Category: OFF Alerts

Posted on by

The Sharks Are Circling

09.26.14

shark_2352169b

Yesterday we told you about California billionaire Tom Steyer’s efforts to buy two Senate seats in Oregon and install anti-gunners. Steyer hopes to defeat Republicans Betsy Close and Bruce Starr.

Today the Washington Times is reporting that another out of town billionaire, anti-gun zealot Michael Bloomberg, is dropping even more money to attack Bruce Starr.

The Times reports that Bloomberg’s “Everytown For Gun Safety”  spent over $18,400.00 in support of Chuck Riley, Starr’s Democrat opponent.

“Everytown” has listed three expenditures for Riley:  $292.37 and $2545.02 for “card shipping” and  $15,600 for “paid organizers.”

As you know, the Senate is currently made up of 14 Republicans, 15 anti-gun Democrats and 1 pro-gun Democrat.  The loss of even one Republican seat could be disastrous for gun rights in Oregon.

Bloomberg already has an organized campaign of  letter writers attacking Starr.

You can help us defeat Bloomberg with a donation to OFFPAC and you can  get a tax credit.  Or you can help Starr directly by making a donation to his campaign.

This message was brought to you by OFFPAC.

Posted on by

California Billionaire Tries To Buy Oregon Senate

moneypile 9.25.14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This message was brought to you by OFFPAC.

Posted on by

AMMO BAN UPDATE

09.17.14

California-Condor-juvenile-male-in-Pinnacles-National-Monument

Yesterday’s hearing on lead ammo reinforced everything we were expecting.

While the hearing subject was listed as “Lead Ammunition Survey” there is no doubt that what will be coming down the road is an attempt to ban lead ammo.

If some of the more extreme anti-hunting activists have their way, the ban will be on all lead ammo, not just ammo used in hunting.

While the representatives from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife did not call for an outright ban, others who came to testify made it clear that that was their goal.

Myra Finkelstein of the Department of Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology, University of California, and Debra Scheafer of the Audubon Society of Portland both called for a complete elimination of lead ammo.  But while their “science” was obviously agenda driven, one comment by Finkelstein was particularly telling.

(Keep in mind, the efforts to ban lead ammo are all being done in the name of saving California Condors. The claims by the anti-hunting extremists are that condors are dying because hunters use lead bullets. Those bullets “fragment into hundreds of tiny pieces” and are then consumed by condors.)

Let’s leave aside their questionable knowledge of ballistics for a moment.

Finkelstein noted that a voluntary ban on lead ammo for hunting in Arizona had been “incredibly successful” in terms of its very high compliance rate, but that it didn’t work!

It’s pretty clear that when a “scientist” promotes a program that has failed elsewhere, she has an agenda that’s a little different than advertised.

Oregon Firearms was joined by Dan Reid of the NRA and Stan Steele of the Oregon Outdoor Council who did an excellent job highlighting the holes in the anti-hunters’ testimony.

Brad Witt, the Chairman of the committee asked some interesting questions that clarified that the testimony of the “fragmenting bullets” was dubious at best. Vice Chair Sal Esquival pointed out that when he weighed the bullets from an elk he shot, they all weighted exactly the same as when they were fired, again adding to the doubt of fragmenting bullet theory.

Also pointed out was that California’s ban on lead ammo has coincided with an increase in lead levels in condors! As you would expect from California, they are now expanding that ban!

Coincidentally, NSSF today released a report “demonstrating the negative effects that the State of California’s ban on the use of traditional lead ammunition in hunting will have on hunters, the state’s economy and wildlife conservation.”

That report is available here.

The hysteria around lead ammo is interesting considering the massive amounts of lead used and left behind by people other than hunters.

There is little doubt that the real agenda is against hunting and gun owners and has nothing to do with saving scavengers.

You can see a video of the hearing by using this link. You will want to scroll down to “House Interim Committee On Agriculture and Natural Resources 2014-09-16 2:00 PM”

From there you can go directly to the part of the hearing dealing with lead ammo by clicking on the tab that says  “Lead Ammunition Survey – Informational Meeting”.

