Category: Commentary

A Gun RIghts Activist Responds To The Virginia Tech Shooting.

By F. Paul Valone

F. Paul Valone is president of Grassroots North Carolina, a Second Amendment advocacy group.

If your state lawmakers killed legislation to protect students from slaughter, would you celebrate by saying, “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus”?

This 2006 hubris was courtesy of Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker. The legislation was Virginia House Bill 1572. It would have let handgun owners with permits for concealed guns carry those weapons on college campuses. Harsh reality trumped Hincker’s feeling of safety when Seung-Hui Cho murdered 32 at Virginia Tech.

When gun control advocates showcase their oft-failed schemes as solutions, they avoid mentioning details of three other school shootings, where armed intervention saved lives:
• In 1997, Pearl, Miss., assistant principal Joel Myrick stopped triple murderer Luke Woodham, using a handgun retrieved from his car.

• In 1998, in Edinboro, Pa., the 14-year-old who killed science teacher John Gillette at an off-campus dance was captured by shotgun-wielding James Strand.

• And in 2002, at Virginia’s own Appalachian Law School in Grundy, student Tracy Bridges used his pistol to detain murderer Peter Odighizuwa.

Each time, armed intervention saved lives without additional shots being fired.

Beyond anecdotes, researchers John R. Lott and William M. Landes, then at Yale University and the University of Chicago, studied multiple-victim public shootings. Examining data spanning 19 years from 1977 to 1995, they reported that shootings in states that adopted concealed handgun laws declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted by 90 percent, and injuries, 82.5 percent.

Crediting the reductions to deterrence (even suicidal maniacs avoid armed victims), Lott and Landes called their findings “dramatic.” The “only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on multiple victim public shootings,” the researchers said, “is the passage of concealed handgun laws.”

Like North Carolina, Virginia prohibits guns on campuses. But policies purporting to create “gun-free” zones actually increase victimization. “States with the fewest gun-free zones have the greatest reductions [in] killings, injuries, and attacks,” Lott and Landes found.
• Indeed, of eight school rampages tracked by The New York Times, six occurred after enactment of the 1996 federal Gun Free School Zones Act.
• “Gun prohibitionists concede that banning guns around schools has not quite worked as intended,” Lott said, “but their response has been to call for more regulation of guns. Yet what might appear to be the most obvious policy may actually cost lives. When gun-control laws are passed, it is law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who adhere to them.”
After 12 years under North Carolina’s concealed handgun law, permit-holders have proven themselves sane, sober and law-abiding. Revocations run less than 0.10 of 1 percent, most for reasons unrelated to guns.

Rather than passing new gun laws, we should examine Virginia Tech’s delayed emergency response and its inattention to Cho’s clearly disturbed behavior. We should improve campus security. But if 32 murders say anything, it is that police have neither the ability nor — as courts have ruled — the responsibility to protect you.

Liviu Librescu, 76, a professor and a Jewish survivor of Russian labor camps, used his body to shield escaping Virginia Tech students. Doubtless, the politicians who killed HB 1572 console themselves by saying that their malfeasance didn’t quite cause his murder.

Maybe our state legislators will display uncharacteristic courage by allowing concealed handguns on campuses, ensuring that heroes like Librescu have something better than their bodies to stop bullets.

All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner.

March 29, 2007 Supreme Court Rules “No Duty To Retreat”

On March 29 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Oregonians have no “duty to retreat” when faced with a violent confrontation.

This is certainly welcome news. It also means that several bills that would have accomplished the same thing may now be unnecessary. That is particularly good news, since in the current legislative climate, the chances of those bills moving ahead is virtually zero.

In their decision, State of Oregon v. Sandoval, the Supreme Court correctly notes that Oregon law contains no requirement to retreat from an attacker and that previous rulings to the contrary are not only incorrect, but obviously so,

The Court noted “On a purely textual level, ORS 161.219 contains no specific reference to “retreat”, “escape,” or “other means of avoiding” a deadly confrontation. Neither, in our view, does it contain any other wording that would suggest a duty of that kind.”

It went on to describe a previous Appeals Court ruling this way: “The court’s analysis did not focus on or even consider the words of the statutes that we now recognize to be pivotal.” and “We conclude, in short, that the legislature’s intent is clear on the face of ORS 161.219: The legislature did not intend to require a person to retreat before using deadly force to defend against the imminent use of deadly physical force by another.”

