Posted on

11.08.06 Post Election Wrap Up.

Tuesday’s election has turned over both houses of Oregon’s legislature, and the Governorship, to the Democrats.

The US House has been taken over by Democrats as well. Next in line for the job of Speaker of the House is Nancy Pelosi, an ultra liberal from California.

Control of the US Senate is still to be resolved. is now in the hands of the Democrats.

Oregon gun owners’ obviously are concerned about what this means to them.

Democrats have moderated their position on gun control somewhat. In the tightly contested Senate race between George Allen and Jim Webb in Virginia, the Democrat Webb proudly posted his NRA survey on his website and openly courted gun owners. Other Democrats have pointedly avoided the issue, but there can be no mistake that the most powerful and vocal Democratic leaders in the US Congress are rabidly anti-gun.

So it would not be unreasonable to expect a new semi-auto ban to be introduced. As you know, George Bush has repeatedly promised to sign such a bill should it reach his desk. It’s likely that any new ban would not have a grandfather clause to allow you to keep guns you already own.

Even if it is only as bad as the original, many magazines will be banned. Keep in mind that possibility NOW before any new action can be taken by a Democratically control US Congress.

Although not specifically gun related, an amnesty program for illegal aliens is now virtually assured. When that happens, millions of illegals will be closer to voting rights, and it’s a safe bet to which party they will be loyal.

Locally we can expect, at very least, most of the anti-gun bills introduced by Ginny Burdick to be brought back. For a look at what she attempted last session, see here.
(These include a 10 year prison sentence and a quarter million dollar fine for owning a semi-automatic rifle.)

Last session, with Republicans in control of the Oregon House, we were reasonably certain that anti-gun bills would not get hearings there. That seems far less likely now, although it will depend greatly on who winds up as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

While at least one of the Democrats who sat on that committee in the past was reliably pro-gun, the new leadership in the House will have tremendous leverage to pressure him to hear anti-gun bills should he become the new chairman. (Which is highly unlikely.)

It would be premature to jump to any conclusions about what will happen starting in January. Remember, Oregon’s concealed handgun law, as flawed as it was, passed in 1989, when the Democrats controlled both Houses and the Governor’s office. In 1999, when the Republicans controlled the House and Senate, we saw Republicans promote, and very nearly pass, Kevin Mannix’s anti-gun show bill, failing by only one vote.

Still, it would be wise to assume that we will have far greater fights than we have in recent years and the House Democrats will be much more open to moving anti-gun bills.

When the Republicans controlled the House last session, very few pro-gun bills moved out of committee, so you can imagine what the chances will be with the Democrats in control.

What’s important now is to be prepared, organized and active. If you are a supporter of OFF, thank you for all your help. If you are not yet a member, there has never been a more important time get involved. You can join and support OFF online here:

We are expecting the first anti-gun bills to be introduced before the session starts. As always, OFF will fight without compromise for your gun rights. Your involvement now is essential.

Posted on

10.26.06 Election Alert From OFFPAC.

A Message From OFF-PAC

As you know, the elections are upon us.

Most voters have already received their ballots, and it’s time to make the decisions that will decide what kind of government we will have to live under for the next two years.

Just as the makeup of the US Congress will have a profound effect on our lives, so too will the makeup of the Oregon legislature.

For some time we have had our ratings posted for Oregon candidates. You can view those here.

OFF PAC urges you to exercise your right to vote and be a part of the process. If you feel that you don’t have sufficient information about a candidate, we strongly urge you to contact them. Remember, they are asking you to hire them to do a job. A job that will effect your rights and freedoms.

You can find contact information for all candidates here.

If you are unsure of what district you are in, you can use this link to find out.

Your efforts in the past have prevented the anti-gun forces in the Oregon legislature from gaining any ground, but we have already been informed by an Oregon legislator that Senator Ginny Burdick, (whose only interest is new gun control) has anti-gun legislation ready for introduction.
In fact, she may try to introduce it BEFORE the next session begins. If that happens, we’ll let you know. So you can see, who you elect will be very important.

Neither of the major party candidates for Governor can be viewed as friends of gun owners. Neither would answer our brief survey.