Chairman Witt and Vice Chair Esquival (both of whom are hunters and gun rights supporters) commented on the large number of emails they received on this issue. For all who took time to write, thank you for your activism and thank you to everyone who took time to come to the hearing, especially the large contingent from our friends at Oathkeepers. Rest assured your presence made an impact.

Posted on by

Lead Ammo Ban Hearing Scheduled

09.09.14

 

We’ve been warning for some time that an attempt to ban lead ammo would be coming. Now the first hearing on the subject has been scheduled.

On Sept. 16 in Hearing Room D at the State Capitol at 2PM, the House Interim Committee On Agriculture and Natural Resources will be holding a “informational meeting” on lead ammo.

Governor Kitzhaber is reported to be behind a push to ban lead ammo. At this point there has been no proposed legislation made public so it’s unclear if this will start as a ban on lead ammo for hunting, or a total ban on lead ammo. You can rest assured that if it starts with hunting it won’t stop there. Make no mistake, this is a political effort, not an environmental one.  The anti-gunners see this as one more way to attack the rights of gun owners.

Having failed in Oregon to ban firearms, this is yet another attack on possession of ammunition.

 This hearing is open to the public, however only invited testimony will be taken. We still encourage you to attend.

 The Chairman and Vice-Chair of the committee are both pro-gun and pro-hunting so the fact that this hearing is taking place at all before any bill has been made public may be an effort to get in front of the issue. However, it is still a dangerous policy. It’s unlikely that anything said at this meeting will prevent a lead ammo bill from being drafted and introduced. So now, even before the elections, we need to start letting legislators know that we will oppose any effort to further curtail ammo supplies.

Please contact Chairman Brad Witt Rep.BradWitt@state.or.us
and Vice Chair Sal Esquivel     Rep.SalEsquivel@state.or.us

Urge them to oppose any effort by the environmental extremists and the well funded anti-gun lobby to ban lead ammo.

You can find an excellent source of information and talking points here.

Posted on by

Kitzhaber’s Jihad Continues

08.12.14
troopers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OFF Logo vector

Posted on by

Corrections Officers Get Fifed.

08.08.14

barney fife

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hi-cap pistol

 

Posted on by

Corvallis City “Civil” Servant

08.07.14

45

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

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

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

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

Mahalo,

Joel Hirsch

City Council – Ward 6

HIrsch’s email is:

ward6@council.corvallisoregon.gov

if you want to share your thoughts with him.

Posted on by

Maybe Target Really Is A Good Name For That Place

07.08.14

As you know, Target Stores have decided they do not want anyone to come into their stores with a firearm.

Persons who have contacted Target to express their displeasure with this foolish and dangerous policy have received the following email:

 

Hello ,
Thank you for reaching out to us. 

 We’ve listened carefully to the nuances of this debate and respect the protected rights of everyone involved.

 Target’s approach has always been to follow the local laws, and we continue to do so. In return, we respectfully request guests not bring firearms into Target stores – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

 This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief:  Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.

 We’ll share your viewpoint with Target leaders.

Sincerely,

 The Target team

[THREAD ID:3-FNWHSJ]

We want to thank an OFF supporter who forwarded the following links which demonstrate that Target really is a target and their policy of excluding gun owners is a great reason to shop elsewhere.

Richmond, CA

Apex, NC

Miami-Dade, FL

Aurora, CO

Owensboro, KY

Apex, NC

UPDATE.
Some folks who sent emails opposing this ludicrous policy have received the above email but in place of “We’ll share your viewpoint with Target leaders”  were told “Thank you for support on our position.”   So it seems like in addition to being unable to keep their customers’ data safe, and keep their stores from being shooting galleries…they can’t read.

By the way,Fred Meyer Stores actually contribute to the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation.

Posted on by

Target Is OFF Target

07.02.14

Target stores have announced a new policy of “no guns.”

Bowing to the money of Michael Bloomberg and the astro-turf “activism” of “Mom’s Demanding Gun Sense in America”, Target stores now are telling customers that their legal firearms are not welcome.

 “Starting today we will… respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target-even in communities where it is permitted by law.”

