Category: OFF Alerts

Posted on by

Late Session Omnibus Anti-Gun Bill Introduced

05.22.17

The legislature’s three leading gun grabbers have introduced yet another omnibus anti-gun bill. This one, SB 1065 includes language from several previous anti-gun bills that died due to a procedural error made by Floyd Prozanski, a sponsor of this bill.

The bill is a 26 page monstrosity, but here are the lowlights.

Among many other things this bill does, it nearly quintuples the length of time the State Police can deny you a firearms transfer with no cause.

It also drastically complicates the process for getting a concealed handgun license . Online classes will be prohibited unless the class is provided by the NRA or an “Oregon law enforcement agency or association. “

There are currently many other online class options for CHL courses. This bill would prohibit them all and give an almost exclusive online monopoly to NRA and the Oregon State Sheriffs Association.

(It’s interesting to note that several years ago, NRA informed its instructors that if instructors offered their own online classes they risked having their certification revoked.  More recently NRA changed their rules so that NRA classes could only be completed by students who took the NRA’s online class. Even more recently, NRA reversed course again and agreed to allow certified NRA instructors to give complete NRA classes.)

The bill also requires live fire, something many NRA instructors are not in a position to offer, and it requires “training in the safe loading, unloading, storing and carrying of handguns and information on Oregon and relevant federal laws governing the lawful use of a firearm, including self-defense, the use of force, including deadly force, and the transportation and concealment of handguns.”

While NRA instructors should certainly be qualified to train in loading, unloading and carrying of handguns, (and we hope this would be a normal part of any class), very few are qualified to teach Oregon laws and, in fact, NRA discourages instructors from getting into a discussion of statutes. Nowhere in this bill is there any discussion of what would make a person qualified to teach Oregon and Federal laws on self defense, or the use of force or deadly force. Not only would this bill prevent most instructors from teaching a CHL class to begin with, since most don’t have ranges, but the potential liability to instructors is staggering.

We have no doubts that, should this bill pass, we will soon be faced with a requirement that CHL classes must be taught by lawyers. Think about the restrictions that will place on class availability and the added expense.

Of course, there is nothing that has happened in the almost 30 years that Oregon has offered CHL’s that indicates any of this is necessary.

This bill does many other bad things and has serious technical flaws, but its clear intent is to create more obstacles and impediments to lawful firearms ownership.

Please take action now and tell the Oregon Senate to vote no on SB 1065.

 

Posted on by

They Never Give Up

05.16.17

They’re back.

After the failure of their last bill that sought to force gun dealers into the mental health business, House Rep (and gubernatorial hopeful) Knute Buehler and anti-gun extremist Senator Elizabeth Hayward are back with a watered down version.

HB 3460, introduced today, would require the Oregon Health Authority to create “a firearm safety and suicide prevention program.”

The obvious implication is that firearms lead to suicide. The material created would be sent to gun dealers who would then be expected to distribute the material (“multiple versions of which would be created to reflect the different local values and cultures within this state”).

During the hearing for their last attempt at this, after the initial bill had been amended to make distribution of this material voluntary, the supporters of the bill made no secret of their plan to force it to be mandatory after a year or two when it inevitably failed to reduce suicides.

While the new version calls for “consultation with firearm rights groups” it does not name them and you can be sure those groups will be Bloomberg sponsored sham groups that put “gun safety ” in their names but work overtime to eliminate gun ownership. We certainly were not “consulted” about the language in this latest bill.

This charade bill has not yet been assigned to a committee but since it is very late in the session we expect it to go to the House Rules Committee.

This is the same committee that has Boquist’s gun confiscation bill, SB 719 ,and is more anti-gun than the Judiciary Committee where their last bill (HB 2526) went and died.

We will let you know when hearings are scheduled for these pointless and counterproductive attacks on your rights.

Posted on by

Boquist/Burdick Gun Confiscation Bill Sent To Rules Committee.

05.09.17

Senate Bill 719, Brian Boquist’s gun confiscation bill has been assigned by Speaker Tina Kotek to the House Rules Committee.

Under normal circumstances this bill would have gone to the House Judiciary Committee, but Kotek, fearing that the Chair of that committee, Democrat Jeff Barker, was not sufficiently anti-gun to guarantee the bill’s passage out of committee, sent it instead to the Rules Committee.

The Rules Committee is chaired by Jennifer Williamson who is an anti-gun extremist. You may recall that it was Williamson who was pushing for indefinite delays on firearm’s purchases if the State Police did not complete a background check, even after she testified that the State Police are wrong 95% of the time they delay firearm’s transfers.

All the Democrats who make up the majority of the Rules Committee have track records of anti-gun extremism. But we need to contact them and express our opposition anyway.

Remember, under SB 719 a “family member,” who may not have seen you in decades, can demand that your rights and your property be confiscated by the police. This “family member” need have no credentials in mental health.  The Judge who imposes this order against you will be, at best, trained in law, NOT mental health.