While Ted Kulongoski recently sent a letter to some voters claiming he’d applied for a concealed handgun license, he has made it quite clear in the past that he is no friend of gun owners.

Ron Saxton got high praise from the NRA, but they ignored his past support for radical anti-gunners like Burdick and Earl Blumenauer.

See “NW Republican’s” reporting on Saxton’s record.

Here, “NW Republican’s” blogger , Ted Piccolo notes “For there is the unique way in which Mr. Saxton has been able to take both sides of various issues. Conservative when speaking to conservatives yet liberal when voting or speaking to liberals.”

Unless a pro-gun, minor party candidate beats the odds and becomes governor, we will not have a friend in the governor’s mansion next year.

That’s why the makeup of the legislature will be so important.
Please be sure to be involved this election.

Posted on

10.13.06 Washington County Ordinance Threatens Gun Owners.

WASHINGTON COUNTY NOISE ORDINANCE THREATENS GUN OWNERS

While this alert is very last minute, it’s important news for people who live or shoot in Washington County.

Alert gun owners have made us aware of a proposed “noise control” ordinance that may expose gun owners to civil liabilities.

The ordinance, which can be downloaded here proposes civil penalties for a wide range of activities that produce sound at over 60 (dba) from 7am to 10 pm and over (50 dba) from 10pm to 7am.

Although the proposed rule includes a long list of exceptions, there is NO exception for the lawful discharge of firearms.

Furthermore, any “private citizen may issue a notice of civil infraction.” Clearly the potential for abuse and harassment of gun owners is tremendous.

Public comment is being accepted through today, Oct. 13th, but we strongly urge that you make your concerns heard even if you receive this alert after today.

Written comments may be sent to:
Heather Robinson
Washington County
Dept. of Health & Human Services
155 N. First Ave.,MS#4
Hillsboro, OR 97123
Fax: 503-846-4928

You may send e-mail to <noise@co.washington.or.us>

Keep in mind that politicians respond to constituents no matter what “deadlines” are proposed. Please let Washington County know that you want an unambiguous exception for lawful firearms’ discharge.

Posted on

09.28.06 Q&A With OSP.

Questions and Answers on Background Checks.

Oregon Firearms Federation, with a lot of help from Representative Kim Thatcher, has received some answers to questions we had about the current background check procedure for firearms purchases.

As you may know, there has been a dramatic increase in delays and denials in the last few months.(OSP has informed us that the FBI is requiring more intrusive background checks searching for persons with histories of “domestic violence.” However, some believe that this is part of a broad based program to interfere with legitimate firearms purchases.)

We met with the Oregon State Police and Representative Thatcher and there the OSP requested that we supply our questions in writing. We did, and they eventually replied.

We did however, have an additional question to which they have not replied.

That question was, “where does OSP get the authority to tell gun buyers they have to wait 10 or more days to complete a transfer?” We asked them that on Sept 6th 2006 and have received no response.

(Update. On Nov. 22, 2006, we received a phone call from the Oregon State Police ID unit, offering to address this question. They informed us that, in their opinion, they got the authority to tell buyers they needed to wait for various lengths of time, by ORS 166.412.The specific section they referred to says the following:  (b) If the department is unable to determine if the purchaser is qualified or disqualified from completing the transfer within 30 minutes, the department shall notify the dealer and provide the dealer with an estimate of the time when the department will provide the requested information.

However, if you read the next line, you will see the following: (c) If the department fails to provide a unique approval number to a gun dealer or to notify the gun dealer that the purchaser is disqualified under paragraph (a) of this subsection before the close of the gun dealer’s next business day following the request by the dealer for a criminal history record check, the dealer may deliver the handgun to the purchaser.

The Oregon State Police do not have a policy of informing gun dealers that they are, in fact, allowed to make the transfer without an approval after the specified time. Dealers in states who contact NICS directly are informed of the Federal Law which allows transfers to take place without an approval after three business days.

For a copy of the questions and the answers provided by the Oregon State Police, please use this link.

Posted on

08.14.06 Even More On New Background Checks.

STILL MORE ON BACKGROUND CHECKS,

As you know from previous alerts, OFF has been investigating new background check requirements for persons buying guns from FFL dealers.

In a previous alert, we told you about House Rep. Kim Thatcher’s efforts on behalf of gun owners.