The Supreme Court points out “Indeed, the entire analytical flow of the Charles opinion is distinctly odd: The court did not examine the wording of either ORS 161.209 or 161.219 at all… Instead, the court set out the wording that the Oregon Criminal Law Commission had proposed to the legislature regarding the use of deadly force as part of the final draft of the proposed 1971 Criminal Code, which wording explicitly imposed a duty of retreat to avoid the necessity of using deadly force. Then, after noting that the 1971 legislature had rejected that wording, the court cited a view expressed in the Oregon Criminal Law Commission’s Commentary to the 1971 Code to the effect that “the statute probably was not necessary” because of existing Oregon case law..”

This is a great decision for those who are forced to defend themselves, but at the same time it is chilling that it was even needed. Oregon law, as we repeatedly remind the Port of Portland, is clear. We wonder how many innocent people have been sent to prison for acting lawfully.

This decision also points out how easy it is for judges to ignore the law and make a ruling that can destroy a person’s life. OFF’s experience in courts in Oregon has been similar if less personally traumatic.

This decision is an overdue recognition that the law is the law. It is regrettable that it was even necessary.

Sovereign Immunity Needs To Go.

(This is about more abuses by BATFE. If you’re interested in helping to reverse these abuses, we suggest you see this link.)

by Larry Pratt. Gun Owners of America.

Most people in the 21st century look back on earlier times and wonder how folks could ever have believed in the divine right of kings (other than the king himself).

Well, we better wipe that condescending smile off our faces, because we are no better today right here in the good old U.S. of A.

The divine right of kings carried with it the notion that whatever the king did was OK, because the king was the law. Another way of saying the same thing is the king was considered to be above the law.Today we have renamed this very mistaken view as the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

The sovereign is immune from suffering any consequences of his acts. Sometimes the sovereign (government) graciously allows himself to be sued in specific, limited cases. But for the most part, there is no accountability for government officials who lie, cheat and steal and even on occasion, for those who commit murder. Remember Ruby Ridge, where an FBI sniper shot in cold blood a woman holding a baby?

Bob Arwady runs the Ammo Dump, a gun store in Houston, Texas. His first exposure to the abuses of sovereign immunity came from a knock on the door from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. After operating his new shooting range for police and public shooters for four months, the Commission shut him down with the threat of fining shooters $5,000 for each bullet they put in the dirt berms used as bullet traps. They claimed that they had a water sample that proved that those bullets were leaching lead in dangerous quantities into the stream behind his range and polluting water downstream.

It turns out that the signed affidavit by the Environmental Quality officer stating that he had taken the water sample was a lie. Arwady never got to use his expert toxicology witness who would have argued that metallic bullets never, ever leach. They are not soluble. Only lead salts (such as those found in lead paints) are dangerous.

Arwady’s expert testimony was used last year in California to stop a new EPA attack on lead shotgun pellets. But the lying government “scientist” never lost a day’s pay, let alone served time in jail for perjury. Perhaps it is a bit much to expect a prosecutor to press charges against a perjurer he knew, or had reason to know, was lying through his teeth.

Soon after, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) brought criminal charges against Arwady. They filed nine charges claiming that he was illegally selling guns, thus serving as a source of guns used in crimes. Three witnesses were used at the trial to show that Arwady knowingly sold guns illegally (not keeping a record of the customers who bought them) and that he knowingly soldthem to felons.

One of the witnesses against Arwady was a retired cop who had stolen guns from Arwady while working for him and then sold them illegally.

He testified in exchange for a lesser sentence. Another witness was a gunsmith who had bought guns from Arwady even though he was a felon. Arwady dealt with him before background checks were federally mandated, when people simply asserted that they were not felons.

The gunsmith also testified in exchange for the promise of a lesser sentence.

The third witness against Arwady was the parole officer who at one time had supervised the gunsmith. The BATFE (and perhaps state and county officials) pressured him to testify that he had called Arwady several times warning him that the smith was a felon. It turned out that was a flat-out lie.

The parole officer had not supervised the gunsmith for a full five years before the smith began to buy guns from Arwady. A motion by Arwady’s attorney to charge the parole officer for perjury was denied by the judge. After all, a lot of BATFE agents, local cops and state and federal prosecutors might have been implicated in the lie.