Under SB 719, you won’t even know there is a court order against you until the police arrive to confiscate your firearms. You can lose your gun rights simply for having purchased a gun in the past! You can lose your gun rights if you have ever had a DUI. (Of course, you don’t lose your car.)

If you contest the court’s order, they may NOT consider any “mental health diagnosis.”  So if a mental health professional has concluded you are not mentally ill, the court may not consider that!

The proponents of this bill have blatantly lied about its purpose and its ramifications. The House Rules Committee is stocked with anti-gun, radical Democrats who will ignore reason and ram this through. The committee that should have heard this bill has been bypassed by House Speaker Tina Kotek to ensure passage to the full House Floor.

Even if you have taken action before we need you to double down on your efforts to let the House members know how outrageous, counterproductive, and dangerous this bill is.

Please use this link to take action and reach all members of the Oregon House.

 

Posted on by

Mike Strickland Sentenced

05.03.17

 

Today Mike Strickland was sentenced for the crime of defending himself against a mob of Portland’s state protected thugs.

If you are not familiar with the story, you can catch up here.

Mike was sentenced to 40 days in jail, community service, probation and fines. He has had his right to work as a videographer stripped from him for reasons no one can logically explain.

He is currently homeless.

Yes, it could have been far worse. For defending himself, Mike was facing 50 years in prison.

The Multnomah County DA and the “judge” made no secret of their vendetta against a conservative journalist who has, for years, exposed the lies and hypocrisy of the left in Oregon. D.A. Rod Underhill refused to prosecute a leftist thug (Skye Ftizgerald) who attacked, injured, and robbed Strickland on camera.

At the sentencing, the judge ignored black letter Oregon law and said the Mike had “other options” than to defend himself. (Yes, he could have simply taken the beat down.) But in Oregon there is no duty to retreat from attackers, a reality the hack who sentenced Mike either ignored or is too stupid to know. The judge decreed that Mike had not acted in self-defense. We can only hope and pray that one day “Judge” Thomas Ryan, who had never been more than a public defender before he weaseled a job as a judge, faces a mob of the kind of animals Mike was attacked by.

Mike’s conviction will be appealed. There is a concurrent possibility of a new trial outside  of the appeal process.

The case of Mike Strickland is a terrifying example of what happens when anti-rights, politically driven zealots gain positions of power as DA’s and judges.

This battle is far from over. We want to thank everyone who has contributed so generously to Mike’s defense. Each of you is a hero in your own right.

There will be lots of new legal expenses as we continue to fight this injustice. If you believe that self defense should not be a crime in Oregon and would like to help us fund this case, please consider making a donation here.

Thank you for your commitment to sanity and liberty.

Posted on by

Gun Confiscation Bill Passes Senate. Battle Moves to the House.

05.01.17

On the  communist holiday of “May Day” the Oregon Senate passed, on an almost party line vote, the Boquist/Burdick gun grab, SB 719A. Senator Betsy Johnson was the only Democrat voting “no.”  Boquist was the only Republican voting “yes.” The Democrats immediately issued a press release calling the vote “non-partisan.” 

Senator Boquist’s floor speech revealed a very different interpretation  of what “due process” is than what we believe.

Under this bill you get an opportunity to prove your innocence only after you have been punished with the confiscation of your property and the elimination of your rights.

Boquist claimed that “there is a process” for confiscating legally owned Class III items under this bill but neglected to say what it was. When we contacted ATF several weeks ago they said they knew of no such process and one Chief of Police told us he had no idea how this could be done legally.

We want to thank Senators Kim Thatcher, Dennis Linthicum and Alan Olsen for their testimony in opposition to this dangerous bill. We also want to thank Senator  Kruse who along with Thatcher, Linthicum and Olsen approved and distributed a floor letter OFF wrote in opposition.

The bill now moves to the House where will do all we can to derail it. It’s not clear at this point what committee it will be assigned to so please contact all Oregon House members to express your opposition to this assault on your rights.

Take action here.

Posted on by

BOQUIST/BURDICK GUN GRAB SCHEDULED FOR VOTE

4.26.17

Senate Bill 719A  is currently scheduled for a vote in the Oregon Senate on May 1st.

You will recall that this bill started life as a bill requiring the State Court Administrator to study methods to improve efficiency.

Under the skillful hands of Senator Floyd Prozanski it became a bill to deprive people of their firearms and their rights with no notice and no due process. (Please note: as of 4.26.17 the legislative website still links to the old bill. This should be corrected by 4.27.17)

In its current form, this bill will allow the police to confiscate your firearms because a police officer or household member accused you of being dangerous.

You can lose your guns if you have purchased a “deadly instrument” in the last 180 days.

You can lose your guns if you get a DUI. (But oddly you get to keep your car.)

The gun confiscation language was stuffed into SB 719 from another bill (SB 868) that died when Prozanski made a procedural error and 868 could not move forward.  The gun grabbing, rights smashing, family destroying language was originally created by Senator Ginny Burdick and formerly pro-gun Republican Brian Boquist.

While Boquist has claimed his bill is about preventing veteran’s suicides, there is not a single word in the original bill or this version that would offer the smallest aid to suicidal veterans.

