jeffbarker@state.or.us

Rep. Nick Kahl     rep.nickkahl@state.or.us

Rep. Nancy Nathanson     rep.nancynathanson@state.or.us

The bill now moves to the full committee. This could happen any time with no notice. Please contact the full committee and express your opposition as soon as possible.

A sample cut and paste message follows. Please keep in mind this is a joint committee. You may be addressing either a Senator or a Representative.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HB 2853 is NOT about keeping guns out of the hands of the “dangerously mentally ill.”
It is about a vast expansion of the failed Brady law.  Thousands of people are delayed or denied legitimate firearms transfers in Oregon every year because of errors in the records used to determine if a buyer is “eligible” to exercise a right. If this bill is passed, those denied firearms purchases because of faulty record keeping in Oregon will now be forced to plead their case before the “Psychiatric Security Review Board.”

If they move or are attempting an out-of-state transfer they will be entangled in a bureaucratic Federal nightmare.

This bill does nothing to keep dangerous people off the streets, it merely adds another layer of bureaucracy to an already failed system.  Please vote NO on HB 2853.

Yours,

_________________________

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You’re The Problem.

We expect politicians to act on self interest. Let’s face it, that’s simply human nature. But we also expect a certain level of slickness in their attempts to con the voting public. They don’t all pull it off. At the bottom of this page you will see the response of one politician to a voter in her district. Her conclusion, it’s the people who are a problem when they don’t go along with the self serving actions of politicians.

As you know, OFF worked for months before the 2009 session to help craft a bill that would protect the privacy of CHL holders from the prying eyes of the media and those seeking that information for commercial profit.  As you also know, certain counties disclosed this info and as a result ,CHL holders in those counties were the recipients of direct mail pitches for utions from a supposed “pro-gun” group. This organization now has the ability to sell those names to whomever they choose.

There is no question that a strongly worded bill was needed to keep this information out of the hands of anti-gun media outlets and others. And that’s exactly what we got when House Rep Kim Thatcher introduced HB 2727. The bill was carefully crafted to provide the maximum amount of protection for license holders. The bill had 44 cosponsors.

Let’s take a look at who they were. We have posted the Republicans in blue and the Democrats in red.

Representatives THATCHER, BARKER,BENTZ, BOONE, BRUUN, CAMERON, CLEM, ESQUIVEL, FREEMAN, GARRARD,GILLIAM, GILMAN, HANNA, HUFFMAN, JENSON, KENNEMER, KRIEGER,MATTHEWS, MAURER, OLSON, RICHARDSON, ROBLAN, SCHAUFLER, GSMITH, J SMITH, SPRENGER, THOMPSON, WEIDNER, WHISNANT, WINGARD,
WITT,

Senators ATKINSON, BOQUIST, FERRIOLI, GEORGE, GIROD,JOHNSON, KRUSE, MORSE, NELSON, PROZANSKI, STARR, TELFER,VERGER, WHITSETT .

The opponents of the bill? Well, the usual suspects. Ginny Burdick, Portland City Council Member Randy Leonard, The Oregonian Newspaper and of course, those guardians of privacy, the ACLU.

It’s important to note that committee chairs have enormous control over bills. A bill like this would surely go to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The chairs of both those committees, Jeff Barker and Floyd Prozanski were cosponsors of the original bill. And both are Democrats.

It’s also important to note that on the Senate Committee (with 5 members), there were three who were cosponsors of the bill. Boquist,Whitsett and Prozanski. On the House Committee there were 6 cosponsors.  Barker, Whisnant,Cameron, Krieger, Olson and Jefferson Smith.

It would be hard to conclude that this bill was anything but a shoe-in to pass.That is, until freshman House Rep Judy Steigler stepped in.

Steigler decided that CHL holders deserved virtually no protections. So she amended the bill in a way that, for all intents and purposes, stripped it of any protections.

Now, we have to give her credit. She did manage to roll the rest of the committee. With the exception of Kevin Cameron, they all agreed to her amendments, caving in to her threats to round up votes against the bill.