At least the jury acquitted Arwady of all charges. Now Arwady is facing the loss of his federal license to do business based on a case the BATFE has developed using information from their criminal case against Arwady. They do not even blush that this is strictly and precisely forbidden by federal law (18 U.S. C. 923 (f) (4)).

I thought it was curious that after months of deliberating, BATFE announced the day after the November 7 elections transferred control of Congress to the Democrats that the agency was going to pull Arwady’s license.

So far, Bob Arwady’s direct expenses (not counting loss of business) in defending himself against a string of lying, lawbreakers with badges exceeds half a million dollars. Gun Owners Foundation will be helping Arwady with his legal expenses.

Tax-deductible donations can be made to the Foundation so it can
help Bob Arwady. Donations may be made on line at
http://gunowners.com/donate.htm or by calling (703) 321-8585.

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

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.

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.

Mannix For Governor?
By Kevin Starrett

Kevin Mannix, perennial candidate and career politician, is once again running for office.

We have been the lucky recipients of his first fundraiser of the 2006 election cycle.

If the quality of the letter is any indication, Mannix is toast, but he should not be underestimated. He lives and breathes public office. All that matters to him is to be in the public eye and he will do whatever he can do remain there.

Unfortunately, this includes telling anyone, anything at any time.
As a House Rep, Mannix authored and promoted a bill that failed, but was later turned into a successful anti-gun ballot measure by fanatic Senator Ginny Burdick. (Measure 5)

That was in 1999 and the bill was House Bill 2535.

OFF managed to kill the bill in spite of the efforts of Oregon Gun Owners to pass it, and the NRA to ignore it. But with millions in out of state money, Burdick was able to con the voters and pass a bill which has gutted gun shows in Oregon and added new layers of government intrusion into the lives of gun owners in Oregon.

But the fact remains, it was Mannix’s bill that Burdick passed.(Actually, Mannix’s bill was worse.)

Of course, later, when Mannix decided to run for Governor (after having run for everything else) he lied to gun owners and claimed he opposed the very bill he wrote.

Mannix gets an A+ for chutzpah and a F for honesty.

In Mannix’s fund raiser, he brags about having the support of past Senate Presidents Brady Adams and Gene Derfler. And why shouldn’t he? As Senate President, Adams was instrumental in making heroic efforts to pass Mannix’s gun control bill.

Derfler’s major claim to fame was his willingness to attack people like Senator Gary George, one of the few real believers in liberty in the Oregon Legislature.

Mannix started his career as a big government Democrat and switched parties when the Democrats abandoned him. His politics remain the same however. A new law is the answer for everything.

Mannix has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted. That’s not a quality we think we’d like to see in our next governor.

By Kevin Starrett

When Gordon Smith ran for US Senate the first time we already had suspicions that he could not be trusted.

Working for Gun Owners of America at the time, (prior to the formation of OFF) I asked Smith to respond to a simple survey so gun owners could have an idea of what his views on gun ownership were.

Smith refused.

At the time, we warned gun owners to be wary of Smith, and quite frankly a lot of gun owners were angry at us, claiming that Smith was a friend to gun owners and we should not alienate him.

Smith lost his first race for US Senate, but won on his second attempt and we have been saddled with him ever since.

As it turns out, all our suspicions were correct. Smith has become something of a poster child for gun control in the Senate, in spite of large campaign utions from NRA.

Smith has been in favor of numerous anti-gun plans including the reauthorization of Bill Clinton’s illegal and unconstitutional ban on modern firearms and ammunition feeding devices. You can hear Smith explain his support for this attack in your rights here.

But Smith’s nothing if not the consummate politician. Which means he only rarely has a passing acquaintance with the truth.

When the Senate was debating S 397, Smith voted in favor of amendments that attacked gun owners’ rights.(Such as a requirement to purchase a trigger lock with every new handgun.) But when it came time to vote on the bill itself, which contained protections for gun makers and dealers, Smith was not available. Out to lunch. Moved, left no forwarding address.

So it was rather startling to receive this unsolicited letter from Smith taking credit for the passage of the bill and claiming he opposed the anti-gun amendments.

Note, he doesn’t actually say he “voted for” the bill, but the implication there is clear. However, he does say he “worked to defeat all anti-gun amendments.” We bumpkins have a word for that. We call it a lie.

