Category: OFF Alerts

04.25.13

Today, the Multnomah County Commissioners unanimously passed an ordinance to demonize gun owners while having no effect on criminals or the violently mentally ill.

Although the County website often removes or changes URLs, the most recent one containing the ordinance can be seen here.

While there will be more on this in coming days, including reports from OFF members who attended the hearing, here is the summary:

Open loaded carry will now be illegal in Multnomah County for non-licensees.

Only security guards who work at banks will be allowed to be armed. Armed guards elsewhere would be prohibited   (Apparently much of the “gun violence” is being committed by security guards.)

It will now be unlawful for a person without a CHL to have a loaded magazine or speed loader in any public place, including your car, anywhere in the county.

It will now be unlawful to refuse to allow the police to inspect a magazine you have…even if you don’t have a gun!

It will now be a crime to allow a minor to have access to one of your firearms, unless of course, you’ve given him permission to have it. (We know, it makes no sense.)

This won’t apply if the minor was on your property illegally.  This won’t apply if your gun had a trigger lock.  The County has not explained how they will prove your firearm did NOT have a trigger lock.  We are confident that all guns that are obtained by minors from this point on, will be reported to have had trigger locks.  (It would appear that none of the County Commissioners are Mensa candidates.)

If your firearm is stolen and you don’t report the theft within 48 hours of “knowing or having reason to know” that it was stolen, you face a $2,500.00 fine.  We predict there will be lots of people who didn’t “know” their guns were stolen.

If your gun is stolen and you can’t provide a serial number, you will be charged a $200.00 “administrative fee.”  They don’t say what that fee is supposed to cover.

All in all, pointless rules that are only intended to harass and demonize gun owners. The Sheriff of Multnomah County thinks these rules are a great idea. (The County has no rules punishing people who allow minors access to their car keys.)

Reports are that the overwhelming majority of people who testified were in opposition.

More info to follow.

On another note, Ceasefire Oregon is encouraging its few supporters to lean on Senator Betsy Johnson to support gun control even though she has repeatedly  stated in writing she will not. As you may know, Senator Johnson is hospitalized following a car accident.  The gun bills passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee have not yet been scheduled for a floor vote and some are saying it’s because Senator Johnson is not available.  But this makes sense ONLY it the Democrats in control are convinced that with enough time they can change her vote.  If she’s not available, her absence is the same as a “no” vote.  Now is no time to let up. Please continue to contact the legislators and urge them to vote “NO” on all gun control bills.

http://automailer.oregonfirearms.org/

The Multnomah County Commissioners are planning to pass an anti-gun ordinance this Thursday at 9:30 AM.

(Our alert from yesterday mistakenly said this vote was scheduled for “next week”.)

While we have been told there will be an opportunity for public testimony, the schedule indicates there will be “invited” testimony.

Ceasefire Oregon has been “invited”.  No pro-gun groups or individuals are listed among the “invited.”

The Commission’s website describes their actions  this way:

“In the aftermath of mass shootings in Clackamas Town Center and Newtown, Conn., Multnomah County’s Board of Commissioners moved forward on an ordinance Thursday to address illegal gun use in the county.”

In fact the proposed ordinance does not “address illegal gun use” at all. Instead it makes perfectly normal activities like open carry illegal.

The agenda can be seen here.

Contact info for the County Commissioners can be found here.

If you want to attend the hearing and attempt to have your voice heard it will be at 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 600  Portland, OR 97214

More info about the proposed ordinance can be seen here.

04.22.13

Multnomah County Sheriff Dan Staton recently testified before the Multnomah County Commissioners endorsing their latest proposals to strip Multnomah County residents of gun rights.

Their proposals (due to be enacted next week Thursday) would not only make it illegal for most people to be armed in public places, it would also make many victims of gun thefts… criminals. So, not only would they be victims of a crime, they would become criminals because they were victims of crime.

Rational people will recognize this as lunacy. But clearly Multnomah County Sheriff Dan Staton has not. In fact, he has embraced these proposals.

In the political climate in which we live, this should be disappointing, but not surprising. But it is a bit surprising in light of a letter Staton sent in January to the people who elected him.

In it, Staton said :

“The first line of my Oath of Office is that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and I have and intend to continue to do that very thing. I support the rights of citizens granted by the Constitution, and have worked hard to ensure those rights are protected.”