Target did not say they were asking people not to open carry. They said they were asking people not to carry any guns, concealed or not, long gun or handgun.

PLEASE take the opportunity to let your voice be heard via one (or more) of the following avenues:

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/target

Go to Target’s Facebook page and post a new message telling them you will not shop in Target stores until they welcome lawful carry.

Email: press@target.com 

Email Target Corporate and let them know you won’t shop in their stores until they welcome lawful carry again.  Let them know that it was bad enough that Target’s lack of security lead to the breach of millions of customers’ financial information last fall.  Now they want to deny you the security of being able to protect yourself.

 

 Phone: 1.800.440.0680 or (612) 696-3400

Call Target Corporate.  Let them know you cannot patronize a business that will not allow you the right to lawfully carry and exercise your God-given constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Mail:

Target Corporation

1000 Nicollet Mall

Minneapolis, MN 55403

Send a letter to Target corporate and express your disapproval of their anti-rights stance.  Millions of law abiding citizens carry for self-defense every day and harm no one.

http://pressroom.target.com/leadership 

 

Posted on by

John Kitzhaber’s Jihad

06.27.14

Governor Kitzhaber Gears Up For Universal Background Checks In 2015

OFF recently learned that the Oregon State Police have a new policy dealing with firearms purchase denials. Gun dealers in Oregon were sent a letter from the State Police telling them of a revision in OSP policy and stating: “This revision will include enforcement action involving persons attempting an unlawful firearms transfer through a licensed firearm dealer, during a voluntary private party check or a background check at a gun show.” We were also informed that the State Police had sent a bulletin to troopers informing them of this policy, but were unable to acquire a copy until now.You can see that bulletin here.

Note that the bulletin says the following:
(Emphasis added.)

 

 FICS will report the Denial of a Firearm Transaction to OSP Dispatch.

 The incident will be dispatched as a call for service,including suspect name,dealer location,and reason for denial. Sworn personnel will respond and take appropriate enforcement action.

 After enforcement is completed, OSP personnel will clear the CAD call with a reportable clearance code. 

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

OFF has now spoken to two  four persons who attempted firearms purchases, were denied and had State Troopers dispatched to “investigate.”

In the first instance, a buyer was attempting to purchase a pistol and the dealer received a notice of a “delay” on his computer terminal. Oddly, the “delay” provided no estimate of when the OSP expected to have the issue resolved, so the dealer called OSP and was told “We are working on it.”

The dealer asked the customer to wait (hoping for an approval) and then a State Trooper arrived looking for the customer. The trooper took the customer to the parking lot for an “investigation” where the trooper explained he did not know the specific reason for the denial. He was only told the customer had a Federal hold for mental health issues.

The customer told the trooper that he had never been involuntarily committed as the law requires for such a denial.  We were told by both the dealer and the customer that the trooper was professional and apologetic for the intrusion and was clearly not comfortable being pulled off patrol for this “call for service.”

The trooper reported that the new rule came directly from the Governor. The customer was not arrested or further detained. No action was taken against him but he was denied the purchase.

A similar event took place yesterday. A customer attempted a purchase and was denied.

The customer had no idea why, as he had purchased firearms in the past and even had had a concealed handgun license.

After leaving the store, a State Trooper came to the business looking for the customer. The trooper then went to the home of the customer.  The trooper told the customer that he did not know why he had been dispatched and had no record of any criminal history of the “suspect.”

Again, the report from the denied party was that the trooper was professional and apologetic for the intrusion and that the trooper informed him that this new policy was directly from the Governor. Again, there was no arrest, and no action was taken against the customer. But of course, once again a State Trooper was removed from patrol to “investigate” a person who was attempting to purchase a firearm when there was no evidence that the buyer was attempting an illegal purchase.

No arrests were made.

We believe this policy is a prelude to another attempt to require universal background checks in the coming legislative session.  You will recall that when Floyd Prozanski attempted to pass this in 2014, he was ridiculed because it was well known that when a person failed a background check as the result of past felonies there was virtually never any police action or prosecutions.