Now, OFF has received a letter from Senator Gordon Smith responding to an inquiry we made about the new background check procedures.

As we have told you, we have heard from a number of gun owners who have been delayed in their purchases because of these new and more extensive checks.

Smith sent us a copy of a letter he received from the FBI which we are passing along to you. You can download a copy of this letter here.

Included in the letter from Senator Smith was a copy of the “Voluntary Appeal File Application.” You can download a copy of that here.

This is a program that allows the FBI to maintain information on you in their files, that they are not allowed to keep without your permission.

Its stated purpose is to streamline gun purchases for people who have been wrongly delayed in the past.

If you have experienced unwarranted delays, you may want to consider this program. However, we strongly recommend that you make this decision with utmost care.

We provide this for your information only and it should not be considered an endorsement of this program.

Posted on

08.03.06 Still More On New Background Checks.

STILL MORE ON BACKGROUND CHECKS

As you know from previous alerts, the Oregon State Police have intensified background checks for firearms purchases
.
As a result, we have heard from many gun owners who have had firearms purchases delayed for lengthy periods of time while the police sought more information about potential instances of “domestic violence” in their pasts.

As we told you previously, the State Police have stated that these more extensive background checks were mandated by the FBI. House Representative Kim Thatcher, one of Oregon’s most committed supporters of gun rights, requested more information from the State Police. You can download a copy of their response here.

The letter includes the following statement:

“However in late 2004 during a training session of the National Instant Check System (NICS) conducted by FBI, NICS representatives noted that the Oregon Firearms Instant Check System (FICS) check did not include the appropriate research into misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence when there is no indicator regarding domestic involvement.”

Note that we are only aware of problems starting more recently than late 2004. It is also interesting to note the following sentences from the letter:

“In these instances, it is not possible for the background check to be ‘instant’ and still ensure the purchaser can lawfully take possession of the firearm. As referenced in 166.412(c), the dealer may release the firearm to the purchaser after the specified period.

As we have pointed out in the past, if the State Police do not give an approval or denial “before the close of the gun dealer’s next business day following the request by the dealer for a criminal history record check, the dealer may deliver the handgun to the purchaser.

We hope this information will be useful to gun owners who are experiencing trouble making legal purchases, and we thank Representative Thatcher for her interest and involvement in issues of importance to gun owners.

Posted on

07.25.06 Update On New Background Checks By Oregon State Police

MORE ON NEW BACKGROUND CHECKS.

On June 16th, OFF alerted you to new and more invasive background checks being conducted by the Oregon State Police for firearms purchases
.
As you know, OFF has been receiving reports of many lengthy delays for people who have no criminal history.

We contacted Senator Gordon Smith’s office to find out exactly what was going on. Today we received an e-mail from Matt Hill, a staffer for Smith. He provided the following information.

“NICS/FBI was doing a training in Oregon in Spring of 2005. In
conversations with OSP, they found that OSP (in performing background
checks) was only looking for certain types (felony) of arrests and
convictions.
NICS/FBI asserted that OSP needs to be looking at the misdemeanor
crime of harassment to determine if it meets the domestic violence
threshold under the law.
Harassment now triggers a more lengthy check by OSP. In certain
cases, OSP needs to research whether there was a conviction or just an
arrest, and determine if the harassment “victim” is someone within the
household — which would trigger “domestic violence.” OSP said that
this research is what is taking longer for some background checks,
especially if it’s a common name.”

If you have been unjustifiably delayed or denied as a result of these new rules, and you would like to share your story, please e-mail us with the specifics of your case.

Posted on

06.30.06 Pro-gun Amendment Passes House.

 

Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave arguing for her pro-gun amendment.

On June 28th Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave passed an amendment to an appropriations bill that stops the federal government from implementing the trigger lock provisions of the gun lawsuits liability bill passed by the NRA last year.

The Musgrave Amendment (an amendment to the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations bill) will allow no funds to be made available (to the Justice Department) to carry out section 924(p) of title 18. This section is the penalties section relating to the new trigger lock law that says that every handgun sold, must be sold with a trigger lock.

The penalty for manufacturers, importers and licensed dealers who fail to provide a trigger lock with a sale of a handgun is:

Suspension for not more than 6 months, or revocation of their license.