And yet now, Staton has hitched his wagon to the star of disarming the people who hired him. Well that didn’t take long did it?

If you want to share your concerns with the Sheriff his email is sheriff@mcso.us and his phone is 503-988-4300 .

04.19.13

Yesterday, the Multnomah County Commissioners moved forward on anti-gun ordinances in a largely staged and theatrical hearing.The video of the hearing is available on this page.

They had several panels of anti-gun, anti-freedom speakers who regurgitated the worn cliches we have come to expect from people who prefer platitudes to solutions. We heard the usual message that while these changes would do little, if they saved “just one life” they would be worth the erosion of liberty they would cause.

The beauty of the “just one life” canard is that you never have to actually prove that it did any such thing.  The usual array of anti-rights fanatics were joined by family members of the Clackamas Town Center shooting.  While you cannot help but sympathize with anyone who has lost a family member, you cannot ignore that nothing being proposed here would have made a difference. One victim’s family member admitted as much but urged the County to adopt these pointless measures anyway.  The urge to “do something” even when that “something” does nothing is quite strong.

We expect the normal line-up of freedom haters to trot out their tired and disproved rhetoric. We even expect them to be invited and be given special treatment by the deceitful political hacks who push this nonsense. But what was truly disturbing was seeing Multnomah County Sheriff Dan Staton come out in support of this pointless, symbolic posturing.

While other Oregon Sheriffs are making bold stands in defense of the people of their counties, Staton came and testified in favor of these useless attacks on liberty.

The proposed ordinances (which will probably be formally adopted on April 25) start by listing biased and unsubstantiated opinions as fact.

“About one-third of U.S. households contain a gun, and half of gun-owning households don’t lockup their guns, including 40 percent of households with children under age 18.”

The ordinance calls for an end to Oregon’s pre-emeption law so that our state can once again become a patchwork of confusing and contradictory regulations putting all lawful gun owners at risk.

The ordinance will outlaw “loaded carry in public places” for all non CHL holders. That includes armed security guards who don’t work for banks. It will make it illegal for non-license holders in rural parts of the county to be safely armed.

It will make it illegal for non-license holders to have a loaded magazine! That means if you have a handgun locked in your trunk and a loaded magazine in your locked glove box, you are a criminal.

It will force you to allow a police officer to inspect a magazine in your possession even if you don’t have a gun!

It will require you to lock up your firearms to prevent a minor from getting them. It does not require you to lock up your car keys, your chain saw or your kitchen knives. It does not require you to secure household chemicals.

It will fine you $2500.00 if your firearm is stolen and you don’t report it, with serial numbers, within 48 hours of “knowing, or having reason to know it was stolen or cannot be located through reasonable effort.”  Really? Are you serious?  OK,  so, we draft another meaningless attack on victims of crime but we let them off if they just say “I didn’t know.”  Is this a reasonable use of tax-payer dollars?  Is this going to stop the criminals and madmen? Are we electing imbeciles?

The ordinance can be seen here, although the County changes this URL often so it might disappear.

Sheriff Dan Staton can be reached at (503) 988 – 4300.

04.17.13

Senator Arnie Roblan is reportedly moving “closer and closer” to supporting some or all of the anti-gun bill currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

These bills, SB 347, 699, 700 and 796 have, once again, been held over and now are due to be voted on tomorrow, the last day they can move forward without a suspension of the rules.

Although heavily amended, all of these bills are still anti-gun bills which do nothing to address crime and violence.

SB 347, the “no guns in schools” bill has had its language changed but will still ban concealed carry in virtually all schools. No has provided a single example of a crime committed by a CHL holder in a school in Oregon…ever.

SB 699 now requires that CHL holders keep their firearms “concealed from view” while in public buildings. The only apparent explanation for why this should be required is that some people are “offended” by or “distressed” at the sight of a firearm in civilian hands.  Ironically , we don’t require licenses for open carry, only for concealed carry. Now, because some people have phobias and irrational fears, we are forcing people give up their rights so no one’s “feelings are hurt. There are many things that offend many people. Are we going to outlaw everything anyone objects to?

SB 700  still requires that you get police permission before giving a gun to your best friend or many family members. It also requires that you obtain forms from the State Police and keep them for 5 years if you transfer a firearm. The fact is, the background check system is already failing on a regular basis and people are delayed sometimes for months because of its regular errors. Expanding this system is a terrible idea.