In an email Boquist sent to OFF and the local NRA rep, (which he copied to the entire Republican Senate Caucus) Boquist said that OFF and the NRA “don’t care about veterans blowing their brains out.” The truth is, we care about WHY veterans are taking their own lives, not just HOW.

This bill is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation the anti-gunners have ever dreamed up. It allows a family member to have a person’s property and rights taken by force by the police and then assumes that even though that person is very dangerous, the people who made these accusations can live safely with the person who had his right taken. It’s complete madness.

With the Senate being in control of the Democrats, and Republican Brian Boquist having joined them in their anti-rights extremism, we will have an uphill fight to kill this frightening bill. But we have to step up and do what we can.

Please contact your Senator and let them know you think this bill is far more likely to get people killed than protect them.

You can find you senator by using this link. Your Oregon Senator will be the first person listed.

Some suggested text and talking points follow.

Dear Senator,

While SB 719A pretends to be about protecting people who are suicidal and the household members of people who are violent and dangerous, it does nothing of the sort. In fact, SB 719A offers no help to people who are suicidal, and no help to people who are living with dangerous and violent family members.

SB 719A allows a person’s rights and property to be taken with no notice and no due process. Under this legislation a person can have the police confiscate their property simply because they have purchased a firearm or a vaguely defined “deadly instrument .”  They can face this humiliation because they were guilty of a DUI.

While DUI’s are bad things, they don’t indicate that a person is violent or suicidal. I find it absurd that a person who is guilty of a DUI can lose his guns, but keep his car.

Under this bill the local police will be required to store confiscated firearms, possibly indefinitely. There is nothing in this bill that addresses what the police are supposed to do with NFA items, like suppressors, which they are not allowed to have without ATF approval.  There is nothing that addresses what the police are supposed to do if the owner of a gun store is the victim of one of these confiscation orders.

SB 719A is poorly thought out and poorly drafted. It is an emotional response to a problem it does not even try to address.

I urge you to vote against this dangerous attack on property and liberty.

Posted on by

One Bad Bill Dead, One Really Bad Bill Moving.

04.18.17

Today in the legislature one anti-gun bill died and one was advanced out of committee.

House Bill 2526, a bill sponsored by anti-gun Democrat Senator Elizabeth Hayward and Republican Knute Buehler, was declared deceased in the House Judiciary Committee.

This bill would have required the Department of Justice to create material on suicides and forced gun dealers to distribute this material with gun purchases.  The chair of the committee, House Rep Jeff Barker, wisely let this bill expire. Thank you Representative Barker.

Tonight in the Senate Judiciary Committee the Democrats passed SB 719 to the Senate floor over the objections of Republicans Kim Thatcher and Dennis Linthicum. This bill is the work of anti-gun zealot Ginny Burdick and Republican Brian Boquist.

This bill will require that local police come to your home and confiscate your firearms if a family member tells a judge that they think you are dangerous or suicidal. It also allows any police officer to make the same accusations about you to a judge. The police officer does not need to know you or even have ever met you.

You are not allowed to contest the confiscation order until after your rights and property have been taken.

Under this bill you can have your gun rights stolen and your property confiscated if you have purchased a firearm or ammunition in the last 180 days.  That is not a misprint or a joke. A “household” member or police officer can request that your gun rights be eliminated and your guns confiscated by police…because you bought a gun.

While we think there will be more efforts to destroy your gun rights, SB 719 is the immediate danger.

If you have never taken action before, this is the time to do it. This is one of the most dangerous and deceitful bills the Democrats have ever tried to ram through the legislature. (Well, the Democrats and Republican Brian Boquist.)

Please contact the members of the Oregon Senate and urge them to vote “no” on this extreme violation of rights and common sense.

You can use the automailer below to send the following message. If using the automailer please only click on “Senators.”

Dear Senator,

SB 719 would allow a person to lose his property and his rights to possess a firearm simply because he had purchased a firearm.

This legislation would eliminate someone’s rights with no accusation, let alone conviction, of a crime and no adjudication of mental illness.

There is no due process in this bill until AFTER a person’s rights and property have been taken from him.

The bill contains not one word about helping people who are in crisis or people who fear for their safety. This bill is about one thing; attacking and punishing gun owners who have angry or vindictive family members.

I strongly urge you to defeat this dangerous legislation.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

You can also cut and paste the above message or modify it and send it directly to your Oregon Senator who you can find here.

Your Oregon Senator will be the first name that appears in that link.

Posted on by

TIME IS RUNNING OUT.

04.17.17

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee heard three anti-gun bills and the House Judiciary Committee heard one.

For info on the three Senate bill please see this alert.

The anti-gun groups packed the room largely with people they had shipped in from out of state.

As the result of a procedural error it appears that all the Senate anti-gun bills cannot move forward.

That’s the good news. The bad news is there is always a way to move bad bills.

Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be looking at amendments to a bill that had nothing to do with firearms in an effort to include the gun confiscation language from SB 868.

The bill is SB 719.