Fine of not more than $2,500.

The trigger lock provision was part of the “Firearms Manufacturers Protection” bill that was signed into law on Oct. 26, 2005. The trigger lock provision took effect on April 24th, 2006. At the time the bill was being debated, we warned of the dangers of the trigger lock requirement, but the NRA insisted that the bill pass with that and other bad provisions.

There were 230 aye votes and 191 noes on Musgrave’s amendment. All four Democratic, Oregon House members voted against your rights, only Republican Greg Walden supported the amendment.

Hooley, DeFazio,Blumenauer and Wu all voted “no.”

You can view the vote here.

Capitol sources informed us, that before the vote, it looked like the amendment might die because the NRA had not taken a position. When pressed by hill staffers, the NRA simply would not take a stand on the amendment.

According to those sources, the NRA’s reasoning for not getting involved was “our plate is just too full right now.”

Remember that early in 2005 the NRA claimed they would strip out these bad provisions after they passed the gun lawsuits liability bill in the Senate. Then, when the trigger lock provisions were added in the Senate, they claimed they HAD to pass this bill as it was. They put a full court press on Congress to pass a bill with trigger lock provisions, and dismissed the anti-gun amendments as “meaningless.”

Anyone who needs their firearm in a hurry, but has been fed the lie about trigger locks, won’t call this capitulation on trigger locks “meaningless.”

This amendment was an attempt to undo what the NRA did in 2005 — and it passed, despite the naysayers in the institutional gun lobby. Now we need to get the same amendment attached to the appropriation in the Senate.  

Posted on

06.2006 An Oregon Gun Dealer Takes On Oregon’s “New” Background Checks.

By Sheriff Mike Cook

As the manager of a new firearms dealership here in Oregon I felt it was important to give you a heads up about something that is doing harm to our business and causing people to be delayed for long amounts of time to purchase a firearm and take it into possession. This is a violation of their Constitutional rights to bear arms as I see it.

The case in point is about a man who came in and ordered a firearm for his own protection as he had just been issued a concealed carry license and wanted a firearm for this purpose. He came into my shop ordered the firearm and it was delivered for his pickup on May 24, 2006 at which time he filled out the federal form 4473. He answered all the questions on this form with NO with exception of the first question to which he responded “yes.” Seeing that the form was filled out properly I then called the Oregon State Police I.D. Section and ran the usual background check. At that time they delayed him. I explained this and held the firearm. After a delay of seven days until May 31, 2006 they called back and delayed him again. Then they called back and delayed him a third time until June 16, 2006. The next call delayed him until June 21, 2006. I finally got authorization to deliver the firearm to him on June 20, 2006. This was almost a month long ordeal for him and our business.

I opened this firearms store on March 7th, 2006 and have had about five or six delays to date. I do not know what the average was except when I worked at another gun store for the previous five years we had very few delays.

The problem comes that if you are delayed they will not tell you why. However if you are denied they will tell you why with a phone call to them. I must provide you with a number to call if you are denied.

As there have been many more delays lately Kevin Starrett of OFF informed me that the Oregon State Police I.D. Section had been informed by the FBI that they were in violation of the Brady Act which requires them to check out domestic violence arrests. So a new policy was put into place, as they believe federal law over rides Oregon law, and mandates that they follow federal law. The act makes it so that you can’t own firearms if you have ever been convicted of a crime of domestic violence at any time in the past.

Here is the problem. If you moved here from another state or lived for a time in another state then they must check with that state to see if you were convicted if they see an arrest on your record.

The man who was delayed at my store moved into Oregon from another state. Back in the 70’s his 16 year old daughter had been forbidden from going to the prom when she got into trouble. So she was upset and cooked up a plan with her older sister to turn her father in for assault. She had some bruises to show from playing sports and told a very good lie to the police. So he got arrested and taken to the local police department. When the full story came out he was never formally charged or convicted of a crime, and the matter was dropped. However on his record it shows an arrest. So when this state was contacted for the full story it took a long time for them to respond as the report had been archived and was on microfiche. This is why the long delay. (As a side note they even talked about charging his daughter with filling a false police report, but this never happened.)