By Kevin Starrett

Now that the dust is settling from the passage of S 397, “the gun makers immunity bill,” it might be a good time to assess what happened.

As you probably know, when the NRA attempted to push this bill through last time it was laden with anti-gun provisions which were giving gun owners fits. But as the battle continued, NRA and others in the establishment gun lobby insisted that the bill should be passed, and promised it would be “cleaned up in the House.”

The late Neal Knox called those of us who opposed the bill “nervous nellies.” We were accused of paranoia and ignorance of the process. We were told “not to worry, it’s how it’s done around here.”

The guarantees that the bill would be fixed, if only it passed the Senate, continued until the last minute, when the unwavering efforts of activist gun owners like you convinced the NRA that they were on a sinking ship and they too, called for the bill to be killed.

On the second go-round NRA seemed to have learned its lesson. In a series of e-mails from NRA they repeated this hard-core message : “Be sure to tell your Senators that you consider any votes for any anti-gun amendments as a vote against S. 397 itself.” That quote appeared over and over.

Until it came time for a vote on the bill. A clean bill was no longer what the NRA demanded.
When vote time came and the bill passed with anti-gun amendments (that the militant anti-gun crowd have praised,) the NRA had changed its tune.

No longer was a vote for an anti-gun amendment a vote against the bill itself.
Suddenly, it was all no big deal.

Gone were the promises to “fix it in the House.” In place of those promises we had a stern warning from NRA ,”… immediately call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121 and urge him/her to pass S. 397 (as passed by the Senate)! ”

The NRA was no longer even considering removing the anti-gun language. Now they insisted that the bill pass the House “as passed in the Senate.”

Why this sudden reversal? Why this insistence that NRA members accept any piece of garbage that was shoveled their way?

And why was this needed if NRA is in fact the lobbying powerhouse that they claim to be? Why were other “pro-gun” organizations jumping on the NRA bandwagon by telling their members that “politics is the art of compromise” and the “art of the possible?”

Compromise is what you do when you have no choice. When your back is to the wall and there is nothing left to do. It’s NOT what you do when you are in control.

Remember the famous comment by Kayne Robinson, NRA president? “If we win, we’ll have a president where we work out of their office.”

Well, the NRA “won.” George Bush was elected. The House and the Senate are under the control of our “friends.” So why are we snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

Why are we making concessions to people who are out of power, who for years refused to give an inch for our gun rights?

Why are people like Gordon Smith sending out letters taking credit for opposing anti-gun amendments when he voted FOR them and saying how proud he was of this bill when he didn’t even vote for it?

Because he can. Because of the constant cover that these people get from groups like NRA who have given phonies like Smith thousands of dollars.

After Bush signed the bill, Wayne LaPierre said “This is an historic day for freedom. I would like to thank President Bush for signing the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law.”

Historic day for freedom? When you’re forced by government to buy something you don’t want, don’t need and which if used renders your self defense firearm useless to you, but still easy to steal?

When new “studies” have been authorized that the fringe anti-gun group “Violence Policy Center” says “may ultimately lead to a strengthening and expansion of the federal ban on armor-piercing ammunition.”

This is an “historic day for freedom?”

What’s the NRA (and their parrots in large dollar “gun groups”) going to say if some politician introduces a law that requires a gun safe? They’ve already signed off on the concept. And what about the people who don’t use a trigger lock? Can they count on being prosecuted because they are NOT covered by the immunity this bill claims to offer?

I wish we could share the jubilation of the NRA on this “great victory”. It certainly is a step forward for gun makers, but it comes at tremendous cost to gun owners. And there is not a single excuse for it.

Clinton’s out of the White House and the people who got lots of NRA bucks are in charge. So why are gun owners being told they MUST “compromise?” When did we have a better chance of making a real improvement?

This is why the battle is far from won. And why it’s so critical that we do what we can to elect people who will not throw gun owners overboard after getting their checks and endorsements from NRA.

We can’t let the NRA’s seal of approval continue to serve as camouflage for people who vote against gun rights.

When anti-gun Kevin Mannix ran for governor, he bragged that he had won the NRA’s “defender of freedom” award. A great selling point for a guy who worked overtime to attack our freedoms.

At Oregon Firearms Federation, we have high standards for people who are asking for the job of making rules about your life. They don’t get “A” ratings because they invited us to a cocktail party and we won’t tell you to “trust us.” We will continue to give you the unvarnished truth to the absolute best of our ability. If only we could expect the same from the NRA.