Finally, SB 796 has been amended to outlaw online firearms classes. Why? No one seems to know. Ivy League Universities offer online course and college degrees are offered for them. Oregon has a charter school that is completely online. Online education is the wave of the future, it provides a far greater range of instructors than in-person teaching can and there have been exactly zero problems with people who have learned gun safety online. This bill is another idea whose time has clearly not come.

It’s essential that you contact Senator Roblan before tomorrow’s work session and urge him to vote no on all of these bills.

Contact info and a sample message follow. Feel free to modify this message.

Senator Arnie Roblan
503-986-1705
Sen.ArnieRoblan@state.or.us

______________________________________________________

Dear Senator Roblan,

The anti-gun bills you will be voting on tomorrow are no better in their amended form than they were when first drafted.
They solve no problems, address no issues and serve only to harass the law-abiding.
I urge you to continue to stand up for the rights and freedoms of  Oregon’s gun owners and not pass any bill whose only purpose is to make certain people feel good while accomplishing nothing of real value.

Yours

04.16.13

 

Although none of the anti-gun bills scheduled for today actually moved out of committee, we have now seen the latest amendments for the bills.

SB 700, the “universal background check” bill would be amended to add to the list of people you could transfer a firearm to without asking permission of the police.

Previous amendments listed specific people who could receive a firearm and this amendment adds to that list by including step-children and “domestic partners.”

The bill will still prevent you from giving a gun to your favorite niece or a friend you’ve known for 30 years. Of course, this new rule will be completely ignored by all criminals, once again only harassing the law-abiding.

It a moment that can only be described as surreal, Senator Jackie Dingfelder sought to denigrate the idea that you should be allowed to give your son or daughter a firearm by reminding the room that the Connecticut shooter “got the gun from his parents” (sic)  No mention was made that he got it by shooting his mother in the face, something this bill, will not, of course, address.

SB 699, which started life as an attempt to ban concealed carry in the Capitol, has been amended several times.  This latest amendment would only allow concealed carry in a “public building” if the firearm was “concealed from view.”

A previous amendment required the firearm be “completely concealed.”  This new term does little to make the bill any better since in neither case was “concealed” or “completely concealed” defined.

Does the outline of a handgun printing through a jacket mean it’s not concealed? If  a person catches a glimpse of your gun when an outer garment is brushed aside are you now guilty of a felony?

SB 347, the “no guns in schools” bill has been amended once again. The latest version changes the way gun owners will be banned from schools. Instead of writing policies “allowing” CHL holders onto school property, now it requires that the school write a policy to forbid CHL holders it they want to keep them out. Again, it allows schools, if they choose to, to require that you unholster your firearm and place it in a school provided “safe.”  Why any school would encourage people to handle a firearm when it is safely holstered is anyone’s guess.

The new amendment (dash 8) also allows a parent to pick up or drop off a child while in possession of a firearm, but they may not come inside the building. This is absurd.  No one can explain why a licensed, rational, law-abiding parent can be trusted right up to the door, but after stepping across that line becomes a dangerous lunatic. Furthermore, no provision is made for grandparents or any other family member to pick-up or drop off a child. More pointless and unnecessary attacks on your rights.

Finally, we have seen amendments to SB 796.  The “dash 6” amendments once again change the required course of fire for new CHL applicants and now specify that a person may only attempt to qualify 3 times in a year. No mention is made in the bill on how this will be enforced. This may NOT be the amendment the committee will consider since at today’s work session Chairman Prozanski described a different amendment (not yet posted) that would remove the firing requirements and instead outlaw “on-line” training, and require a “live” instructor.  This, of course, would greatly impact people who live in places where firearms instructors are few and far between. We have seen no examples of why this new demand is needed.  As more and more classes and training move to the online environment, this is a great leap backward. Why limit the types of classes available when an online class by a world class instructor could be as good or better than a class with a “live” teacher? This bill provides fewer choices and greater expense. Another solution seeking a problem.

The bills have been held over until tomorrow for action but could very well be pushed back to Thursday or even Thursday night.  In short, there is nothing here that is good for gun owners and we need to keep the heat on.

 

Please contact the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask for a “no” vote on all four bills.

 

https://www.oregonfirearms.org/activist-toolbox/the-home-lobbyist/2013-senate-judiciary-committee

 

 

 

 

 

OFF ALERT 04.15.13

Happy Tax Day.