You can see the proposed amendments here.

If passed, this bill will allow your guns to be confiscated based on accusations from family members that you are dangerous or suicidal.

You do NOT have to be convicted of a crime. You do NOT have to actually be dangerous. You just need to the victim of a judge like this.

This is very, very dangerous legislation and of course it solves nothing. If a person is really dangerous or suicidal there is not one word in this legislation that addresses that .

A person who cannot be trusted with a gun cannot be trusted without a chaperone. 

If someone is really that dangerous, do you really want to live with them after you have had the cops come and take their possessions and their rights?

This incredibly ill conceived legislation is going to get people killed.

Please contact the Senate Judiciary Committee and let them know that truly dangerous people need interventions and people who are not dangerous should not lose their rights because of the accusations of a vindictive family member.

This hearing is tomorrow at 8 am. Please act now.

Senate Judiciary Committee

Senator Floyd Prozanski Sen.FloydProzanski@OregonLegislature.gov  503-986-1704 

Senator Kim Thatcher Sen.KimThatcher@state.or.us   503-986-1713

Senator Michael Dembrow Sen.MichaelDembrow@state.or.us  503-986-1723  

Senator Dennis Linthicum  sen.DennisLinthicum@oregonlegislature.gov 503-986-1728

Senator James Manning  Sen.JamesManning@oregonlegislature.gov   503-986-1707

 

If you prefer you can also send your testimony to the committee to be entered into the record. The address for testimony is:  sjud.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov

Posted on by

UPDATE ON ANTI-GUN BILL HEARING

04.15.17 

Since yesterday’s alert concerning the anti-gun bills being heard in the Senate on Monday, new amendments have been proposed to two of the bills.

The “dash 4” amendment has been proposed for SB 764. You will recall this was the one paragraph “place holder” bill that Prozanski wants to amend to virtually eliminate the ability to get a CHL.

The “dash 4” amendment borrows from another bad bill being heard that day (SB 797) and eliminates the safeguard that allows a person to receive a firearm after three business days have transpired if the State Police do not complete a background check. While the amendment does allow a person who has been denied a transfer the right to provide info to the State Police proving they are qualified, there are still no protections for persons who have been delayed, a far more common problem. So under this amendment, if you are delayed, you are simply out of luck .

An amendment has been proposed for SB 797 as well. As noted above, SB 797 is the  bill that eliminates the three day safeguard and allows the State Police to deny you a firearms transfer literally forever. The “dash 3” amendment proposes that denied persons can provide information to the State Police to demonstrate they are qualified, but once again does nothing for the far greater number of people who are delayed.

If you plan to come and testify on Monday you should be aware of these proposed amendments.

“Dash 4” amendment to SB 764

“Dash 3” amendment to SB 797

Information on the Senate Judiciary Committee, including members , schedules and new amendments can be found here.

Posted on by

Prozanski Is Trying To End Lawful Concealed Carry. And It Gets Worse. Act…NOW.

04.14.17

As we have told you, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be hearing three anti-gun bills on Monday morning. While we were able to warn you about the dangers of SB 797 and SB 868 in previous alerts, we did not know until today what to expect from SB 764. Now we do.

SB 764 has morphed from a one paragraph bogus “place holder” bill to a 30 page monstrosity with one goal, to make concealed handgun licenses impossible to get.

Under the amended SB 764, concealed handgun classes would not only require live fire (something becoming more difficult every day as our ranges disappear due to lawsuits) but it would also forbid online training (something even the Oregon Sheriffs Association offers) and require that the class include “training in the safe loading, unloading, storage and carrying of handguns and training in the current laws governing the lawful use of a firearm, including self-defense, the use of force, including deadly force, and the transportation and concealment of handguns.”

So, in addition to needing a range, you will need an instructor who is a legal expert. The problem is, of course, NRA instructors are firearms instructors. They get no training in the laws of different states by the NRA and, in fact, are discouraged from teaching the law in their classes. So who will provide “legal” training for these classes, who will certify them and who will determine the curriculum?

Rest assured, even if you can find an instructor who can meet all these requirements, the cost of a CHL class will skyrocket and the number of places and instructors that can provide this (as of yet undefined) service will dwindle to almost zero.

Make no mistake, this bill has one goal; to eliminate concealed carry and pay off anti-gun New York billionaires who are bankrolling anti-gun legislators.

SB 868, which was created to allow a court to take away your firearms based on allegations from household members or police, now has amendments to expand it to allow a court to take away “Any instrument, article or substance specifically designed for and presently capable of causing death or serious physical injury.” 

When you think about it, that could be anything. The new amended version also allows you to have your possessions seized because you were convicted of a DUI and allows the police to search your home to find and seize anything they want to call a “deadly weapon.”

Please consider coming to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Monday at 8AM in Hearing Room 50 and express your outrage at this attempt to disarm Oregonians.

And please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to voice your opposition to this transparent attack on your rights to self defense.