By Kevin Starrett
Executive Director

The 73rd Oregon legislative session is behind us.

In spite of a torrent of anti-gun bills, and a Senate and Governor both opposed to gun rights, not a single piece of anti-gun legislation passed.

Your hard work derailed every attempt to further chisel away our liberties, and I cannot express how thankful I am for all you have done.

Heading into the session we knew we were facing an uphill battle. The Governor has a long history of supporting gun restrictions. The Senate was under the control of some of the most outspoken opponents of gun rights the state has ever known. The Senate Committee that hears most gun bills was chaired by Ginny Burdick who has made attacking gun rights her life’s work.

We faced bills to outlaw most modern firearms. Bills that would require you to keep your self-defense firearm locked up and useless. Bills to ban licensed concealed carry anywhere school children showed up. There were bills to raise fees for background checks by 250% and bills to gut Oregon’s pre-emption law. There was a bill to outlaw many ammunition magazines.

But there were other equally insidious measures in play.

The Port of Portland requested a bill to greatly expand the powers of the Port’s police.

We had alerted the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee that the Port of Portland is currently in violation of the law because of its policy of forbidding persons with concealed handgun licenses from being on airport property.

Although we received assurances that this issue would be addressed should the bill get a hearing, not a word was mentioned when the hearing took place. Similar assurances from one of the sponsors of the bill never materialized when the bill went to “work session.” There, the bill was approved and passed to the House floor. That’s when we went to work.

Copies of documents demonstrating that the Port of Portland was in violation were delivered to every Republican House Representative.”https://oregonfirearms.org/portofportland/”>(All of these documents are available on our website.)

Each was contacted to make sure they had seen the information. As a result of our exposing the illegal actions of the Port, and despite having been sent to the House Floor with a “Do Pass” recommendation, the bill was pulled back into committee and killed.

It was a scene soon to be repeated.

OFF was a party to lengthy negotiations with the Oregon Sheriffs Association. They wanted to make numerous changes to Oregon’s concealed handgun law. But none of the proposed changes benefited gun owners. In fact, they were just a wish list of ways to make CHL’s harder to get, and easier to revoke.

We found ourselves saying “no” over and over. In an effort to win our approval for a new round of attacks on your rights, they offered to include
language we felt very strongly about. A “renew
by mail” for CHL holders who were active duty military and could not renew in person.

As you know, this was a key issue for us and we had been working hard to get it passed. But your rights are not something that we can negotiate away. We went on record saying the language of their bill was not acceptable, with or without renew by mail.

At this point we were promised by Committee Chair Wayne Krieger, that the bill would not move forward unless we approved and that amendments would be added to address our objections. The very next day, the bill, with no improvements, was voted out of Committee!

That was a Friday morning. By Monday morning, Krieger had hundreds of e-mails on his desk from OFF supporters outraged at what had taken place. Krieger responded that he had been mislead by a committee staffer who told him that we “approved” the bill.

We have no idea how this could have taken place. We had testified that we opposed the bill. Nothing of substance changed between the time we went on record opposing the bill and the following day when the bill passed out of committee. But plenty changed after that.

Because of OFF supporters, Krieger, (once again) pulled the bill off the House floor and back to committee, where, it too, died.

Your efforts also derailed an attempt to raise fees charged for gun purchase background checks. As you know, these checks are not a “service” requested by gun owners. Because of your calls and e-mails, that bill was yanked off the Senate floor and killed.

Without a doubt, the anti-gun bill that got the most attention was Ginny Burdick’s attack on CHL holders. As she does in every session, Burdick pushed legislation to outlaw concealed carry on school property, or anywhere school children gathered.

In an attempt to exclude as many gun owners as possible from attending, the first hearing was held at the Multnomah County Courthouse, where concealed carry is prohibited and parking is nonexistent. Supporters of Burdick’s bill were treated to reserved seating while opponents were left standing in the hall.

But gun owners from all over the state arrived anyway and made their feelings known.

That bill languished, but Burdick came back with another, similar bill.

After a contentious meeting of Senate Democrats, another hearing was held. Once again, articulate gun owners showed up to oppose this mindless assault on freedom and common sense.