As I see it, there is a much simpler way to handle this.
As Kevin has pointed out, Oregon law requires that after a delay the FFL dealer can deliver the firearm after the next day’s close of business. In other words they have 24 hours to get back or the person can pick up the firearm anyway. This has never been followed to my knowledge. Most dealers don’t complain as they don’t want to deal with the problems it would cause.
However there is a simple fix to this problem. On the 4473 form is the question, “have you ever been convicted of a crime of domestic violence?”

If the person answered this with a NO and they have been, then they are guilty of false swearing on that document which is a crime. This is how it should be dealt with as all the information on how to contact them and arrest them for that crime is on the document. The firearm can be recovered at that time.

Even when a person is denied on the purchase of a firearm it means that they have committed the crime, however no one, to my knowledge, has been charged with this crime in Oregon. So the innocent citizen is being delayed and this is very wrong. Our legislators or the courts should deal with this problem once and for all and quit causing a problem for the business and the honest citizens. I think it’s time to either go back to the federal system or change the policy at the OSP I.D. section to make them fall in line with Oregon law.

With the federal system (NICS) you don’t even need to do the background if the person has a valid Concealed Carry License (CCW) or if they are a police officer on active duty or honorable retired. There is no charge for the check to be done on this system and no record is supposed to be kept for any length of time.

Under our system where the State Police I.D. Section is the point of contact, everyone must go through the check and there is a $10.00 charge for this “service.”

So far this year they have taken in over $600,000 dollars of your hard earned dollars with this system. This is nothing more than a hidden sales tax on firearms. They also keep a record of this sale along with information on the firearm and its serial number for five years. This has been adjudicated by our federal courts as un-Constitutional. No one in Oregon has challenged this, why?

The system could be simplified by having a small device in each business that when a person wants to buy a firearm we could then swipe his or her driver’s license which has a bar code on it, and it would say approved, denied, or please call if there is some other problem. If they have a CHL they have already been through the background check and paid for it. The state has no business knowing what kind of firearm was purchased or its serial number. There are already checks in place to catch stolen firearms. As for the cost, that should be provided by the federal government out of the general fund taxes we pay.

I say it’s time for action. The system is not working and needs to be fixed. We should ask everyone running for the legislature how they intend to fix these problems if they want our vote.

Michael E. Cook, Coos County Sheriff, Retired.
Manager of Bay Area Firearms Llc, North Bend, Oregon 

541-756-4300

Posted on

06.16.06 New Background Checks Instituted. Federal Control Of CHL’s Coming?

NEW BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIREMENTS. FEDERAL CONTROL OF HANDGUN LICENSES?

Persons attempting to purchase firearms in Oregon have recently been facing new and more intrusive background checks.

The Oregon State Police have been instructed by the FBI to do more extensive checks on buyers in an attempt to find more people guilty of crimes of “domestic violence.”

As a result many, many purchasers are facing long delays . Often, people in possession of concealed handgun licenses are being needlessly delayed in spite of their obvious qualifications.

Buyers should, however, be aware of Oregon law 166.412.

In section 3(c) it states: “If the department fails to provide a unique approval number to a gun dealer or to notify the gun dealer that the purchaser is disqualified under paragraph (a) of this subsection before the close of the gun dealer’s next business day following the request by the dealer for a criminal history record check, the dealer may deliver the handgun to the purchaser.”

If you believe you have been wrongly delayed and are willing to share your experience, please send us a note describing what happened.

On another issue, you may have heard about a bill being promoted by Senator George Allen of Virginia. The bill’s (S. 3275) purpose is to mandate, Federally, a recognition of concealed handgun licenses. You can read the text of the bill here.

While we obviously support the goal, we think this bill could prove to be far more dangerous than helpful. As we are learning by our experience with the FBI’s meddling in Oregon’s background checks, once the Federal government gets involved, the danger of new restrictions, on top of existing state restrictions becomes immense.

While the bill has the support of the National Rifle Association, you’ll recall that the bill they heavily promoted (and passed) concerning immunity for gun dealers, came at the cost of dangerous new gun controls.

The last thing Oregon gun owner’s need are New York style mandates brought on by “national standards.”

