Category: OFF Alerts

04.09.15 

The Prozanski/Hoyle gun grab will soon be voted on in the Oregon Senate. Until the gavel falls, don’t stop hammering them. If it should pass there, prepare to hammer the House. In spite of all the duplicitous rhetoric from the anti-rights crowd about “reasonable and common sense” gun laws, they have proven themselves to be not only unreasonable, but out and out irrational. When Senator Kim Thatcher proposed an alternative that would actually help keep guns out of the hands of criminals, without invading the privacy of legitimate gun owners, it was dismissed with no discussion. So much for “reasonable.”  Representative Bill Post has also proposed an alternative that would protect law abiding gun owners. His bill, HB 3528 protects the privacy of the law abiding and even requires immediate records destruction after a transfer is approved, if a person conducts a voluntary background check.  Let’s see if the House Democrats who are looking for “reasonable” measures will even discuss this bill. House Democrat Leader Val Hoyle, who has hidden her anti-gun agenda in the past, is a sponsor of this attack on your rights. If she does not insist that Post’s bill be heard and passed, she will have proven just how dangerous a hypocrite she is. We have updated our automailer to reflect the changing complexion of the battle.  Please make use of it, and thanks for your tireless activism.

04.06.15

Today, to no one’s surprise, Floyd Prozanski rammed his gun owner registration bill through the Senate Judiciary Committee.

While this was not unexpected, the process has been abused even by the grotesquely low standards of Prozanski and Senate President, Peter Courtney.

After denying most opponents of the bill an opportunity to testify against it, even though they vastly outnumbered the supporters, today Prozanski refused to even consider amendments proposed by Senator Kim Thatcher.

The bill passed out of committee on a straight party line vote with the 3 Democrats voting yes and Senators Kim Thatcher and Jeff Kruse voting no.

The bill will now be raced to the Senate floor for a vote as quickly as possible. This vote can come any day now and we expect it almost immediately.

The Senate has only one pro-gun Democrat, so the bill will almost certainly pass there. But, then it moves to the House where the battle begins again. So this is far from over. Please don’t let up on your efforts to oppose this monstrosity.

Today we learned of more sheriffs who oppose the bill and at least one more who has said he will not enforce it.  The fight goes on. We also spoke to several county commissioners who promised to continue to fight.

Thanks for all you are doing, and never, ever give up. Keep the pressure up.

4.04.15
What happens when the hired help decides to use your money to promote their agenda? Don Johnson happens.  Johnson is the Chief of Police for Lake Oswego, Oregon.

Johnson is not elected. He was hired by the City to serve as Chief of Police. He was not given carte blanche to use his office, his uniform, and his position with the City to promote a deceitful agenda attacking your rights. But that’s exactly what he’s done.

Not only did Johnson testify against your rights in the Oregon Legislature, in his uniform, (no doubt while on the clock) Johnson went further, appearing as a prop at an anti-gun press conference and recording anti-gun puff pieces for well funded anti-gun groups.

Did Johnson get greased by his handlers as well as collecting his Lake Oswego salary?  That would be lucrative wouldn’t it?

Here’s a photo taken at the anti-gun press conference following last week’s hearing on an end to private transfers of firearms.

Johnson is on the far right.

The person at the podium is Mike Reese, the former Chief of Police of Portland, who was also at the hearing and testified that there is no current way for private persons to conduct background checks for gun purchases. This, of course, is totally false. Oregon has allowed private parties to conduct background checks for 15 years. Apparently Reese did not get the memo. We can only hope the current chief there is somewhat better informed.

Reese is retired. He can do what he wants and tell as many lies as he chooses to. But Johnson is being paid with taxpayer dollars. His misuse of his office should not be tolerated.

More and more sheriffs, who are elected to office and actually represent the people of their counties, are rising up in opposition to SB 941. As elected representatives of their counties, they have every right to take a stand. (It should be noted that the Sheriff of Grant County, who came to oppose this bill, did not use a dime of taxpayer’s money to attend, though he could have.)

People like Johnson are employees of the City and should not be taking political stands unless directed to by their bosses.

Did the City of Lake Oswego authorize this particular abuse? We have reason to believe they did not.

If you’re curious why not ask the City Council (CouncilDistribution@ci.oswego.or.us) a simple question?

Did you authorize your Chief of Police to use his office and uniform to attack my rights and advance a personal agenda?

We look forward to hearing from them.

04.03.14

As you know, action on the gun owner registration bill, SB 941, has been postponed  until Monday.