In the end, even Senator Floyd Prozanski (an outspoken anti-gunner) voted against the bill and it died in committee. Burdick was predictably apoplectic and defeated once again.

Given the makeup of the Senate, this was a great victory for gun rights activism.

Unfortunately, because of the makeup of the Legislature this session, positive action was almost out of the question.

Most pro gun bills that were introduced in the House, never went anywhere because of the fear that they would be amended into bad bills when they were sent to the Senate.

The exceptions were a bill to protect gun makers and sellers from frivolous lawsuits and a bill to define “loaded”when carrying a firearm on a snowmobile or ATV.

Both passed in the House and died in the Senate.

Pro-gun bills introduced in the Senate were never heard because the Senate was controlled by anti-gun militants. And sadly, some great opportunities were missed because “pro-gun” legislators were simply too timid to force the issue.

For example, a version of our bill to help active duty military personnel was introduced in the Senate. It was assigned to the committee chaired by anti-gun militant Ginny Burdick who refused to hear it. A motion could have been made by any pro-gun Senator requesting that the bill be removed from her committee. Whether the motion passed or failed, we would, at least, have had a recorded vote on the issue. (A valuable tool come election time.)

But despite our requests, not a single Senator would step up and make the motion. After endless rhetoric about helping our men and women who are risking their lives far from home, and though even the anti-gun governor approved, this simple, cost free measure died.

Despite these disappointments, we held our ground because of your willingness to step up and make your voice heard. Never underestimate the power you have as an activist. Your immediate responses not only stopped bills from moving, but actually reversed bills that were already well on their way to passage. This is an impressive feat.

This session reminded us once again about the importance of immediate action in the face of a threat. As you can imagine, our e-mail alerts are the most timely way to get information and act on it. If you don’t get our alerts, please go to our web page and sign up for them. And remember, you can always call us for up to the minute info on what’s happening legislatively.

This state legislative session is over. The action now moves over to Federal legislation.

As you know, the US Senate recently passed a bill to protect gun makers and dealers from baseless lawsuits. However they allowed some dangerous amendments to be included.

One requires the purchase of gun locks with handgun purchases. The other opens the door to a whole host of restrictions on ammo in the future. The bill is now in the hands of the US House.

The NRA announced their intention to get the bill passed through the Senate even if it contained bad amendments. Their stated intention was to “clean up “ the bill when it went to the House.

We felt this was a dangerous policy, but now we have no choice but to deal with the bill and attempt to either fix it or kill it. Both of the included amendments are more dangerous than they appear.

The trigger lock language is an open invitation to prosecute anyone who does not use one, and the ammunition language opens a Pandora’s Box of potential problems down the road.

We will be working with other national and local groups around the US to track the progress of this bill and stop any gun control from being added.

But for right now congratulate yourself on a session ending with no loss of rights. You’ve done fine work.

By Executive Director Kevin Starrett

06/04/2001

After months of disrupting hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Ginny Burdick proved an important political point.

You don’t need to be in the majority party. You don’t need to have a rational issue. You don’t even need popular support.

If you are sufficiently juvenile and contentious, you’ll probably get your way.

Burdick is, without question, the loudest, most shrill, least intelligent but most obsessed hater of self defense in the Oregon legislature. A self styled one trick pony, Burdick seems oblivious to any issue except further restrictions on the rights of gun owners.

Voters in her district could rightfully ask what she has produced for them beside the nearly endless stream of anti-gun legislation for which she has become notorious. If they did, they might very well demand a refund.

Still, this is Burdick’s quotidian fascination. Her mantra. She remains fixed, glassy eyed, on her delusional obsession. Senate Bill 508 is the perfect case in point.

508 dealt with a problem that existed only in the twisted minds of Burdick, a few of her lackeys in the legislature (Senators Deckert and Duncan and House Reps Charlie Ringo, Lane Shetterly and Randy Leonard) and some genuinely paranoid bureaucrats from the government education establishment. (Yes, there are also the usual collection of crackpot “Million Moms” and their brainwashed, feminized, wussified offspring cackling about the value of “toy gun buy backs,”but by and large, 508 was the provence of professional idiots.)

What 508 was intended to do was outlaw the carry of concealed handguns, by holders of concealed handgun licenses, anywhere school children gathered. Not just on school property, but anyplace the unwitting prisoners of the government schools might assemble as part of a school outing.