If you prefer you can also send your testimony to the committee to be entered into the record. The address for testimony is:  sjud.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov

You can send the following message to the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee by completing the fields below:

 

Dear Senator,

SB 764 is clearly nothing more than an effort to eliminate lawful concealed carry in Oregon. The requirements proposed in the “dash-2” amendments are onerous, unnecessary and almost impossible to comply with. I strongly urge you to consider your constituents and not the deep pockets of New York billionaires who are promoting this harmful legislation and vote “NO” on the amended SB 764.

SB 868 is an outrageous assault on liberty, private property and due process. As amended by the “dash 1” amendments it is far worse.
Vote “NO” on SB 868 and the “dash-1″amendments.

Their individual contact info follows.

Senate Judiciary Committee

Senator Floyd Prozanski Sen.FloydProzanski@OregonLegislature.gov  503-986-1704 

Senator Kim Thatcher Sen.KimThatcher@state.or.us   503-986-1713

Senator Michael Dembrow Sen.MichaelDembrow@state.or.us  503-986-1723  

Senator Dennis Linthicum  sen.DennisLinthicum@oregonlegislature.gov 503-986-1728

Senator James Manning  Sen.JamesManning@oregonlegislature.gov   503-986-1707

 

Posted on by

Help Stop The Latest Attack

04.10.17

As we told you in a previous alert, gun bills are now moving in both houses.

In the Senate Judiciary Committee, the three bills scheduled to be heard on April 17 at 8am are:  SB 764, SB 797 and SB 868.

We can’t tell you right now what to expect from SB 764 since the committee has announced it will be amended and asked that testimony address the amendments. But, of course, they have not made the proposed amendments public. If they are made public before the hearing, we will let you know.

We strongly oppose the other two bills, SB 797 and SB 868.

Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and express your opposition to these dangerous bills.

A sample message and the contact information for the committee members follow.

Dear Senator,

I strongly oppose SB 797 which gives the Oregon State Police the power to deny a firearm’s transfer, literally forever. Currently the OSP regularly delay or deny firearm’s sales to buyers who are qualified to purchase. In fact, Representative Jennifer Williamson has stated that 95% of firearms transfer delays are in error.

It makes no sense to delay, indefinitely, a transfer to a qualified buyer simply because OSP cannot correctly do their job. This is especially true in cases where the firearms dealer knows the buyer personally and knows he or she is qualified.

I also strongly oppose SB 868. This bill would allow a person to have his rights to own a gun stripped away simply because he bought a firearm or ammunition within the last 180 days!

Most of the behavior listed in the bill as reasons to take away a person’s firearms are already disqualifiers for firearm ownership but the bill also allows a person to lose his gun rights because of “unlawful and reckless … display or brandishing of a firearm..” What exactly is “reckless display or brandishing?”

The bill provides exactly no help for a person who is a danger to themselves and no protection for any family member who is in danger from the person whose rights will be taken. If the person who loses his or her rights is really dangerous, nothing in this bill addresses that danger.

I urge you to vote NO on both these bills.

 

Senate Judiciary Committee

Senator Floyd Prozanski Sen.FloydProzanski@OregonLegislature.gov  503-986-1704 

Senator Kim Thatcher Sen.KimThatcher@state.or.us   503-986-1713

Senator Michael Dembrow Sen.MichaelDembrow@state.or.us  503-986-1723  

Senator Dennis Linthicum  sen.DennisLinthicum@oregonlegislature.gov 503-986-1728

Senator James Manning  Sen.JamesManning@oregonlegislature.gov   503-986-1707

 

If you prefer you can also send your testimony to the committee to be entered into the record. The address for testimony is:  sjud.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov

 

On the same day as those bills are being heard, the House Judiciary Committee will be hearing two bills (at 1pm)  that gun owners should oppose.  HJR 13 would refer a constitutional amendment to the voters. Because of a recent Supreme Court decision, police are generally not allowed to ask a person if he is carrying a gun. This resolution would change that. In its original form the resolution was extremely broad and the sponsor, House Rep Brad Witt, agreed to amend it. But even the “dash 1” amendments would give police the power to question people about gun possession even if they were not engaged in any questionable behavior.

HB 2526, the other bill being heard that day “Directs Department of Justice to establish firearm safety and suicide prevention education program, to create or approve educational materials and to provide educational materials to gun dealers.” This is an unreasonable demand on gun dealers. Given the massive number of  suicides by drug overdose, we certainly should expect this same requirement of drug stores.  This is simply another effort to demonize firearms. The Department of Justice has no expertise in suicide prevention and is totally unqualified to create programs to prevent it. In the current political climate the potential for this program to be just another taxpayer funded anti-gun effort is massive.

Please contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee and urge them to vote against HJR 13 and HB 2526.

A sample message and their contact info follow:

Dear Representative,

I urge you to vote “NO” on HJR 13 and HB 2526. While I support the intent of HJR 13 and officer safety is very important, even with the “dash 1” amendments the resolution goes to far. Allowing a police officer the power to question me about firearms possession simply because he “stopped” me is overly broad.  I would support a resolution that allowed police to ask about weapons when they had reason to for their safety, but not simply because they stopped me when I had done nothing wrong.