Allen is reportedly planning a run for President, and needs to hear from gun owners that interstate recognition is a state matter, and the Feds should keep out of it. As more and more states are recognizing other’s licenses, this bill is dangerous and unneeded.

E-mails can be sent directly to Allen’s staff at this address and you can bypass the webform on his website. For more on the potential dangers of this bill, please read the commentary by Andy Barniskis here.

Posted on

05.06.06 Atkinson For Governor. (From OFFPAC)

A Message From OFF PAC

Dear Fellow Gun Rights Supporter,

As you know, we have very high standards for people who are asking to be hired for public office. OFF PAC rarely endorses candidates but always holds them accountable.

We are getting close to the final days to vote in the primary election. If you are a registered Republican, we strongly urge you cast your vote for Senator Jason Atkinson for Governor.

Of the Republican candidates, only Atkinson has a solid record on gun rights. Of the three major Republican candidates, only Atkinson went on the record and returned the OFF PAC candidate survey. (Oddly, Ron Saxton completed a six page NRA survey, but refused to answer a six question OFF survey.)

Atkinson has made no secret of his desire to reach out to gun owners. He has been a consistent voice for gun rights in the legislature. In contrast, Mannix has a well known anti-gun record in spite of the high marks given to him in the past by the National Rifle Association, and Saxton has no record on gun rights at all.

Since both Mannix and Saxton have a record of trying to work both sides of the fence, (Mannix was a liberal Democratic legislator and favors government solutions to every problem, and Saxton has close ties to the liberal establishment in Portland,) we think that Atkinson’s consistency on many issues makes him the only reasonable choice in this race.

Regardless of which party you are in, we hope you will consider financially supporting Senator Atkinson, and if you are a registered Republican, voting for him in the primary.

Gun owners can make the difference in this race. In the last race for governor, Mannix lost by a narrow margin after gun owners learned of his anti-gun record, in spite of his lying to voters about that record. Your vote can make all the difference in this race as well.

Please support Senator Atkinson financially and with your vote.

For more, please see our commentary page.

Posted on

04.18.06 Special Session Coming.

Special Session Coming

As you no doubt know, the Oregon legislature will be meeting for a special session starting on Thursday, April 20th.

While we expect the issues on the table to be limited, we have no guarantees. So rest assured we will be watching carefully.

If you are in the Medford area, tune in tomorrow to KMED at 7:05AM for a discussion of the latest BATF actions with OFF Executive Director Kevin Starrett. As you probably know, the BATF has ramped up their attacks on gun owners recently and Congress has held several hearings dealing with ATF abuses.

We have posted new links on our website to bring you up to speed on these hearings if you missed them the first time. You can find those links here.

They appear at the top of the page.

If you are going to be in the Portland area this weekend, consider stopping by the Expo gun show.

Please come by the OFF table if you make it to the show. There’s lots to talk about including the upcoming elections.

If you have not already gotten a copy of “Understanding Oregon’s Gun Laws” this would be a great time to pick one up.

Hope to see you there.

Posted on

02.19.06 ATF HEARINGS BECOME FORUM FOR MORE GUN CONTROL.

If you missed the BATFE hearings in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, held on the February 15th, we’d like to give you a brief wrap up.

Annette Gelles, a gun show promoter, testified about outrageous harassment and abuse at the hands of ATF agents and other law enforcement officers at gun shows in Virginia.

Stories were told of customers having agents show up at their homes to grill their family members about gun purchases, sometimes before they even returned home from the show. If no one was home, neighbors were questioned.

James Lalime, a private citizen who worked as a salesman for an FFL dealer sometimes, was detained and questioned, all while law enforcement agents, some with obscenities printed on their tee shirts, made ridiculous and unsupported accusations against him.

But as is so often the case, the star of the show was a FFL dealer whose comments were largely an attack on private collectors. John White, a former police officer, seemed more concerned that collectors were able to sell guns without the onerous background checks that are required of dealers, than he was about the abuses being perpetrated by the ATFE agents and other police officers.

The legislators present expressed more than a little skepticism at the stories they were told. Congressman Delahunt, from (where else?) Massachusetts, virtually accused the witnesses of lying about the good men and women of BATFE. And he and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee used the hearing to promote even more gun control.

The Chairman,Howard Coble, missed no opportunity to repeat over and over, that they were NOT there to criticize ATFE.