As a result of “Burdick and friend’s” repeated obstructions of the legislative process, and in defiance of all rational thought, Republican Senate President Gene Derfler, the term limited puppet of Democrat Governor John (“Kidsgrabber”) Kitzhaber, folded like a $10.00 Hide-A-Bed and authorized a hearing on this lunatic legislation. (Even the Portland Oregonian, which champions new attacks on liberty with the regularity of a metronome had a rare and inexplicable burst of lucidity and criticized the bill as needless. We are, of course, still recovering.)

It is, needless to say, an exercise in futility to enumerate the many reasons this legislation is imbecilec. Those who are so intellectually challenged that they don’t understand the idiocy of it are certainly incapable of being educated about the obvious reasons that its only likely effect will be to get kids killed.

Those of us with a sufficient supply of functioning brain cells don’t need to be told that people intent on using guns to hurt folks at schools will most likely not be deterred by a law banning their presence. This simple fact seems to escape the supporters of this legislation, not one of whom could point to a single example of a permit holder misusing a firearm in a school or anywhere else.

The hearing on SB508, held on May 23rd from 6pm to 11pm, was truly theater of the absurd.

It started on a high note when Senators Steve Harper and Roger Beyer arrived in the hearing room wearing NRA hats. NRA’s regular sell outs aside, it was clear that they meant it as a positive gesture to gun owners. It was largely downhill from there.

The most chilling aspects were not the testimony of the legislative buffoons who testified on its behalf. But let’s review them anyway.

Senator Verne Duncan, a Republican, seemed, as usual, totally out of touch. As one of the sponsors of the bill and also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that was hearing it, Verne came across as a lovable, aging uncle who really meant well but was dealing with unfortunate episodes of dementia. Verne repeatedly asked if there was a legal remedy for someone who just happened to leave a gun at a school. Information, we are reliably informed, that he had been given numerous times in the recent past.

Senator Ryan Deckert, still looking all of 11 years old, seemed like he would be more comfortable seated in the lap of Burdick, either as beloved grandchild or a ventriloquist’s dummy. Lane Shetterly was predictably bland to the point of becoming translucent.

House Rep Randy Leonard, who his best known for his explosive temper, limited vocabulary and diminutive intellect, shared that he had a concealed handgun license ( a frightening thought) but that carrying a licensed handgun where school children were was like “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” Ah Randy…never had an original thought in his life.

Still, we Oregonians have come to expect insipid stupidity from many of our elected officials. (In some districts it’s mandatory.)

But the really unnerving testimony came from the hacks who populate our school boards.

Anyone with loved ones in government schools in Oregon should take time to listen to the testimony given by some of these mountebanks.

You can hear the testimony (if you can stand it) by clicking here and scrolling down to the May 23 Senate Judiciary Hearing at 5: 55pm.

But here’s the short version.

Although they were forced to admit that not a single incident with a licensed handgun at a school had ever occurred, the witnesses from the establishment were convinced that some tragic and criminal act was imminent.

One of these bozos actually said that “sooner or later,” if a person had a gun he was “going to use it”. He was referring to license holders in schools on official business! He also said if he knew a parent in his school was legally carrying a firearm he would immediately summon an armed guard.

Even Senator John Minnis had to characterize these ravings as “paranoid.”

These people are responsible for running our schools? Well it might explain the testimony of young Cody Hill. A high school student who conducts toy gun buybacks entitled “Guns Aren’t Fun,” the poor kid has been so ruined by the institutions he’s been subjected to that someone should be getting charged with child abuse. I, for one, felt sorry for the kid. Taking my young son to the range has been one of the most enjoyable experiences I’ve ever had. This young man is a testimony to the rising tide of girlifying our boys. The whole episode was a great boost for the home school movement.

What follows is quoted from an e-mail sent out by Senator Burdick on June 1st 2001:

“Those of you who have attended or testified at gun violence hearings before expect having to run the gauntlet of men with bulges under their coats as you make your way to the hearing room. You expect to hear the jokes from them when they are at the microphone to testify that “Yes, as a matter of fact, I am packing right now,” referring to the fact that they have their loaded handguns with them. You expect jeers and rude interruptions from the opposition while you testify. But on Wednesday, May 23rd the contempt for the gun violence prevention movement reached a new low by certain Senators. They did a gross disservice to you and your children as well.”

Paranoid? Delusional? You bet. And now they want your children.