Author: OFF

A Message From OFFPAC

OFFPAC endorses Jim Leuenberger for Attorney General.

Dear supporter of gun rights,

There is little doubt that the 2009 Legislature will be under the control of anti-gun forces. While this does not mean we will lose ground, it does mean we must prepare for the worst while hoping for the best.

It is impossible to predict how any legislature will behave. We have moved ahead, thanks to your activism,even when anti-gun politicians were in charge. But, of course, we can never rest.

I want to tell you about a race for an office that is outside the legislature, but still critically important. That race is for Attorney General.

You may recall that the Republican Party did not field a candidate for the office. The race was between two Democrats, Greg MacPherson and John Kroger.

MacPherson was as vocal an enemy of freedom and gun rights as any politician in office. As Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, he tried every trick he could think of to ram through anti-gun legislation. Your activism defeated him  every time.  He also (thankfully) lost his bid to be AG.

The winner of the Democratic Primary was John Kroger. You can read more about him here.

There is little reason to believe  Kroger bodes well for gun owners. His list of supporters is a “who’s who” of militant anti-gun liberals, including Senator Vicki Walker and Portland City Commissioner Randy Leonard.

That’s why I want to tell you that there is a candidate for this important office who is not in the pocket of gun hating organizations like The Sierra Club and the Oregon Education Association.

That candidate is Jim Leuenberger. Many of you know Jim as an attorney who has worked hard for gun rights representing gun owners all over the state. Jim is the lawyer who has taken on the power brokers to fight for the right of Shirley Katz, “the Medford teacher” to carry her handgun while at work. Jim represented David Bacon in his battle with the ATF.

Jim has made fighting for gun rights the cornerstone of, not only his practice, but his run for Attorney General.  He is a passionate defender of freedom and the constitution and makes no apologies for his commitment to the Second Amendment. Consider this quote from Jim’s webpage: “When more Oregonians defend themselves by keeping and bearing arms, there will be less crime. With less crime, we will need fewer police officers and fewer prisons. “

I hope I can count on you not only to vote for Jim in November, but to do all you can to help his candidacy with your financial support. Kroger has huge money from labor unions behind him. Jim is relying on the donations of gun owners like you.

Please visit Jim’s website and make a donation to help a true champion of gun rights get elected.

TSA CONSIDERING NATIONAL GUN BAN

UPDATE 08.11.08. GEORGIA BANS GUNS IN AIRPORTS, CITES POSSIBLE “MAYHEM”

“First, you’re going to have a stampede,” said Robert Kennedy, the airport’s assistant general manager.

08/10/08

In just the latest attack on American’s freedom,the TSA Is considering a ban on firearms in the non-secure areas of our nations airports.The irony of one of the most abusive and unprofessional government agencies declaring that trained, law-abiding Americans will have even more of their rights stripped from them should outrage all gun owners, and anyone who has had the misfortune to travel by air in the last few years.

(A Google search with the words “TSA Abuses” returns 755,000 hits.)

As you know, Oregon Firearms Federation has had a long battle with the Port of Portland over their totally unlawful policy of banning CHL holders from bringing firearms into the non-secure parts of the airport.

Because of this policy, OFF members have twice defeated the Port’s efforts to expand their police powers.  Most recently, in the 2007 session, your activism scuttled that attempt despite the efforts of the soon-to-be-gone Greg MacPherson to keep the bill alive with backroom parliamentary gambits.

Last October, House Rep Jeff Barker, who sponsored the bill, and then did all he could to make sure the bill would die when he learned of the Port’s unlawful policy, informed us that the Port had told him they were changing the rule to comply with state law. There are still signs posted in the entrances to the airport saying “no weapons” but they do not include the phrase “with or without permits” any longer.

But now, the Bush administration may reverse all your hard work with a sweeping national mandate that will not only violate states’ rights, but put you and your family in greater danger when you travel to the airport.

To try to sell this as a security concern is laughable considering what a monstrous waste of time the TSA’s abusive shakedowns are. Women and the elderly are regularly subjected to embarrassing and arbitrary searches for purely theatrical purposes. People in wheelchairs are stripped of their shoes and children’s toys are confiscated. Meanwhile the number of thefts attributed to the minimum wage quality rent-a-cops employed by TSA is huge and growing.