The reason for this was an amendment that was proposed by Senator Kim Thatcher.

The amendment would have required that felons be identified on their driver’s license as prohibited persons and as such could not conduct a firearms transfer. From the responses we have received it appears most thought this was a good idea. (As we did.)

However, after more careful examination, Senator Thatcher is now proposing what we think is a better idea.

First, let’s understand what the problems were with the original proposal.

While it would be technically possible to provide list of felons to the Department of Motor Vehicles, there are other people who are prohibited for which no such list exists. Each person would have to have an individual background check to determine if they were in these other classes of prohibited people. Even if that were technically feasible, which is not likely, we would then be putting prohibitors on, and identifying people, who, for example, have been adjudicated mentally ill. That would be unfair.

We would also have to put identifiers on people convicted of “misdemeanor domestic violence.” Untold numbers of people have lost their gun rights because of unscrupulous prosecutions under this draconian Federal law. They should not have lost their rights in the first place and putting an identifier on their license would simply be adding insult to injury.

Add to this the fact, that in Oregon, many people lose their rights to possess firearms when they been convicted of nothing and have not even accused of a crime. Those people are subject to one of the many kinds of “restraining orders” Oregon issues. They lose their gun rights with no due process. We don’t want them included in any process that identifies “prohibited persons.”

So what Senator Thatcher is proposing is to make the following change in Oregon law.

An old Oregon statute makes it a crime to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person, if you “knew” or should “reasonably have known” that the person was prohibited.

That statue was written long before Oregon instituted its voluntary background check system which allows any private party to conduct a background check on a person to whom they are transferring a firearm. This system is totally voluntary outside of gun shows and has been in place for 15 years.

What Senator Thatcher is proposing (and remember we don’t have a final draft of the amendment yet) is to simply make it illegal to sell to a prohibited person. The requirement that you “knew” or “should have known” would be deleted.  But checks would not be mandated.

This means that if you are giving a gun to a trusted friend, you would not have to subject yourself and your friend to the foolish and expensive process Prozanski and Burdick are proposing. You would not have to pay a fee, find a gun store who would conduct the check, and register the gun, (assuming the check system was even working correctly, which often it is not.)

On the other hand, if you were selling a gun to someone you did not know at all, someone you had some concerns about (say someone with an Obama sticker on their car) you would be able to take advantage of the existing system to conduct a check on the buyer. If you did conduct the check and they were approved, you would be free from any liability for their future actions.  However, the check would still be totally voluntary. If the person was prohibited and you chose not to run a check, you would be liable. But you would never have to deal with this on transfers to people you knew and trusted.

For whatever reason, the people of Oregon elected a majority of anti gun-rights legislators this session.  They have control of the Senate and the House. The Senate President has vowed to ram a dangerous gun registration bill through. The Speaker of the House and the Democratic Majority leader, have promised they are going  to ignore the advice of many sheriffs and the stated position of many counties and do all they can to attack your privacy. If their bill passes, your ability to conduct a private transaction with your own property will be gone. If you are the victim of the one of the many failures of the system you are simply out of luck. That is their goal.

Senator Thatcher’s proposed amendment calls their bluff. It is well thought out and protects gun owners’ rights. We commend her for her courageous efforts to stand in the way of the gun grabbers.

04.02.15
Action on the gun owner registration bill, SB 941, was postponed today until Monday.

The reason was because of an amendment that was proposed by Senator Kim Thatcher.

The amendment would eliminate the proposed expensive, intrusive and inaccurate background checks that would be required for private transfers, and replace them with a system whereby only prohibited persons would be identified.

Although the details would need some fine tuning, how it would work would be this:  If you are a prohibited person, your driver’s license would include an indicator, just as it does now for corrective lenses or organ donors.

Non prohibited persons would have no change.  If you wanted to transfer a firearm you would only need to see the back of the recipients driver’s license or state ID card. If there is no prohibitor the transfer is made with no background check, no fee, no registration and no paperwork.

There will be no record of the transfer and no list of guns or gun owners.

 Transfers at dealers would have no changes, except a dealer would have the advantage of knowing beforehand that a person was going to be denied and could save himself the time and expense of running the check.

Because of the speed at which bills and amendments are created, there is no question that there will need to be technical adjustments, but it does put the gun grabbers in an interesting situation. It basically gives them everything they have demanded;  a way to prevent transfers to prohibited people, but without the registration they claim they were not seeking. (Of course they are lying about that so now what will they say?)