No one from ATFE testified, although the chair indicated that they would be at a future hearing.
We believe that these hearings may easily turn into a new attempt to impose Oregon style gun show restrictions (or worse) on a national level.

The behavior of law enforcement at gun shows in Virginia was inexcusable and frightening. BATFE has a long history of abuses against gun owners, and this was only one more example of that abuse. If Congress members continue to bend over backwards to defend or deny the actions of BATFE, look forward to a new attack on your rights and privacy, both by rogue law enforcement agents and members of Congress.

Posted on

01.2006 Betrayed By The Bench. Larry Pratt, Gun Owners of America.

Betrayed by the Bench
by Larry Pratt, Executive Director, Gun Owners of America.

John Stormer is an amazing author. He has sold over 11 million books. One, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, sold 7 million. That was in 1964 when there was no internet, no faxes, no talk shows
for conservatives.

Stormer may have been the first to put a coupon in the back of the book for additional orders.

So, a new book by John Stormer means we can assume that he has something else to say.

Indeed he does.

In Betrayed by the Bench, Stormer traces the lawlessness of somany of today’s rulings to the revolt against the common law that is Christian through and through. The revolt was led from the Harvard Law School by professors such as its Dean, Roscoe Pound. The replacement was the tyranny of case law.

The case law preferred by Pound and his followers allowed them to slip out from under the constraints of the timeless and universal precepts foundational to the Common Law. Case law
allows judges to make law.

One of Pound’s followers, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, made this amazing statement: “We are under a constitution, but the constitution is what we say it is.”

Equally as amazing as Hughes’ assertion was the failure to impeach him for violating his oath of office. But as Stormer points out, the idea of absolutes binding men died in the pulpits before it
died in the civil realm.

Stormer calls the result of judicial lawmaking an on-going Constitutional Convention. I would call it a coup d’etat.

This coup has been hard to spot because the judges did not have a bunch of colonels circling the seat of government with tanks. We have witnessed a coup by increments , something that is much harder to detect.

There has been a concerted effort to exclude the Declaration of Independence from the corpus of binding law. This is a legal impossibility in view of the nature of the Declaration, it is a contract much the same as Articles of Incorporation are.

No one is at liberty to unilaterally change the terms of a contract.

Our fourth president, John Quincy Adams, had this to say about the foundational role of the Declaration for the Constitution and laws made pursuant to it:

The virtue which had been infused into the Constitution of the United States was no other than
those abstract principles which had been first proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence namely the self-evident truths of the natural and unalienable rights of man and the sovereignt`y of the people, always subordinate to the rule of right and wrong, and always responsible to the Supreme Ruler of the universe for the rightful exerciseof that power. This was the platform upon which the Constitution of the United States had been erected.

The boldness of the Court’s usurpation is somewhat like the old lineof the crook who is caught in the act exclaiming, “Who do you believe, me or your lying eyes”?

To give but one example, consider the 14th Amendment. The 39th Congress expressly stipulated that the Amendment was not designed to control schools, voting and elections.

Indeed, that was so well understood that the 15th Amendment was enacted in order to deal with voting.The record of the clear intent of the framers of the 14th Amendmenthas not stopped the Supreme Court from inventing the doctrine of incorporation out of thin air. This has allowed theSupremes to increase consolidation of power in their own hands (and in the handsof their willing accomplices in the legislative and the executive branches) in Washington. This has been done at the expense of the Constitutional reservation of most governmental powers to the states
and to the people.

Incorporation might be best understood by thinking of it as incorporating stolen powers. The lack of jurisdiction for many ofthe Court’s decisions is comparable to the city of Paris levying a tax to be paid by citizens of the United States in the U.S.Incorporation is now being expanded by a majority (six of the nine justices) of the Supremes to allow for foreign law as a guide to their judicial lawmaking. When the Court recently overturned capital punishment for an 18-year old who had cold-bloodedly murdered a neighbor when he was just a “child” of 17, Justice Breyer claimed the support of the murder law in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe! The country run by a thug who has proclaimed himself a black Hitler!

Gun owners should not be surprised when the gun control laws of some other thugocracy such as Cuba form the basis of a Supreme rape of the 2nd Amendment. Americans generally should not be surprised at any unconstitutional notion the Supremes may take into their heads.