Now these bunglers and crooks want to prevent you from picking up or dropping off your family while in possession of your self defense firearm.

While he has been no friend to gun owners, it is imperative that Gordon Smith hear from you about this latest attack on your rights.  Smith, who is running for reelection, has moved his campaign well to the left to appeal to the anti-gun crowd, but he cannot win election without the votes of gun owners.

Please contact Smith and let him know that you expect him to use his office to oppose any more attempts by the Bush administration and the TSA to further erode your rights.

Contact information and sample text follow:
_____________________________________________________________________

Dear Senator Smith,

I am deeply disturbed by the Transportation Safety Administration’s plans to consider banning firearms on all airport property.

As you know, this agency has one of the worst reputations of any organization in the US Government.

Law abiding gun owners are not a threat to the safety of air travel in this country and I urge you to do everything in your power as a US Senator to make sure the Administration knows this is a bad, and probably illegal policy.

Very truly yours,

___________________________
______________________________________________________________________

Web Form for E-mail

D.C. and Local Offices:

Bend, OR Office
Jamison Building
131 NW Hawthorne Avenue, Suite 208
Bend, OR 97701
Phone: 541.318.1298
Fax: 541.318.1396

Medford, OR Office
Security Plaza
1175 East Main, Suite 2D
Medford, OR 97504
Phone: 541.608.9102
Fax: 541.608.9104

Washington, DC Office
404 Russell Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202.224.3753
Fax: 202.228.3997

Portland, OR Office
One World Trade Center
121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1250
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: 503.326.3386
Fax: 503.326.2900

Pendleton, OR Office
Jager Building
116 South Main Street, Suite 3
Pendleton, OR 97801
Phone: 541.278.1129
Fax: 541.278.4109

Eugene, OR Office
Wayne Morse Federal Courthouse
405 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
Phone: 541.465.6750
Fax: 541.465.6808

Contact information for Spanish Speakers.

7.15.08 DC ISSUES RULES FOR GUN POSSESSION. (As we predicted.)

“We figured it out until the court tells us we haven’t.”

That was acting Washington DC Attorney General Peter Nickles explaining how DC plans to skirt the Supreme Court’s ruling on DC’s gun ban.

DC MAYOR FENTY AND POLICE CHIEF CATHY LANIER

In our June 26th alert (following the “Heller Decision” that supposedly allowed residents of Washington DC, our nation’s murder capitol, to own firearms) we said “If these restrictions are in fact Constitutional, you can rest assured that localities will continue to create absurd and onerous rules for licenses, permits and purchase.”

We were referring to all the restrictions that the Supreme Court allowed in their ruling. Sadly we were right.

The bureaucrats in DC have unveiled their rules for gun ownership in this crime infested, beleaguered city. You can read about them here. Washington DC Rules

“several council members said they agreed with tougher language that requires weapons to be unloaded, disassembled or trigger locked, except when there is a “threat of immediate harm to a person” in the home.”

As you can see, and as we expected, the anti-rights zealots who control Washington DC have created a system of rules and regulations that make owning a handgun in DC, just as impossible as it always was.

They have gone so far as to ignore the court’s ruling that guns cannot be required to be locked up. Their rules require just that. As you might imagine, the anti-gun nuts are right on board.

We were disappointed that the Court’s ruling was as narrow and anti-gun as it was, and now we see that the DC power brokers are doing everything they can to make sure no DC resident (who is not a criminal) ever gets the means to defend themselves.

This, unfortunately, is the future of gun rights in the “post-Heller” world; endless, costly litigation over every detail about gun ownership.

We can expect to face regular legal challenges and need to be prepared for them.

Our Foundation is  currently involved in numerous legal actions and we are embarking on new ones even now.  It is a sad commentary that the simple language of the Second Amendment is now the basis for untold legal fees, but that is the situation we face. If you can help support our legal efforts, you can do so here.  Please be sure to pick “Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation” from the drop down menu. Your utions to OFEF are tax deductible.