HB 2526 demands that gun dealers act as mental health professionals and disseminate information about suicide simply because a person is attempting to exercise his Second Amendment rights. The implications are absurd. Why aren’t these same demands being made of drugstore clerks?  Furthermore, HB 2526 requires that the Department of Justice “establish a firearms safety and suicide prevention program.”  The Department of Justice has no expertise in suicide prevention and the potential for this “program” to be turned into a taxpayer funded anti-gun effort is enormous.

Please vote no on HJR 13 and HB 2526.

 

House Judiciary Committee

Representative Jeff Barker Rep.JeffBarker@state.or.us 503-986-1428

Representative Andy Olson Rep.AndyOlson@state.or.us 503-986-1415 

Representative Jennifer Williamson  Rep.JenniferWilliamson@oregonlegislature.gov  503-986-1436

Representative Chris Gorsek Rep.ChrisGorsek@oregonlegislature.gov 503-986-1449

Representative Mitch Greenlick Rep.MitchGreenlick@state.or.us 503-986-1433

Representative Ann Lininger rep.annlininger@state.or.us 503-986-1438

Representative Bill Post rep.billpost@state.or.us 503-986-1425

Representative Tawna D. Sanchez Rep.TawnaSanchez@oregonlegislature.gov 503-986-1443

Representative Sherrie Sprenger Rep.SherrieSprenger@state.or.us 503-986-1417

Representative Duane A. Stark rep.duanestark@state.or.us 503-986-1404

Representative Rich Vial  Rep.RichVial@oregonlegislature.gov  503-986-1426

If you prefer to you can also send your testimony to the committee to be entered into the record. The address for testimony is:   hjud.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov

Posted on by

Anti-Gun Bills Moving In Both Houses

04.08.17

As we told you in our last alert, anti-gun bills are about to get hearings.

First, on Wednesday, April 12, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be hearing a strange bill requested by a former Senator. 

SB 897

“Creates crime of militia terrorism.” 

This  bill was introduced at the request of  former anti-gun legislator, Charlie Ringo, and is clearly a reaction to the Malhuer occupation. But it serves little purpose but to stigmatize the term “militia” and open the door for prosecutions of people who have actually complied with law enforcement orders to leave a “publicly owned premises”. It’s one more attempt to demonize the mere possession of a firearm, serves no public benefit and deserves to be shuffled off to the garbage heap.

But the real action comes on April 17, when both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have scheduled numerous anti-gun bills for hearings.

Just so you know, these hearings have been scheduled and designed to limit public input as much as possible.

Both committees are limiting testimony to two minutes. It appears the Senate committee is limiting testimony to two minutes for all bills being heard. That means if you testify, you get a total of two minutes to express your feelings about all three bills on the schedule. That’s 40 seconds a bill and that is no accident.

Rest assured the anti-gun folks will be given a lot of leeway when they testify.

The bills being heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee at 8 AM in Hearing Room 50 are:

SB 764

This bill “Directs Department of State Police to study reasons for certain denials of concealed handgun license applications and report results to interim committees of Legislative Assembly related to judiciary on or before February 1, 2019.”

However, unpublished amendments will change this bill drastically . We don’t know what the proposed changes will be yet but when they are made public you can see them here.  Because the “relating clause” says “relating to firearms” This bill can be turned into anything.

SB 797

This is the bill we told you about in our last alert. It allows the Oregon State Police to deny a gun purchase to anyone for as long as they want. There are no safeguards for people who are delayed in error, which is 95% of people delayed. We strongly oppose this dangerous bill.

SB 868

This bill allows a family member or police officer to petition a court to remove any firearm you own with no arrest for, or conviction of, a crime.  While it purports to be about removing firearms from the hands of “dangerous” people, it considers you “dangerous” if you have purchased or acquired a firearm or ammunition in the last 180 days.  We strongly oppose this dangerous bill.

 

Over on the House side the Judiciary Committee will also be hearing gun bills. They will be heard at 1PM also in Room 50 in the Capitol basement. Those bills are:

HJR 13

This resolution “Proposes amendment to Oregon Constitution providing that law authorizing police officer to ask person if person is in possession of firearm is not law violating right of people against unreasonable search or seizure.”  Currently, due to an Oregon Supreme Court decision, police, under most circumstances, are not allowed to ask a person if he possesses a firearm. This resolution, which would require a vote of the people, would eliminate that rule. While we support the intention, the resolution is overly broad and even with a proposed amendment that limits the police powers, goes way too far, allowing a police officer to stop anyone and ask them if they have a firearm. Without further amending we oppose this legislation.

HB 2526

This bill, the product of a Republican (Knute Buehler) and a rabidly anti-gun Democrat (Elizabeth Hayward) “Directs Department of Justice to establish firearm safety and suicide prevention education program, to create or approve educational materials and to provide educational materials to gun dealers.” It also says “Multiple versions of materials must be created or approved, to reflect the different local values and cultures within this state.”  Once again, an attempt to demonize firearms as if they were the only means by which a person could commit suicide. The reality is, far more people are harmed by prescription drugs. Both sponsors are doctors. Why are they not addressing the damage done by the drugs they are allowed to prescribe?  We strongly oppose this bill.

