Posted on

Decision 2014

Anti-gun voters.
Anti-gun voters.

The 2014 election is upon us. Ballots are in the mail.

Your vote is essential. Rest assured the anti-gunners are well funded and working overtime to get out the vote and promote freedom haters. The loss of one Oregon Senate seat could spell the difference between keeping or losing your gun rights. Make no mistake, in many, many districts the race will be decided by a tiny number of votes.

Our candidate ratings for Oregon House, Senate and Governor are posted  here. There you will find an explanation of how we rate candidates whenever a rating is possible. To see our take on Federal races, you can go directly here.  The direct link for local races is here.

The Governor’s race has come down to a contest between two candidates who could not be more different. Dennis Richardson believes that the best way to respond to calls for more gun control is to encourage more firearms education. By that he means actually teaching young people how to safely use firearms and to respect them.

Governor Kitzhaber would prefer to see more restrictions on gun owners.  Remember, he personally accompanied anti-gun zealot Mark Kelly to a hearing in Salem to stump for an expansion of Oregon’s horribly failed background check/registration system.

While Kitzhaber supports more restrictions on law abiding Oregonians he also actively supports expanding rights for law breakers. Ballot Measure 88 would give driver’s licenses to people who are here in violation of the law.

Kitzhaber and other supporters make the absurd claim that giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens will somehow guarantee that these same lawbreakers will run out and get auto insurance. In his debate with Richardson on Oct 13th he defended his position describing illegals as “taxpayers,” an idea quickly dispelled by Richardson who pointed out they were not “taxpayers” unless they were using someone else’s Social Security number.

Gun owners should be very concerned about Measure 88.  If illegals are given driver’s licenses the next step will be voting privileges, which are already absurdly easy to get in Oregon. The supporters of 88 claimed that the driver’s “cards” could never be used for anything but driving. That’s already been proven false. Rest assured, the vast majority of illegals will not be voting for candidates who support gun rights.

The revelations of the criminal past of the Governor’s girlfriend are also troubling, not because of her fraudulent marriage or her illegal growing operation  but because of the obvious ethical problems created by her misuse of her relationship with the Governor for her personal gain.

After three terms of Kitzhaber Oregon ranks near the bottom of everything. Our unemployment rates, graduation rates and economic health are getting close to third world status.  Kitzhaber’s only response to this seems to be that he supports same sex marriage and abortion. And while that might be enough for some people, even the most committed leftists should demand a chief executive who is marginally competent and is not flushing millions of our dollars down the toilet with pathetic schemes like “Cover Oregon.”

Add to this Kitzhaber’s outrageous misuse of the Oregon State Police to push his anti-gun agenda and the decision on who to vote for becomes fairly easy.

Voters could be forgiven if they are scratching their heads over Ballot Measure 90. This measure would limit elections to only two candidates, the “top two” from whatever field started in what we now call a “primary.”

The voters pamphlet is filled with arguments for and against this measure. The proponents are claiming that this measure would open up the process to more voters and better candidates. Both rural Democrats and urban Republicans have published statements implying that this system would give them a voice they don’t have now.since they would be able to vote irrespective of the party they are in.

It is true that in Oregon an awful lot of voters are locked out of the process because they are independents and don’t have a vote in the primary elections, but it’s hard to imagine how this would be an improvement. In Portland, which is totally controlled by anti-gun Democrats, two anti-gun Democrats will be the “top two” in the final election. That gives a pro-gun independent or Republican (or third party member) the choice of voting for an anti-gun Democrat, or…an anti-gun Democrat. And while one could make the case that only an anti-gun Democrat can win in Portland anyway, you should not be forced to choose between casting your ballot for someone you disagree with or nobody.

Whether your candidate wins or loses, you should still have a right to make a statement with your vote and your conscience. A similar argument could be made if you are an anti-gun Democrat in eastern Oregon.

Almost certainly third party candidates will disappear.  Currently, minor party candidates have almost no chance of winning, but they are still allowed to run, they are still allowed to make their positions known to the best of their ability despite being shut out by the mainstream media.

If neither of the “top two” candidates reflects your principles, shouldn’t you at least have the right to make a statement with your vote regardless of your candidate’s chances of winning? Toss into this mix this interesting factoid; Michael Bloomberg, who is spending millions to impose universal gun registration of the type used in New York for mass confiscations has put well over a million bucks into promoting this measure.  Bloomberg does not exactly have a reputation of wanting to expand the voice of the people.

Oregon’s independent voters clearly need more access to the process. Some kind of “open primary” may be the way to achieve that.  But Measure 90 seems to be nothing more than a way to limit choices. All too often we feel like we are stuck with the “lesser of two evils.”   Measure 90 almost guarantees it.

You can find your current legislators and district here. Use the box in the lower right corner that says “Find My Legislators.”

Posted on

California Billionaire Tries To Buy Oregon Senate

moneypile 9.25.14

The anti-gun left, always eager to assail the funding of Republican candidates by affluent out-of-staters, has been very quiet about California billionaire Tom Steyer’s attempt to buy the Oregon Senate.

A May 22, 2014 New York Times article stated that Steyer’s goal is to spend $100 MILLION dollars to “defeat those who question or deny the established science of climate change.”

Leave it to the tolerant left to want to punish anyone who even “questions” their orthodoxy in spite of the fact that “climate change” is far from the “established science” the New York Times says it is.

It’s this sort of “established science” that has “scientists”  calling for a ban on lead ammo while admitting that such bans have produced no results.  “A partial ban went into effect in July 2008 and was later expanded. So far, however, researchers have found no evidence that the ban has resulted in a reduction in blood lead levels in condors.”