SUPREME COURT  RULES

The long awaited “Heller” decision was released today, and although the media is largely treating it like a victory for gun owners, don’t be opening the champagne just yet.

You can download and read the entire decision here.

While the Court decided that Washington DC can no longer completely ban its residents from having guns, it flatly stated that restrictions can remain on the types of guns you may own and where and how you may possess them.

That the Court was split 5 to 4 on this basic question should be cause for more than a little concern on the part of gun owners, especially in light of the upcoming elections and the possibility of new Justices being appointed by an anti-gun president.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

That’s EXACTLY the choice they made, and that a Supreme Court Justice is unaware of it is breathtaking.

In spite of the whining by the Brady Bunch, this decision was no great triumph for gun owners.

In the decision, Scalia stated nothing in Thursday’s ruling “should cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”

So the Supreme Court believes that our schools should continue to be the killing zones they have become, and government employees either deserve special protections no one else gets, or no protection at all depending on your point of view.

If you think the residents of DC are now “free” take a look at the restrictions that still stand. DC is still taking the position that common handguns may not be “registered” if they are semi-automatic.

The court went so far as to state “Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home”.

The Court agrees that it is reasonable to require a person who carries a gun every day at work (as Heller has) to have a license to carry a gun IN HIS HOME.

If these restrictions are in fact Constitutional, you can rest assured that localities will continue to create absurd and onerous rules for licenses, permits and purchase.

It is, of course, absurd that a ruling of this kind was even necessary. The debate was whether the people, who created the government, have as many rights as the government they created. And four of the nine Justices concluded that we do not. They concluded that the state is sovereign over you. They agreed that all manner of intrusions on your liberty are acceptable. These are very dangerous days for gun owners and anyone who cherishes freedom.

JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF FIGHTS BACK

Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters has filed an appeal in an attempt to protect the personal information of concealed handgun licensees in his county.

The Medford Mail Tribune, which has repeatedly editorialized against gun owners’ rights, had sought to gain access to all personal information on every license holder in Jackson County. They began seeking this information after learning that teacher Shirley Katz had a CHL and was fighting a school district policy that claimed she gave up her right to self defense when she became a public school employee.

When the Medford Mail Tribune demanded the private information on license holders (supposedly to find out how many other Jackson County teachers had chl’s) Sheriff Winters refused to turn that information over. The Tribune sued, and the same Judge who declared that Katz had no self defense rights ruled that the anti-gun newspaper could have access to gun owners personal information.

(As you know, with the support of the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, and your generosity, Katz is appealing her case.)

Now Sheriff Winters has filed an appeal to stop the Tribune from abusing the personal information of Jackson County gun owners.

This is a courageous move on Winter’s part and he deserves support from gun owners across the state.

We encourage you to send a brief note of approval and thanks to Sheriff Winters.

Sheriff Mike Winters
winterms@jacksoncounty.org
787 W  8th Street
Medford OR 97501

Department of Justice and Oregon School Boards Association File Anti-gun Briefs.

The Oregon School Boards Association has filed an amicus brief in an effort to prevent trained, licensed, school employees from having self defense firearms on school property.

This is no surprise as the OSBA has a long history of opposing self defense in schools. But now the Oregon Department of Justice has joined the battle against self defense with their own amicus brief.

As you may know, the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation is appealing the decision to deny Shirley Katz, an Oregon concealed handgun license holder, the right to protect herself and her students while at work.

Current events have made it clear that schools are one of the favorite targets of psychopaths, but the Oregon School Board Association and the DOJ have both asked the Court to ignore the very plain language of Oregon law and allow schools to declare their property open season for madmen.

It is unusual for the DOJ to  get involved in cases, but they felt that it was just too important to keep state workers disarmed and helpless.

Both briefs are available in .pdf  format. The DOJ’s is here, and the OSBA’s is here. (These are large files, please be patient while they load. If you cannot open them, e-mail us and we will send them to you directly.)

It’s interesting that both briefs make several mentions of the government as “sovereign.”

Look it up.

sovereign
noun
1 a supreme ruler, esp. a monarch.

adjective
1 sovereign control supreme, absolute, unlimited, unrestricted, boundless, ultimate, total, unconditional, full; principal, chief, dominant, predominant, ruling; royal, regal, monarchical.