If the background check system is as easy and reliable as the anti-gun crowd claims it is, they should be totally on board with this idea. Monday promises to be interesting.

Yesterday we told you about  HB 3093. This bill would allow certain people who have permits to carry concealed handguns in other states to carry in Oregon. We said we thought the bill was a bad idea. Some folks misunderstood our stand. Our objection was not to allowing non residents to carry in Oregon. We’ve been working on that for many years. Our objection was to allowing the State Police to decide which states they would recognize. This was a power they had in the past and refused to recognize a single state.

Our preference would be to do away with permits and move to Constitutional Carry as more and more states are doing, but we would support starting with recognizing other states. We do not want the State Police to decide which ones. We are working on amendments which should address this issue. If they are adopted, the bill will be a great first step in ending Oregon’s absurd policy of not recognizing a single other state’s permit.

In a touch of interesting timing, we have been informed that Columbia County has added its name to the list of counties standing up for the Second Amendment. We will post it as soon as we have a completed copy. To the people who worked tirelessly to make that happen, thank you!

04.01.15

In a fitting tribute to April Fool’s Day, Floyd Prozanski held a hearing today on his gun owner registration bill, SB 941.

We want to thank everyone who came out to testify against this dangerous legislation, especially Sheriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County.

Since yesterday, several other Sheriffs have gone on record opposing the bill, including the sheriffs of Yamhill, Douglas, and Columbia County. We applaud them. The Oregon State Sheriffs Association itself however, fearful of retribution by the Democrat controlled Senate, refused to take a position.

In what was a moment of either breathtaking stupidity or astonishing ignorance, the former Chief of Police of Portland, Mike Reese, testified that there is no way currently for private parties to conduct background checks for gun purchases. Mercifully many of our sheriffs are better informed. 

The bill will be voted on tomorrow morning and sent to the Senate floor. It’s likely they will do this as quickly as possible. DO NOT LET UP. There is still time to kill this as it moves through the process and it must also pass in the House.

 

This morning, another anti-gun bill was introduced. SB 945 is a “lock up your guns” law. One of its sponsors, Paul Evans, has tried to paint himself as pro-gun. We rated him an “F-” when he ran for office. Here’s why.  (We rated Rep. Val Hoyle a “B”. She has been downgraded to F- as well, due to her sponsorship of the SB 941.)

 

On April 6th, the House Judiciary Committee will be hearing HB 3093. This bill would allow certain people who have permits to carry concealed handguns in other states to carry in Oregon. The bill gives the Oregon State Police the authority to decide which states qualify. For obvious reasons, we think this is a really bad idea. 

 

 

03.31.15

  Your efforts are paying off!  In addition to Sheriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County, who expressed vocal opposition to the Democrats’ Bloomberg-funded gun owner registration bill, yesterday two more Oregon sheriffs went on record opposing this dangers step towards gun confiscation.

Sheriff Pat Garrett of Washington County sent out an email to gun owners who asked him to take a stand and said:

 

1. I am concerned criminals will get around the new law by accessing firearms another way.  For more than a few criminals, the threat of a misdemeanor criminal charge will not be a significant deterrent.
2. The law will be onerous for law abiding citizens with layers of new requirements.  Many Oregonians are serious sport shooters, hunters and collectors.  Frequently and with great care, they buy, sell and trade firearms with each other.  I am concerned this law could create crimes and criminals out of otherwise law abiding people.  Also, it’s unclear what priority prosecutors and stressed court systems will place on charging people who up to this time were crime-free except for an unauthorized gun transfer under this new law.
3. I am concerned that much of this law will be unenforceable.  It’s unclear how law enforcement will learn of unauthorized transfers, and in many cases it will be very challenging to disprove a claim that a transfer was temporary in nature and therefore authorized.  Laws that are largely unenforceable diminish respect for the law in general, which we do not need in today’s environment.
4. I am concerned how the State plans to account for the fiscal impact and increased pressure on the current background check system.  The State’s background system is already heavily burdened, and additional requests could significantly slow the system further, unless additional funds are provided to bolster capacity.

And now Sheriff Bruce Riley of Linn County, has posted on his Facebook page the following :

“As Sheriff of Linn County I am frequently asked by citizens my opinion on proposed legislation. There are many bills before the Oregon State Legislature this year that in my opinion, are cause for concern. One of these bills is SB 941 which calls for background checks on the private party transaction of firearms.