HB 3281

This bill “Authorizes state agency employee who is licensed to carry concealed handgun to store personal handgun and ammunition in locked container in vehicle while employee is at work and vehicle is parked in state agency parking lot.”

If this bill is not saddled with dangerous amendments we support it.

Please contact the Senate Judiciary Committee and urge them to vote “no” on Senate Bills 897,797 and 868.

Please contact the House Judiciary Committee and urge them to vote “no” on House Resolution 13 and House Bill 2526.

We will keep you informed on any changes made to SB 764 and HB 3281.

Thank you for your activism.

Posted on by

Gun Control Bills Coming Soon

04.07.17 

The Oregon Legislature has reached the point in their session where deadlines are looming.

While they have not found time to address the state’s impending financial crisis, there has been time to debate whether the osprey should be the state bird and to recognize April 6th as National Tartan Day in Oregon  (Declares emergency, effective on passage.) And soon they will be working on new gun control restrictions.

Yes, it has been quiet up until now, but rest assured the attacks on your gun rights are coming. And soon. 

We expect to see anti-gun bills moving next week in the Senate Judiciary Committee. While there has been nothing officially scheduled at this point, look for hearings, probably late in the week.

The bills that will be moving have not been publicly announced, but the senate bills most likely to be heard are:

SB 797 which would allow the Oregon State Police to delay a firearms transfer forever. This is the bill Governor Brown was pushing soon after her election. Right now if the State Police delay you, you may lawfully take possession of a firearm after three business days have transpired. This bill would eliminate that safeguard.

Keep in mind, the OSP ID unit has an abysmal track record of fairly conducting background checks. If you are delayed, their default position is “no” and typically only a call from a pro-gun legislator will make the process tolerable.  (We recently heard from a woman who was denied on a gun purchase incorrectly. She told us that she had a “very good” experience dealing with the ID unit who only took 8 months to correct her false denial. She got off easy.)

This bill could essentially end gun transfers for anyone the OSP chooses to target with a faulty background check.

One of the main supporters of this legislation (House Rep Jennifer Williamson) has stated that background check delays are false 95% of the time.

Senate Bill 868 allows police or family members to request that a court force you to relinquish all firearms based on the accusers perception that you are dangerous to yourself or others. It does not require that you have committed a crime, it does not require that you have been convicted of a crime, and one of the indicators that you are “dangerous” is that you have purchased  or attempted to purchase a firearm or ammunition in the last 180 days.  Of course, this bill contains nothing that would allow for a person who really was a danger to himself to access any kind of help.

Senate Bill 1026 “Creates the crime of endangering a minor by allowing access to a firearm.” This bill is one of the most poorly crafted pieces of legislation this session, and that’s saying a lot. Of course it does nothing to address things that are far more likely to be dangerous, like prescription drugs, household chemicals and your car keys.

There are also quite a few very good gun bills that would address real problems in the law, like the fact that it is illegal for a person who does not have a concealed handgun license to leave a gun store with a new handgun in the manufacturer’s original box or the fact that persons who live in motor homes cannot legally buy guns.  However it is a near certainty that none of these bills will be allowed hearings by the chairman of the committee, Floyd Prozanski, unless he believes they could be a vehicle for amendments that would turn them into anti-gun bills.

Information on the Senate Judiciary Committee (including bill scheduling information)can be found here.

We will follow up with confirmations on hearings as soon as they become official, but for now please be prepared. It’s going to happen soon.

Posted on by

Call To Action

03.23.17

On March 22nd, we asked you to contact House Rep Brad Witt to express your concerns with his House Joint Resolution 13.

As many of you who contacted him know, Rep Witt has heard your concerns and agrees that in its current form, HJR 13 is overly broad and could well create situations Witt never intended. He has agreed to rework the resolution to address those issues.

But there is lots more to be done.

As you know the passage of SB 941 in  2015 has caused all of the problems we predicted it would. 941 outlawed most private transfers of firearms and was nothing more than a payoff to Mike Bloomberg and an attack on law abiding gun owners.

We repeatedly warned legislators that this bill was dangerous and opposed by most counties and most Sheriffs.  The anti-gun liberals in the legislature and big city cops who supported this law showed no interest in actually enforcing it when one of their own anti-gun activists blatantly violated it. But the damage it has done to Oregonians is incalculable.

The liberals who pushed 941 through to pay Bloomberg back for the money he poured into Oregon claimed the bill was about “safety” and “keeping guns out of the wrong hands.” They told us it was for the good of “domestic violence victims.” And of course, it was all lies.

In fact, 941 has made Oregon a far less safe place. 

As we have reported many times, when people who are identified as “prohibited persons” attempt to buy guns, they are virtually never arrested, even if they are actively wanted at the time!

Under 941 it is now a crime to safeguard a firearm for a neighbor who is going out of town or a friend who needs to remove a gun from his home for personal reasons. This from the same people who are demanding “safe storage” of firearms.