In this country, the “people” are supposed to be “sovereign.”  Now apparently we are subjects of a “supreme” state.

Both briefs urge the court to ignore the very clear language of Oregon’s preemption statute. This law was passed to prevent the very kind of abuses that government agencies are guilty of across the state. Here’s what the law says:

166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.
(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

Now, you would think that the law is pretty clear. But the courts, the DOJ and the OSBA are arguing that the law  does not mean what it says.

We encourage you to read their briefs.  If you look at the DOJ’s brief, it’s clear that they believe the government as an “employer” has almost unlimited rights. The logical  extension of this position is that a state entity could forbid employees from having firearms in their own homes.

It should be noted, that the school boards and the Department of Justice reach the exact opposite conclusion that the lawyers who wrote the law conclude.

Obviously, both DOJ and OSBA are dead wrong in their interpretation of state law, but clearly they make the battle for state workers’ rights even harder.

If you work for the state in any capacity, your ability to protect yourself is in grave danger. We encourage you to contact your union representatives and ask that they step up and work for your safety.

As you can imagine, these legal battles are costly. If you can help, please remember your utions to Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation are tax deductible and will help to protect the rights of ALL Oregonians.

Please be sure to note that your ution is for the Foundation so you receive the proper receipt for your tax records.

The 2008 Primary is now history.

John McCain, who has a long history of anti-gun activity, won Oregon’s primary against the most pro-gun candidate for president (possibly ever,) Congressman Ron Paul. (In spite of the lies you may have heard from the mainstream media, Paul has not dropped out of the race.)

The NRA has now officially hitched themselves to McCain who worked overtime in 2000 to support Ginny Burdick’s ballot measure to end private sales of firearms at gun shows. (His efforts were successful.) In the past, they attacked him.

New York’s rabidly anti-gun mayor is using video of McCain as part of an ad campaign against gun ownership.

On a more local level, the US House seat being vacated by anti-gun Darlene Hooley will now be filled by either Republican MIke Erickson or Liberal Democrat Kurt Schrader.

No doubt you have heard about the very ugly primary race for this seat, Oregon District 5.

Erickson has no legislative history, but did show us his NRA survey. It was mostly pro-gun, although not at all an indication of a candidate who will be a leader for gun owners. Ericskon was attacked by his primary opponent Kevin Manniix, late in the campaign with serious claims against Erickson’s personal integrity. Whatever the merits of those charges, (and there may be plenty) Kevin Mannix himself has a long history of playing fast and loose with the truth.

It was Mannix who wrote the bill to destroy gun shows that OFF members defeated in 1999. This was the bill that served as a model for Ginny Burdick and John McCain’s ballot measure in  2000.

Mannix carried the bill on the  House floor in 1999, and reading from a script prepared by a group pretending to be pro-gun, lied about our efforts to defeat it. He later claimed that he opposed the bill, when he was running for governor. Except he wrote it, lobbied for it and carried it.

We cannot predict whether or not Erickson would be good for gun owners. We do know that Mannix was a proven enemy of gun owners and we hope he takes this last defeat as a cue to leave the political stage. But we presume Mannix will continue to run for every available office, as long as there is a media stage available.

The Democrat  who won is Kurt Schrader. Schrader is also no friend of gun owners and supported Mannix’s anti-gun show bill. Schrader will certainly side with anti-gun Democrats should he win this seat.

The Democratic race for US Senate pitched two candidates with solid liberal credentials against each other, and a third with similar views, but less background. While Jeff Merkley will certainly be no friend to gun owners, the other leading candidate, Steve Novick, was without question one of the worst candidates for public office Oregon has hever seen.

Novick has been a point man for the anti-gun crowd and argued for them in court when OFF opposed the Burdick/McCain gun show ballot measure in 2000. (Oddly,Novick also used one of his many government jobs to attack home schoolers calling them “drug dealers.”)  While we believe Merkley will be bad, and we know that Gordon Smith has been no friend to gun owners, we believe Novick was as bad as any extremist anti-gunner we have ever seen.