While this bill may look good on the surface, don’t be fooled; It does nothing to make our families, communities, schools or businesses safer. Adding additional requirements and unnecessary laws for law abiding citizens is a waste of time and resources; time and resources that could be better spent on stiffening our current laws that deal with crimes committed with guns and the mental health issues that currently face our community every day.

As your Sheriff, I am committed to keeping guns away from criminals. I am equally committed in allowing law abiding citizens the right to possess firearms without further infringement.”

 No matter what happens when this bill is voted on in the Senate Committee, there is still a way to go before this bill can become law, so our fight will continue. If your sheriff has not taken a stand, there is still time to tell him you expect him to. You can find contact info for all sheriffs here.

Thanks for your hard work and dedication to this cause.

03.27.15 In the recent past, Oregon Sheriffs have taken a vocal and passionate stand in defense of the 2nd Amendment rights of the people who elected them.  Now? With a tiny number of exceptions, like Sheriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County, who has proudly stood for gun rights, the sheriffs and the Sheriffs Association have been silent. The Sheriffs of Oregon are the last bastion of defense against the tyranny of the Portland controlled legislature, but despite promises to take a stand, they have been AWOL on the coming legislation to require that you beg for permission from the State Police before you can exercise your “right” to keep and bear arms. If you don’t think the failed background check system can hurt you, consider the email OFF received today from a gun dealer. In his message he said “I currently am the FFL licensee for my gun store. On 3-20-15 I purchased a Ruger 10/22 for a birthday present for my wife. Imagine my surprise when an employee of mine ran a background on me, the ffl holder, and a delay until May 1st was returned as a response. That’s a 41 day delay for someone licensed by the federal government to handle the sale and disposition of firearms.  It is no wonder why I have simple transfers that are still pending from as early as the first of November 2014 in my files from people who have never committed a crime in their life. This should not only be a severe outrage to me, and those like me, but also to any who hold our system with even the slightest regard.” This kind of insane nonsense has to stop, and it has to stop here. Please contact the Oregon Sheriff’s Association and tell them you expect them to take a stand, now, to protect your rights.  You can find contact info for your sheriff here. Please consider a message to the President of the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association, Jason Myers, asking him why he, and so many other sheriffs, have been silent on the latest attack on your rights and your privacy. Contact info for Sheriff Myers  (jmyers@co.marion.or.us) Sample message: Dear Sheriff Myers, In the past, many Oregon Sheriffs have proudly stood in defense of the 2nd Amendment Rights of the people who elected them. Now, even though your own county, Marion, has joined over 20 other Oregon counties in opposition to more restrictions on our rights, the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association has been silent on the latest attack, SB 941.  You knew this bill was coming. It was no secret. When are you, and the other sheriff’s going to stand up against this attack on my liberty and privacy? Yours, _________________________

03.26.15

Just in time for April Fools Day,  SB 941 , the gun owner registration bill, is scheduled for a hearing on April 1 at 8AM in Hearing Room 50 before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

We told you they were going to race this through and they sure are. The anti-gunners in the Oregon Senate are bypassing all  the normal rules and slamming this bill through as fast as they can. What normally takes weeks is happening in a single day. The bill was introduced this morning, already had its “first reading” was assigned to a committee and scheduled for a hearing at lightning speed. We have seen the Senate President pull this kind of sneaky move before to try to pass anti-gun bills.

The bill is scheduled to be voted on in that committee the following day, April 2.

This bill is far worse then we expected. You will NOT be allowed to transfer a firearm by simply calling the State Police (which often ends in a false denial anyway.) Under this bill you will be required to run the transaction through a dealer. The potential complications of this are too many to list. Most dealers will want nothing to do with this, the cost will be high and that is only if you happen to be in a place where there is a dealer available!

We MUST turn up the heat to defeat this dreadful Bloomberg funded bill!  If you can be at this hearing, please come. But if not, please be sure to contact the legislature and express your outrage at this attack on your rights.  We have very little time.

03.26.15

The long promised gun owner registration bill has been introduced.  SB 941 requires police background checks on private transfers of firearms. Now the failed background check system you are subject to at gun stores will be required when you give a gun to your best friend.

The bill has a long list of co-sponsors including Val Hoyle who at one time seemed to be rational on this issue.

We have been reliably informed that this bill is going to be fast tracked through the Senate. Please, right now, contact your representatives and express your outrage at this new and dangerous assault on your privacy and liberty.