One such “scientist” (Myra  Finkelstein), who testified at a recent hearing in Oregon in favor of banning lead ammunition, may have set a new record for highly dubious “facts” when she said: “We found that over the course of 10 years, if just one half of one percent of carcasses have lead in them, the probability that each free-flying condor will be exposed is 85 to 98 percent, and one exposure event could kill a condor.”

Even the United Nations is getting into the lead banning act:With respect to lead ammunition, the most effective way of reducing risks to migratory birds is to create legislative processes to restrict sale, possession and/or use of lead ammunition to ensure lead ammunition is not left un-retrieved within the environment.

Now the folks who are using agenda-driven politics masquerading as “science” are planning to drop a boat load of money in Oregon to defeat Republican Senators and replace them with anti-gun extremists.

The Oregonian is reporting that Steyer’s group, NextGen Climate, announced Wednesday that it will work with Oregon environmentalists to try to unseat Republican state Sens. Bruce Starr of Hillsboro and Betsy Close of Albany…NextGen announced it would partner with the Oregon League of Conservation Voters on a series of get-out-the-vote activities and TV ads to support Starr’s challenger, former Democratic Rep. Chuck Riley, and Close’s Democratic opponent, Rep. Sara Gelser of Corvallis.”

As you know, the current makeup of the Oregon Senate is 16 Democrats and 14 Republicans. Exactly one Democrat, Betsy Johnson, is pro-gun. That means that with the loss of a single Republican Senator, Oregon could become the next Connecticut.  Except for Johnson, every other Democrat Senator is committed to attacking gun rights.

Betsy Close has been one of the strongest voices in defense of the Second Amendment our legislature has ever had. Betsy recently held a fundraiser where women were taught firearms skills. In contrast, her opponent, Sara Gelser, has attempted to punish foster parents who own firearms.

Bruce Starr has been a consistent pro-gun vote while his challenger, Chuck Riley, has aligned himself with far-left, anti-gun activists.

The anti-gunners are incredibly wealthy and willing to tell any lie to promote their liberty smashing agenda. It is essential that we, as Second Amendment supporters, retain these seats.

If you live in either Close or Starr’s district, please be sure to cast your vote for them. Put up a lawn sign and talk to your family and neighbors. And remember, you can help support and elect good candidates by making a donation to OFFPAC, where every dime goes for gun rights and contributions qualify for a tax credit. These races will be won by a small number of votes.  Please do all you can to make sure anti-gun extremists do not prevail.

This message was brought to you by OFFPAC.

Posted on

Our “Friends” at the National Shooting Sports Foundation



It seems the National Shooting Sports Foundation is more interested in crawling into bed with the state’s gun grabbing apparatus than advancing shooting sports.

Not only do they employ a lobbyist in Oregon who regularly works to oppose gun rights, but now they are “partnering” with the Connecticut State Police to help enforce mandatory lock up of firearms inside your home!

Connecticut’s draconian anti-gun laws are shoved down the throats of CT residents by the State Police, so why is NSSF so eager to help them?

“We’ll also be reminding Connecticut gun owners about laws requiring locked storage of firearms in their homes.” 
said Lt. Paul Vance, Connecticut State Police public information officer in an NSSF press release.

“We are pleased to work cooperatively with Connecticut State Police at the Eastern States Exposition to promote the proper storage of firearms to deter unauthorized access,” said NSSF President and CEO Steve Sanetti. “Our efforts encourage a commitment to safety and personal responsibility that is helping to reduce firearms accidents nationally.”

Here’s what NSSF says about itself: “Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports.”

Yet NSSF seems far more interested in promoting the goals of the agencies that work overtime to attack gun owners. In this release they write proudly of their work with Cabelas to grease the skids for the ATF.

Here they state the reasons why the “firearms industry” opposes “universal background checks.” Among the reasons are:

” The current background check system is broken. The background checks that are currently done are not as accurate and complete as they should be. ”   

“REGISTRATION – According to the National Institute of Justice, “universal background checks” are only  effective if there is national registration of all guns and all private party transfers.”

Yet they seem to be all too eager to be the handmaiden for the very agencies that are abusing gun owners with a failed background check system now.

As a side note, it was fascinating to see the response people posted on Facebook when we noted NSSF’s association with the CT State Police.

Here’s a sample:

 Seriously? You’re bitching about the NSSF handing out free gun locks and promoting safe securing of firearms? God save us from these heathens.”

“Wow OFF making themselves look like idiots hating on this. Hire a PR person fast…. There is no issue giving out free locks and reminding ppl to take proper precautions at ones home.”

Free gun locks… Give away free gun locks and you’re suddenly “in bed with the gun grabbers”.. That’s the most retarded thing I’ve heard all day. Whoever is in charge of facebook posts for OFF is doing more harm than good.”



Posted on

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

police beat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Kitzhaber’s Jihad Continues


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The statutes above require you to prove the suspect“knowingly”was aware they are not qualified for these transactions. The suspect’s culpable mental state will need to be determined.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

OFF Logo vector

Posted on

Corrections Officers Get Fifed.


barney fife

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hi-cap pistol


Posted on

Corvallis City “Civil” Servant



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

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

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

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


Joel Hirsch

City Council – Ward 6

HIrsch’s email is:

if you want to share your thoughts with him.

Posted on

Rolling Stoned


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

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

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

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

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


Ginny Burdick
Ginny Burdick approved this message.



Posted on

Politicize Disaster


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

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

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

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

hate NRA_cartoon

Posted on

Racist Gun Owners


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                   The man is dangerous loon. Guns save lives.

bullet car