In the race for Attorney General, Democrat John Kroger handily beat Democrat Greg MacPherson in spite of Macpherson’s onslaught of misleading attack ads against him. (The Republicans had no candidate.)

We do not know what Kroger’s feelings about gun ownership are, but we do know that MacPherson was one of the most outspoken and shrill opponents of gun rights in the Oregon Legislature, and one of the most arrogant. His loss in this race is a great win for gun owners, since now he will be gone from the Legislature in addition to not being Attorney General.

Some of the most pro and anti-gun candidates were running unopposed, which means whoever won those primary races will most likely face no opposition in the general election. There have been attempts made in a few cases, however, to get opponents on the ballot through write in campaigns. So, there may still be some competition in the general.

One race we watched carefully was the Republican race for House District 52. That race was won by Matt Lindland. Lindland won in spite of false accusations by the campaign manager of his opponent that he was a convicted felon. (That person also happens to be the wife of former Senator Bob Packwood.)

Lindland is a mixed martial artist who responded to OFFPAC’s candidate survey with a very pro-gun position. Matt’s victory was a bright spot for gun owners and we wish him the best in the general election. You can see a list of all the primary winners here.

OFFPAC ALERT 05.09.08 Election News And Another Set Back For Gun Owners.

Because of the takeover of the Oregon Legislature by Democrats, the Republican Party has either failed to recruit candidates or simply given up on certain districts.

House District 32 is currently represented by Debbie Boone. Until now, Boone was unopposed for her house seat. Now, at the request of the local Republican Party, a challenger is mounting a write-in campaign.

The challenger, Tim Bero, is an OFF member, and the owner of TNW Firearms in Vernonia Oregon.

Longtime OFF members may remember New Years Eve Full Auto Shoots at TNW.

To learn more about Tim, see here. For other candidate info, see here.

We believe there may be more pro-gun candidates stepping up as write-in’s as the campaign season continues. If there are more, we will let you know.

On another note, gun owners suffered another setback at the hands of the Courts when David Bacon’s appeal was denied.

You can read the court’s decision here. If you believe gun rights are not under attack by the courts, note on page 2 of the decision where the Appeals Court  states; “…Bacon,as an individual citizen,lacks standing to assert a constitutional right to bear and keep arms.”

That this is the current position of the Appeals Court should chill every gun owner in America.

David’s case could still be appealed to the full Appeals Court and his legal options are being considered.  David was recently released from prison and we welcome him back, even with the limited rights has has left.

 

NATIONAL PARK GUN BAN RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL

The Department of the Interior has proposed a change in the rule banning firearms in National Parks.

For years activists and some legislators have sought a reversal of this ill-advised and dangerous policy, only to be ignored or rebuffed by the Department.

The rule would only effect persons with licenses for concealed handguns and would still be subservient to the laws of the state where the National Park was. So, for example, a person from another state, even with a handgun license from that state, would still not be allowed to be armed in Oregon’s Crater Lake Park. There appears to be no option for open carry either, even if the state allows it.

The Department of Interior is taking comments on the rule change and we strongly recommend that you contact them. Point out  that states like Oregon, which recognize no other states’ licenses would still be putting visitors at risk in Crater Lake and that National Parks are far from free of violence. In many parts of the country National Parks are a haven for drug smugglers and other criminals.

The Oregonian itself stated “Scientists must sign a statement acknowledging that the National Park Service cannot guarantee their safety from potentially dangerous persons entering the park from Mexico.”

Opponents of the rule change are trotting out the same tired arguments that have long since been proven false; “Parks are a very special place,” said Dave Uberuaga, superintendent of Mount Rainier National Park. “You don’t wear your gun into church. You should feel comfortable in a national park without carrying a concealed weapon.”  Mr. Uberuaga must not read the news.

Clearly, this proposed change does not go nearly far enough.

You can make comments at the following addresses:

Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Or you can bypass the nonsense and go directly to the comments page here and here.
Or by mail at:
Public Comments Processing, Attn: 1024-AD70; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222;
Arlington, VA 22203

Representative Linda Flores Responds To Medford Mail Tribune

House Rep Linda Flores today announced her intentions to introduce legislation to protect the privacy of Oregonians with concealed handgun licenses.