The current background check system is a joke. Most people who are denied are denied with no justification and the very few people who are actually “prohibited persons” are virtually never arrested. So what is the purpose of this bill? The purpose is simply to harass legitimate gun owners and expand the universe of registered guns and gun owners.

You can send a message to the entire legislature here.

You can find your own legislators here. You will want to contact the people under the tabs “Senate” and “House.”

We are in a race now folks. Please act now.

03.25.15

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee heard SB 525. The bill expands the ability of the state to seize firearms from people who have been neither accused of, nor convicted of, committing a crime.

The room was filled with supporters whose testimony can only be described as incoherent, inconsistent and misleading.

Everyone who testified in favor came armed with statistics. The statistics  had only one thing in common…they had nothing in common. Some of these statistics seemed to come out of thin air. Most made little sense.

One common theme was that battered women are safer when their abusive spouse or partner is disarmed.  But this all assumed that the victim continued to live or cohabitate with her abuser. No one explained why an abused woman would, or even could, continue to live with a person against whom she had a restraining order.

Representative Carla Piluso attempted to illustrate the need for taking guns away from persons who were the respondents to restraining orders by recounting a crime she responded to when she was a police officer.  She described arriving on the seen of a domestic disturbance with shots fired. Inside the apartment the suspect had shot and killed his wife and then himself.

Everyone would agree that this kind of incident is horrific, more so because children were present. But then she mentioned that the perpetrator was a felon with a history of violence, who, of course, was already prohibited from owning a firearm.  How this could be a justification for taking guns away from people who have not been convicted of any crime is inexplicable.

Oregon’s Attorney General, Ellen Rosenblum, who has been in the news a lot lately because of her handling (or mishandling) of the investigation into disgraced former Governor John Kitzhaber, also testified in favor of the bill, but when questioned by Senator Kim Thatcher, was forced to admit that, yes, the bill takes rights away from people who have been convicted of nothing, people who have never even been charged with a crime.

Most disturbing about the testimony from all the people in favor of this dangerous bill was, in spite of the massive showing by those in the entrepreneurial victimhood lobby,  that while they were all in support of taking away rights from people never adjudicated to have committed a crime, not a single one ever suggested in anyway that victims of domestic violence should be encouraged to acquire the tools and knowledge they need to keep themselves and their families safe instead of relying on pieces of paper. But we did.

The bill was not voted on today. We will keep you posted.

 

 

03.23.05

Tomorrow, as you know, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be hearing SB 913, a bill to outlaw the sale of ivory.  This does not outlaw the sale of new ivory, it outlaws the sale of almost all ivory no matter how old.

An amendment to the bill limits the definition of “ivory” to mean the tusk or tooth of elephants or mammoths and allows you to sell a gun or knife if it is less than 20% ivory by volume, and it has to be over 100 years old!

This is borderline crackpot stuff.  How does a police officer trying to decide if you have broken the law, by selling grandpa’s old single action with ivory grips, go about determining the “volume” of a gun?

The proponents of this bill say they want to save elephants.  How in the world do you save an elephant by rendering valueless an item that has ivory that’s 99 years old in it? And what could they possibly be thinking by including “mammoths” in this legislation? Mammoths are, well…extinct. Really. It was in all the papers.

Oddly, the bill still allows you to give ivory away. So, if you want to sell that old gun with the ivory grips, make sure you take the grips off when you sell the gun and give the grips away. Don’t even ask about determining the volume of a piano.

If you have not already done so, please contact the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Floyd Prozanski and tell him this bill makes no sense.Sen.FloydProzanski@state.or.us .

On Wednesday a very dangerous bill will be heard in the same committee.  SB 525, in its current form, is one more effort to find a way to ban guns from as many people as possible. As you know, it is now illegal for a person who has been convicted of a “domestic violence misdemeanor” to own a firearm or a single round of ammunition.   This bill wants to expand what “domestic violence” means.

The bill, on page 2, line 7, expands “qualifying misdemeanor crime involving domestic violence committed against a family or household member” to  any other misdemeanor “that involves as an element of the crime the use of physical force.”

Included in the definition of “household members” are “adult persons related by blood, marriage or adoption. “ So, if you get into a shoving match with your obnoxious brother in law, now you will be treated like a wife beater and a judge will have unlimited discretion to forbid you from having firearms.

Several amendments have been offered to this bill. One simply corrects a numbering error in the original bill. The two others are real improvements.

The “dash 3” amendment removes the language that expands the definition of domestic violence.