One challenge we face in freeing ourselves from this judicial tyranny is that they have the benefit of a mind fake that has us believing that anything, no matter how outrageous, that comes out of the mouth of a judge is law. Hence we see other government officials who have all taken the same oath of office to uphold the Constitution violating their oaths by obeying unconstitutional edicts of the Supreme Court. This is otherwise known as “upholding the rule of law.” Of course, it is anything but.

Until “We the People” remember that we only gave the crowd in Washington a very limited amount of power to do only a very few things, we will continue to be ruled by unelected and unaccountable politicians wrapped in black robes.

Posted on

Federalized concealed carry reciprocity – A Right to Keep and Bear Arms Trojan Horse

Federalized concealed carry reciprocity.
A Right to Keep and Bear Arms Trojan Horse
by Andy Barniskis

There are presently in congress several pending bills that would require all states to honor concealed carry permits issued in any state of the union.

At first glance it would seem that passage of such legislation would be a major triumph, expanding our right to keep and bear arms nationally. However, the stakes are high and the consequences of involving the federal government in carry permit matters will prove counter — even detrimental — to both our gun rights and states rights.

Proponents of these bills maintain that the issue is simple; carry permits should be treated no differently from state drivers licenses or marriage licenses under the “full faith and credit” provision of Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

The first sentence of that section reads, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” That sounds all good. But, the second sentence reads, “And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” In other words, the federal government may butt in to dictate the proceedings of the states!

What will surely happen, if the federal government dictates that states must accept concealed carry permits from other states, is that anti-gun states will raise a cry that “reasonable minimum standards” should be applied to the issuance of carry permits. The result? Take my home state of Pennsylvania, for example, which is arguably one of the less restrictive “shall issue” concealed carry states. Currently, all I need to do to obtain a permit to carry is apply, have a clean record, and pay $19 for a five-year permit, which must be issued to me in less than 45 days.

Will states that don’t allow their own citizens to carry firearms at all regard that as a reasonable minimum standard? Don’t bet your freedom on it — but do expect congress in the very near future — if not immediately — to impose fingerprinting, mug shots, mandatory training, and high administrative costs. And, once the principle of federally-dictated standards for concealed carry is established, increasingly restrictive standards could become a backdoor way for carry permits to be de facto prohibited by federal regulation, without congressional action.

Those who argue that the application of full national faith and credit to drivers licenses is a good analogy for what they seek for carry permits, may be raising a better example than they realize.

Here in Pennsylvania, over the years we have had photo drivers licenses, auto emissions inspections, and “motor voter” registration forced upon us by the federal government, all over the futile resistance of our state legislature.

In the case of emission inspections, not only were emission standards dictated, but also the levels of fines for non-compliance. The experience of many other states has been similar,so why would anyone not expect federal involvement in carry permits to result in federal micro-management of issuing standards?

Firearms permit-to-carry reciprocity in neighboring states is desirable, but will never be worth trading away our fundamental rights to obtain, nor placing our fundamental rights at risk. In fact, what advocates of federalized concealed carry reciprocity seek, benefits only a minority of a minority — those who have a carry permit at home, and also wish to carry in another state.

But, if obtaining reciprocity results in increased restrictions in our home state, that affects every single citizen, every single gun owner. We will be better off continuing to fight for reciprocity at home, on a state-by-state basis, never forgetting that licensing a right converts that right to a privilege.

Ultimately, we should not lose sight of our ideal: that armed self defense is a genuine constitutional right, and inalienable rights should not be subject to the prior constraint of licensing.

Mr. Barniskis presently chairs the legislative committee of the Bucks County(PA) Sportsmen’s Coalition. He also is Legislative Chairman for Falls Township Rifle and Pistol Association, and is a past president (1981 – 1986) of the Cast Bullet Association, Inc., a national organization that specializes in the technology of accurate long range shooting using homemade bullets cast from lead alloys. He has held national records set in Cast Bullet Association registered competitions. In 1995, he was the plaintiff in a suit successfully challenging the authority of the Bucks County Sheriff to introduce new requirements to the process of applying for a permit to carry a concealed firearm.