Flores said “Many of these people get CHL’s because they are worried about their safety, whether it’s from a stalker, a case of domestic violence, or some other threat. Making their names, addresses and other records public might jeopardize their security.”

Flores proposed her legislation after the Medford Mail Tribune won a lawsuit to force the Jackson County Sheriff to divulge the personal information of license holders in that county.

The Tribune started seeking this information after a Jackson County teacher sued to be allowed to carry her firearm on school property. (She lost the first round of that fight but is appealing.)

The Tribune editorialized against public employees being able to carry defensive firearms and then sought the names of all license holders in the County.

Sheriff Mike Winters refused to turn over the names and the Medford Mail Tribune sued.Today on KMED radio,(scroll down for audio links) Winters said he is considering an appeal.

Now Linda Flores is seeking to protect gun owners legislatively.

MEDFORD NEWSPAPER GETS CHL LIST

The Medford Mail Tribune, a newspaper which has repeatedly editorialized against self defense for public employees, has won a court case to get the names, addresses and occupations of all concealed handgun license holders in Jackson County.

The newspaper demanded this information as part of series of articles attacking Medford teacher Shirley Katz.  Katz, you will remember, sued to be allowed to carry her handgun to work in a Medford school (The Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation is paying Ms. Katz’s legal bills. Her case is currently being appealed.)

Judge Philip Arnold, the same judge who ruled that public employees are not protected by Oregon’s preemption statute, ruled that Bob Hunter, the Tribune’s Editor, has a right to the personal information of CHL holders. The county sheriff, Mike Winters, had refused to turn over the information, citing privacy and safety concerns.

Hunter stated in an article on October 16,2007 “This is information bought and paid for by the public, and the public has a right to it.”

This is, of course, nonsense. Licence holders pay high fees in order to have their backgrounds checked, their pictures taken and their fingerprints placed on file like criminals. The public, (and Bob Hunter) doesn’t ute a dime.

Hunter and his staff have claimed that they don’t plan to release any names. We wonder then, why he wants them.

If the Medford Mail Tribune does publish the personal information of CHL holders, we will assume that they won’t mind if we publish the home addresses and other information about their staff.

You can contact Hunter by e-mail here bhunter@mailtribune.com or by regular mail and phone here:
Mail Tribune
P.O. Box 1108
111 N. Fir St.
Medford, OR 97501
541-776-4411

New York City subways are now being patrolled by police with M-16’s and MP5 machine guns.Some subway riders think it’s a “good idea.” Sound familiar?

If you have ever been in the NYC subways, you know there is no plausible tactical use for either of these weapons. Or is there?

Do you really think it can’t happen here?

Think Again.

“You mean shoot an American.”…..”yeah.”

Linfield College Becomes Haven To Criminals and Psychopaths.

In a move that can only be described as deranged Linfield College has instituted a policy that “prohibits weapons on college property, in any vehicle on college property, or at any college-sponsored event on or off campus.”

In a statement that could have been lifted from “1984” (Freedom Is Slavery, War Is Peace) Linfield College’s Director of “Campus Safety” Mike Dressel said the new policy was “needed because of the violence that has flared on other U.S. campuses.”

That this kind of Orwellian double speak is coming from an “institute of higher learning” should make students,potential students and parents shudder.

As a result of the violent acts of criminals and the mentally ill, Linfield College’s response is to institute a policy that has gotten students and staff killed and wounded across the country.

Not only does it guarantee that its students cannot defend themselves (even off campus) but then the college announces that insane policy to the world.

Colleges across the country are seeing an organized movement to eliminate these kinds of deadly policies, but in the face of the horrific crimes at other schools, Linfield now announces that its students are bait.

Linfield College is private, and as such can make whatever rules it wants. Students and parents can, of course, choose other places to spend their money.

“Rarely do we catch intruders, but we need to keep out those that we don’t know,” Dressel said. “And it”s hard to keep Linfield an open and friendly place the whole time without risking security.”
After the last incident in Larsell, students feel less safe. “The doors being propped open at that hour make me nervous,” sophomore Angelica Neidiger said. “I live on the first floor ,and I would be very vulnerable if anyone did break in with bad intentions.”