It is obviously disappointing that so many people would cave on a bill that had broad bi-partisan support. In that respect, the other members of the committee deserve to share the blame. But Steigler was the mastermind. She also masterminded the amendments to HB 2463, a bill that would have had Oregon recognize other states’ licenses thereby opening the door to having other states recognize ours. Her amendments cost Oregon gun owners the right to carry in many states. It’s important to keep that in mind as you read Steigler’s comments below. You will see that she claims to have “given life” to the CHL privacy bill. One has to wonder if she also believes she “gave life” to the reciprocity bill she killed. What follows is Steigler’s response to a voter who expressed his opposition to her position. Her response to the voter is that HE is the problem. His request for a bill that actually protected CHL holders made him (and of course us) “dogmatic.”

Steigler’s efforts doomed two very positive bills. Because of her, CHL holders will have to rely solely on the sheriffs’ willingness to face lawsuits from the likes of the Mail Tribune and the Register Guard.  Her self-serving comments about the “public records law” are clearly nonsense. Oregon’s public records law was intended to keep the activities of government transparent. Not to expose private citizens to abuse because they were compelled by law to turn over personal information in order to exercise a “right.” Steigler’s agenda is clear. Her attempt to divert attention from it by blaming her constituents for the failure of a bill she personally destroyed is unconscionable.

Judy Steigler.(D. Bend OR)

We will honor your request and remove your name from our e-mail list. I do want to take a moment however, and address your statement about HB2727, with no illusion that I will change your view, as frankly, it is folks such as yourself that have doomed this bill. You take an all or nothing approach, and that is it–end of discussion. Let me be clear–I am not a gun opponent–my husband and son are hunters and guns have been a part of our family’s culture. What I quite frankly did was take a bill that didn’t have a chance of passing even one chamber of the Legislature, and give it some life. There was little hope, as it was originally written, that HB 2727 would have even gotten out of the House Judiciary Committee, let alone the House of Representatives. The idea that these records should be taken out of the public records laws altogether was antithetical to Oregon’s public records laws. With that in mind, I tried to work with others to carefully craft the strongest exemption I could for allowing release of those records. Under the public records exemptions, this was one of the strongest, giving CHL holders the most protection possible. Ultimately, when release would be requested under this version, there would be a very heavy burden on the requesting party to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the release was in the public interest. Usually, if an entity such as a newspaper did not like the denial of this request (the likely result in most cases) it would be the District Attorney and/or a Circuit Court Judge who would make the decision. At the end of the day, those who were staunchly dogmatic about this issue, chose not to join me in this effort, and even spoke against it on the House floor, but most ended-up voting in favor of it, as they like me, knew realistically that it held the best chance of passage in the Senate, and protected legitimate privacy interests of CHL holders. Unfortunately, in the Senate, the bill became the battleground from those on both extremes of the issue–those adamantly in favor of looser standards allowing greater access to these records, and those such as yourself who could not leave well enough alone and tried to move it to an outright exclusion from public records. As a result, the bill is likely going nowhere in the Senate, and instead of gun owners having some common sense privacy protections, you have nothing. Frankly, I suspect this is what you really desired in the end so that it could continue to be used as a political weapon. So, rather than solving a problem, you sacrifice the legitimate concerns of the vast majority of CHL holders to move a political agenda.

I know that this is a lengthy response, and may be unfair in ascribing to you the motives of those in the extreme, but your caustic remarks lead me to believe I may be correct. To me this situation is a classic example of what citizens complain about–the inability of the Legislature to solve problems. Unfortunately, what many do not realize is that it is when real efforts are made to actually solve an issue such as protecting the privacy rights of CHL holders, it is the efforts of citizens themselves which often keep anything from happening. As I said at the beginning of this e-mail, it is the all or nothing attitude on either or both sides of an issue, which often keeps anything from being accomplished. I think this is as much a sad commentary on society as a whole as with the political system.