But it’s even worse than that.  As result of the refusal of the anti-gun left to even consider the consequences of SB 941, Oregon has put its most vulnerable directly in the cross hairs of violence.

Oregon has a program for people who have active and credible threats against their lives. It’s called the “Address Confidentiality Program” and participants essentially live in hiding.  Thanks to the leftist supporters of SB 941, all of whom generate plenty of theater about protecting the victims of domestic violence, anyone covered under the program is forbidden from buying a gun. You heard that right. The law forbids people who live in daily fear from purchasing a firearm to defend themselves and their children.

 This is so obviously wrong it is hard to believe that even the most ardent haters of gun rights could justify it. But of course, they do.

We want to fix this.

Make no mistake, all of SB 941 is flat out bad law and we want to see the whole bill repealed. But as we move towards that goal we want to reverse as many of the worst elements of the bill as we can.

There are other effects of 941.  For example, people who live in recreational vehicles can no longer legally buy firearms if they have a “continuous traveler” driver’s license and now even antique firearms require a background check for a “private” transfer, something not required for a purchase from a dealer!

Quite a few good bills have been introduced by our friends in the legislature. You can see all current 2017 gun bills here, but three bills that would address these crucial issues are languishing in the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Floyd Prozanski, one of the legislature’s most militant anti-gunners.

Those bills are: 

SB 667,  SB 854 and SB 855.

Please contact Floyd Prozanski and tell him it’s time to fix the mess they made with SB 941. Please consider cc’ing your note to Senate President Peter Courtney who has the power to instruct Prozanski to hear these important bills. We cannot continue to allow the extremists in the legislature to keep putting innocent people at risk.

Prozanski’s contact info can be found here.

His email is Sen.FloydProzanski@OregonLegislature.gov

Peter Courtney’s contact info can be found here.

Courtney’s email is  sen.petercourtney@oregonlegislature.gov

A sample message follows.

Dear Senator Prozanski,

The passage of SB 941 has created a whole series of problems  for law abiding gun owners, while doing nothing to stop crime and is not even enforced if the lawbreaker is an anti-gun liberal.  But what concerns me most is the danger it has created for people who have done nothing wrong.

As you know, 941 outlaws the purchase of firearms by people protected by Oregon’s Address Confidentiality Program. These people are not criminals, they are victims and should not be denied the ability to protect themselves by the legislature .  SB 941 also denies Second Amendment rights to people whose only crime is their decision to live in a recreational vehicle. This is pointless and dangerous.

Furthermore people who want to transfer antiques to private parties are now subject to a failing background check system which is not required for purchases from gun dealers.

There are bills in your committee that would address these and other issues.  Please schedule hearings and work sessions  for Senate Bills 667,854 and 855. It is unacceptable to put people who have done nothing wrong in danger to promote the agenda of a New York billionaire.

 

 

Posted on by

Good Intentions, Bad Legislation. HJR 13

03.22.17

On March 28th, the Oregon House Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing and work session on House Joint Resolution 13.

This measure, sponsored by House Rep Brad Witt, is in response to an Oregon Supreme Court decision that greatly restricted law enforcement officers from asking people if they possessed firearms.

Few would argue that the defendant in the case which was responsible for this court decision was a contributing member of society. In fact, he went on to commit other serious crimes.

Oregon Firearms Federation strongly supports officer safety, and while we don’t think it would be wise for any police officer to assume that they should relax because someone they stopped denied having a weapon, it is certainly an overreach to forbid police from asking.

This resolution would not change the law. It would refer the change to the voters of Oregon, to vote on whether they wanted to alter Oregon’s Constitution to specifically allow police to ask if you had a firearm.

The problem with the resolution is how broad it is. It does not say police will have the right to ask you if you have a firearm if you are stopped or detained. It says a police officer will be allowed “at any time” to ask if you are in possession of a firearm.

We believe this goes well beyond the intended purpose of protecting officer safety. A law enforcement officer should not be allowed to question you anywhere, anytime about whether or not you are exercising a Constitutional right.

Please contact Rep Brad Witt, the resolution’s sponsor, and ask that he consider an amendment to reduce the over broad scope of the proposed change to our constitution.

Representative Witt has a long history of supporting gun rights. Your input to him can make a difference in how this resolution is crafted.

Representative Witt’s contact info and a sample message follow.

Representative Brad Witt 

Email:

Rep.BradWitt@oregonlegislature.gov

____________________________________________________________

Dear Representative Witt,

Thank you for your long time support for Second Amendment rights.

I strongly support your efforts to help keep Oregon police safe with HJR 13. I am concerned however, that the language of the resolution may have some unintended consequences. I refer specifically to the language that authorizes “a police officer to ask a person at any time if the person is in possession of a firearm ..”

Clearly, I should not be faced with that kind of questioning while out at dinner with my family.

I strongly urge you to consider an amendment that would limit the police’s right to question me about my firearms possession to times and places where they are facing a real potential threat.

Thank you.