Well, with Linfield’s new policy you can just beg for mercy.

Mike Dressel can be reached at  1-503-883-2602 or by e-mail at mdressel@linfield.edu

You can see a message from Linfield’s President here. The message includes this ironic  note: “Linfield emphasizes lifelong learning, embraces diverse cultures and international study, and recognizes moral principle and the freedom of conscience.”

Unless of course your conscience advises you to refuse to be victimized.

 

As you know, a district court in southern Oregon ruled that teachers give up their right to protect themselves and others when they accept a job in a public school.

In a case that has received worldwide attention, Medford teacher Shirley Katz sued to overturn her school’s policy of denying the right of self defense to its employees. The Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, with your generous support, has paid the legal fees for Ms. Katz.

Yesterday, attorney Jim Leuenberger filed a brief appealing the decision, a decision which directly contradicts the extremely plain language of Oregon law. Oregon law says, in no uncertain terms, that only the Oregon Legislature may make rules to restrict possession of firearms.

And now, we will need your help again. The costs for the case are mounting, but it’s essential that we see it through to a conclusion.

You see, the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation is not only funding Ms. Katz’s case. In addition to all our past litigation, OFEF has also come to the aid of other gun owners. We have been working to help provide funds for David Bacon, currently fighting an outrageous Federal charge.

We have provided legal aid to a gun owner who was pulled over in Portland in a “routine” traffic stop. When the officer discovered the driver had a concealed handgun license, he became incensed and threatened the driver with revocation because he had failed to inform the officer he had a license, something the driver had NO obligation to do.

He then called for “back-up” and numerous other Portland Police officers arrived to intimidate the driver, who had done nothing wrong. (In fact, even the traffic violation was dropped.) But the officer insisted he was going to arrange to revoke this man’s license. (To hear audio of the clueless cop discussing the “requirement” to volunteer that you have a CHL, click here.)

OFEF is providing legal services to this gentleman in his efforts to seek discipline for the officer in question.

OFEF is also assisting a businessman who was arrested at gunpoint by a Clackamas County Deputy Sheriff for having a handgun on the seat of his pickup. The only problem? It’s perfectly legal to have a handgun on the seat of your car. In fact, if you don’t have a CHL and there is no place in your vehicle to store a gun where it’s “not readily accessible,” having it on the seat beside you is virtually the only LEGAL way to transport a handgun. Once again, an innocent gun owner is the victim of ignorant or vindictive police.

You can see why I need your help. Contributions to OFEF are entirely tax deductible, and only together can we afford to confront the growing number of abuses against gun owners in Oregon. Remember, you could easily be next.

You can make a secure, online donation here. As I said, your donation to OFEF qualifies for a tax deduction, and with a growing number of cases of attacks on gun owners, we have never needed your generous support more.

Some legislators have already vowed to expand the restrictions on gun owners in the 2009 session. House Rep Peter Buckley of Ashland, has promised to introduce a bill to ban self-defense guns at schools, just as his cohort Ginny Burdick (503)244-1444 has tried to do over and over for years.

Buckley (541)482-9885 is apparently unaware of the number of people who have been gunned down in schools across the country because of the kind of policies he is proposing.

All this comes on the heels of the much anticipated “Heller” case which was heard on Tuesday.

While media outlets across the country have largely concluded that the majority of Justices will support an “individual right” theory of the Second Amendment, many gun rights organizations reacted in astonishment when the lawyer attempting to overturn Washington DC’s gun ban, agreed that “reasonable restrictions” on gun rights would be acceptable and that Americans had no legitimate right to own machine guns, a point directly contradicting his own reliance on the “Miller” case. Gun Owners of America expressed “shock and horror” and local organizations likened the comments to Pearl Harbor except that we were not torpedoing our own ships.

The outcome of this is far from clear. But we should assume that no matter what happens there will be much work to do to keep our rights.

The Chief of Police of Washington DC had some comments after the case that can only be described, (and then only with great generosity) as incoherent.

There is no question that DC has a serious issue with the quality of the people it puts in positions of power. We believe we may have already found their next Chief.