So to respond to that criticism and lay the ground work for a new bill, the Governor has ordered State Police to leave patrols to respond to every denial, no matter how unjustified. The two buyers we spoke to were lucky. They were not hauled off to jail pending completion of an “investigation.” But both had to deal with the embarrassment of being detained and questioned by the State Police. (One in front of his children.)

This new policy illuminates the failures in the background check system and is nothing more than another politically motivated attack on gun owners.  Furthermore, it’s an outrageous misuse of scarce police resources.  The State Police have long complained about being understaffed. Now they are being dragged off of traffic patrols to enforce what at very least should be handled by local cops.

Please remember if you become the subject of one of these “investigations” that you are not required to answer any questions without the advice of  a lawyer.

Posted on by

Supreme Court Rules You Cannot Buy A Gun For Another Approved Person

06.17.14

judge

Today the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that if you purchase a firearm and transfer it to another “approved” buyer, you are a “straw purchaser” and may go to prison.

The ruling is in the case US vs Abramski, a case to which Oregon Firearms contributed to an Amicus brief.

The buyer of the gun purchased a gun legally and transferred it to his uncle who was also an approved buyer. The uncle took possession of the gun after passing a background check.  Abramski (a former police officer) was charged with a “straw purchase.”

“The Obama administration had argued that accepting Abramski’s defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them.” 

Clearly this transfer had nothing to do with crimes or people who are ineligible to receive firearms. This ruling will vastly complicate any future transfers of legitimately owned guns.

Posted on by

Lead Ammo Ban Coming

06.11.14

A Ban On Lead Ammo Is On The Horizon

“There is no proposal to ban or limit use of lead ammunition in Oregon, but developments outside of Oregon could affect the use of lead ammunition within the state,” 

Don’t you believe it.

“The California legislature passed a law banning lead ammunition to protect endangered California condors…”

“Historically, Oregon has had condors, though none are known to live here now, however, there are efforts to re-establish populations in northern California and if they are successful, it is only a matter of time before condors begin frequenting the southern portions of Oregon. “

Rest assured this will be the excuse needed to ban lead ammo.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is working with Oregon State University to “survey a random sample” of Oregon hunters “about their use and knowledge of lead ammunition.”

While you most likely will not be included in the survey, you can still make your voice heard.

“Persons not chosen for the survey are welcome to provide comments on lead ammunition directly to the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife at a special email address: ODFW.Wildlife@state.or.us”

For more info please see this link.  
Posted on by

Early Summer Update 06.09.14

With the primary elections behind us, and the summer having arrived, it’s time to catch up.


First of course, are the results of the primary elections. 

Dr Monica Wehby will be facing anti-gun radical Jeff Merkley for US Senate.  While we endorsed Wehby’s opponent, Jason Conger, we wish her the best in this important race.

Oregon Congressional races will be interesting. 

In the First Congressional District, Suzanne Bonamici (who made a career of anti-gun activism when she served in the Oregon Legislature) will be facing  Jason Yates who is a staunch supporter of gun rights.

In the Second District, Greg Walden has once again secured the endorsement of the NRA in spite of his anti-gun votes.  

In the Third District, Earl Blumenauer, one of the most militant anti-gun extremists in the Congress, faces no real opposition.

In the Fourth, long time incumbent Peter DeFazio will once again be running against (and no doubt defaming) Art Robinson. Robinson is a staunch supporter of gun rights and an OFF member. DeFazio is a hard core leftist who is long past his expiration date in Congress.

The Fifth District race may be the oddest.

Incumbent Democrat Kurt Schrader will be facing Tootie Smith who is a Clackamas County Commissioner.  Schrader has been an open supporter of more restrictive gun control yet he, once again, has received the endorsement of the NRA, who in their candidate ratings completely ignored the fact that there were two pro-gun candidatesrunning in the Republican Primary.  Schrader, a Democrat, got the NRA endorsement and Republicans Tootie Smith and Ben Pollock, both pro-gun, were never even mentioned.

Smith won that primary against newcomer Pollock and will have an uphill climb against Schrader, a millionaire with an NRA endorsement despite his anti-gun record.