That is important. The “dash 1” amendment removes the arbitrary ability of judges to take away gun rights.

Judges now have the power to take firearms away from people who have not been accused of, let alone convicted of a crime . This is a power too often abused. The “dash 1” amendment will go a long way towards correcting this lack of due process.

Please contact the Judiciary Committee and tell them you oppose SB 525 unless it is amended with the “dash 1” and “dash 3” amendments.

You can send a message to the entire committee, and get your message on the record, by sending it to Committee Administrator, Laura Handzel.
(laura.handzel@state.or.us)

A sample message follows, please feel free to alter it.

To the Judiciary Committee,
SB 525 expands the definition of “domestic violence” well beyond what any reasonable person would determine it to be.  This is dangerous and counterproductive. Please remove this provision.
Right now, judges have virtually unlimited discretion to take away firearm’s rights from people who have not been accused of, let alone convicted of, any crime.  The proposed “dash 1” amendment would correct this often abused activity and allow an accused person to seek due process. I urge you to support this amendment if you move this bill forward.

 

Thank you,

________________

Finally, Ceasefire Oregon, citing an “internal miscommunication,” has retracted an earlier email telling their supporter that Representative Jeff Barker was in favor of universal gun owner registration in the guise of “universal background checks.” As we told you previously, this was simply false.

03.20.15

First Pro-Gun Victory.

Yesterday your voice was heard loud and clear. HB 2628, which was sold as a bill to eliminate fees for persons requesting stalking orders, but contained a huge anti-gun provision, was amended to remove the anti-gun language. If you are interested, the amendment can be seen here. Thanks to all who took the time to contact the Chair of the Committee, Representative Jeff Barker. (This bill is expected to affect a grand total of 4 people a year.)

Yesterday, Ceasefire Oregon sent out an email asking their supporters to “Thank Jeff Barker for supporting background checks! Please call or email Rep. Jeff Barker, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and thank him for supporting the expected bill, to close background check loopholes in Oregon.”

Well it looks like Penny Okamoto is hitting the sake again. As with almost of all of what CFO says, there is not a word of truth to this. Rep. Barker has been one of the staunchest supporters of gun rights during the entire time he has served in the legislature. Nothing has changed. When you got nothing, make stuff up.

Representative Barker does deserve thanks however, for standing up for your rights. Please consider a note to him letting him know you appreciate his continued support. Rep.JeffBarker@state.or.us
.

Second Pro-Gun Victory

Marion County has added itself to the long list of counties taking a stand for your rights. The Marion County Commissioners have passed a resolution in support of the Second Amendment. We welcome them and thank them for their stand.

Not all commissioners are as courageous.  Lane County Commissioner Jay Bozievich, who campaigned as a pro Second Amendment candidate, and who scheduled a pro-gun rights resolution only to flip flop and unschedule it, has belittled the entire process of counties taking a stand. Bozievich had told us, after removing the pro-gun resolution from the schedule, that he preferred to have his “lobbyists” work on Floyd Prozanski to change his mind about the coming bill to force universal gun-owner registration. Now that’s a pretty absurd position, but when we contacted him recently, after multiple news reports about the coming legislation, and asked how the lobbying efforts were going, he responded with “Fine how are those resolutions working for you? You should listen to KPNW’s interview with Prozanski. He totally blew them off.”  It is, of course, incomprehensible that an actual elected official would think that because someone as militantly anti-gun as Prozanski would not admit that your efforts and the hard work of all the county commissioners were having an effect, that they are not.  Lane County needs commissioners who are not so disconnected from reality.

Your tax dollars at work.

On March 24, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be hearing SB 913.  This bill outlaws the sale of ivory. Now, keep in mind, the importation of ivory is already illegal. This bill makes it illegal to sell ivory you already own, not matter how old it is. It is a new low for stupidity and sure won’t keep any elephants safe.  Not only would this affect things like the ivory grips on your grandpa’s revolver, but anything that has ivory in it. An amendment has been introduced with exceptions for guns and knives, but the exceptions are ridiculous. The gun or knife would have to be “less than 20% ivory by volume” and you would have to document that the gun or knife is “not less than 100 years old.”

Ivory is defined as “all or part of a tusk or tooth, in raw form or worked form, from an elephant or mammoth.” Yes, a “mammoth.” So, all you folks with mammoth teeth… turn ’em in.

The chair of the committee is, of course, Floyd Prozanski.  We can’t think of a message to him that sums it up better than “Dear Floyd… SB 913. Are you kidding?”