Now onto the battle for control of the Oregon Legislature.

If there were any races you missed, you can see complete results here.

There are some races we’ll be watching closely in the general election. 

In Oregon Senate District 3, OFF-supported Dave Dotterrer will once again face off with anti-gun Alan Bates.  In their last match up, Dave came very close to defeating Bates and we think he has an even better chance this time. Bates is totally out of touch and needs to be replaced.In Senate Distict 4, anti-gun militant Floyd Prozanski will face newcomer Cheryl Mueller. Mueller is the daughter of former Senator Gary George and the sister of current Senator Larry George. Both Gary and Larry have been consistent supporters of gun rights. Our hope is that it runs in the family.

Senate District 8 will be between current House member Sara Gelser and Betsy Close, who holds the seat now. Close was appointed to this seat and will now be running to keep it. Close was endorsed by OFF and when she served in the Oregon House was a rock solid supporter of gun rights.  Gelser is best known for her attempts to ban firearms ownership by foster parents.

In Senate District 11, current Senate President Peter Courtney is being challenged by Patti Milne. Courtney is fiercely anti-gun and best known for his use of dirty tricks and unethical behavior to promote his radical agenda.  Milne recently resigned her seat as Marion County Commissioner to run against Courtney. Milne is supported by OFF and is 100% pro-gun.   When she served in the Oregon House in the 90’s Milne introduced Oregon’s first Constitutional Carry bill. She is truly a pioneer for gun rights in Oregon.

In Senate District 13, our hero, House Rep Kim Thatcher, is running against Democrat Ryan Howard. Thatcher has been perhaps Oregon’s most prolific creator of pro-gun legislation. It was her dogged efforts that brought us privacy for CHL holders. She is running to fill the seat being vacated by Senator Larry George.

In House District 9 pro-gun activist Casey Runyan will be taking on Caddy McKeown. Casey got lots of media attention when he openly challenged the presence of anti-gun celebrity Mark Kelly at a hearing for an anti-gun bill in Salem.

In House District 25, our pick, radio talk show host Bill Post, beat Barbara Jensen who had been recruited by Julie Parrish who thought Post was too conservative. Post won handily and has no Democratic opponent. While a third party candidate could still file to run, at this time it looks like Bill will win this seat which is being vacated by Kim Thatcher who is running for Senate.

House District 28 will almost certainly be won by Democrat Jeff Barker whose Republican opponent dropped out of the race.  Barker has been one of the strongest supporters of gun rights the Oregon House has seen in a long time. Barker has repeatedly taken on his own party to protect Second Amendment in Oregon. 

House District 41, previously held by anti-gun extremist Carolyn Tomei will see a race between Kathleen Taylor (D) and Tim Mc Menamin.(R)  Tim is an OFF member and solid pro-gun supporter.

Many seats will have only one candidate running. There are 24 races with no Republican candidate and 10 with no Democratic candidate.

On another note, OFF will be raffling another rifle. It’s an AR donated by our friends at RRC Firearms and you can get all the details here.

If you are in the Cottage Grove area on June 14th, please consider coming to “Incite Liberty!” at the Western Oregon Exposition Fairgrounds. OFF will be there along with some great speakers and supporters of freedom. All the details are here. 

Finally, we’d like to remind you that there is now a great way to support our efforts at the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation that won’t cost you a penny.

If you shop at Fred Meyers, they will contribute to our Foundation if you use a Rewards Card. You don’t lose any of your points! You keep them all and they donate to OFEF. Hard to beat that deal.  It’s easy to sign up and all the details are here. 

Now get out there and enjoy the weather! 

Posted on by

OFEF SUBMITS AMICUS BRIEF AGAINST CT. GUN BAN

05.24.14

Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation and Gun Owners of American Fighting Connecticut Gun Ban

OFEF has contributed to an amicus brief in a lawsuit against Connecticut’s unconstitutional firearms and magazine ban. You can read it here.

As attempts are made across the country to eliminate your Second Amendment rights, it is more and more critical that we engage the gun grabbers in court.

“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
– George Orwell