 

This is the day Bill Clinton urged us to make our “patriotic contributions.”  But tomorrow is the day that Senate Judiciary Chairman Floyd Prozanski will attempt to advance his attacks on gun rights.

 

Tomorrow, “work sessions” are scheduled for Senate Bills 347,699, 700 and 796.  Each of these bills attack  legitimate gun owners while ignoring criminals and madmen. Each is designed to harass the law abiding.

 

Since all of these bills have already received “public hearings” no public testimony will be taken at the “work session.”  Of course, these bills are likely to be changed dramatically at the work session so the “public testimony” previously taken will not reflect what will likely be in these bills. But if these bills are voted on tomorrow, there will be no opportunity for the public to comment on what they have become before a vote in committee. That’s the way it works in Salem.

 

The reason we were told these bills were moved back to tomorrow was to allow time for amendments to be drafted.  As of today, Monday afternoon, those amendments were still not available to the public or presumably to the Republican members of the committee.

 

Should these bills actually be dealt with tomorrow, most of the people voting on them will have had virtually no time to review the amendments. And you the public will have literally no time to review them until after the vote in committee.

 

There is still time to contact the members of the Senate Judiciary and express your opposition to these very bad bills.  They can be reached here.

 

For more info and talking points on these bills, please use this link.

 

Please note, the starting time for this work session has changed from 8AM to 8:30 AM.   This is significant since numerous bills have been added to the schedule and, as of now, the gun bills are scheduled to be dealt with last.  This means that it is entirely possible that they won’t be dealt with tomorrow. There is no way to predict this.

 

Since there is no opportunity for public input, you may want to consider just watching the event online.

 

You can do that at the following link.

 

You’ll want to tune into Room 343.

 

Don’t forget that on Wednesday, the same committee is due to have public hearings on two gun related bills, SB 696 and 713. For more information on changes coming to SB 696 please see this alert.

 

 

We have no idea what they are planning for SB 713 which would extend the places a “firearms training facility” could be located.

 

Stay tuned.

04.12.13

 

Gun rights are being attacked on multiple fronts from the Federal to the County level.

The US Senate took steps yesterday to continue the erosion of gun rights taking a bite here and a bite there. Efforts by staunch pro-gunners like Rand Paul to stop or slow these attacks were defeated when other Republicans did what they are best known for, caving.

Those who  were working to protect your rights have been ridiculed by folks like John Mc Cain, who, you will recall, campaigned in Oregon for Ginny Burdick’s gun control ballot measure in 2000.

Oregon has two of the most militant anti-gun Senators in the country, but they need to hear from you anyway. They are listed at the top of this page.

As we told you yesterday, SB 696 ,which was supposed to be a bill increasing the value of firearms immune from liens in the event of a bankruptcy, is likely to be amended into a completely different bill. While some of the changes are good, some are not. See here for more info.  While making the CHL statute more uniform in some regards, it seeks to expand the list of people prohibited from getting them. These include even more people with restraining orders against them.

The problem with this is that a restraining order is not even an accusation of crime, let alone proof. We know of police officers who lost their gun rights and their jobs as the result of  restraining orders with no evidence ever provided of wrongdoing.

A person who is abusive should be arrested and charged, but losing your rights simply because someone wants to take them away from you is not acceptable. Please contact the Senate Judiciary Committee and urge them to vote against any provision that expands the list of  people denied CHL’s unless they have actually been convicted of  crime.

As you know, the four major anti-gun bill which were supposed to be worked this past Wednesday, are now scheduled for next Tuesday. We are told they will be amended, but we don’t know what with. There is no reason to think they will be improved. You can still use our automailer to express your disapproval.

On another note, HB 3216, the bill that would have given tax credits for gun safes has been removed from the agenda.

Finally, now Multnomah County  has gun rights in their sights. We told you about this on March 26.

The Multnomah County Commissioners are planning to expand Portland’s anti-gun policies county wide. They would implement mandatory lock-up-your-guns rules, outlaw open, loaded carry for those without CHL’s, outlaw discharge of firearms and punish you if your firearm is stolen.

This is one more, incremental chip in your rights and will not stop here. You can see the proposed ordinance here .

The ordinance is due for discussion and possible adoption on April 18th at 9:30 AM. Location and contact info for the Multnomah County Commissioners can be found here.

If you plan to attend the meeting and testify you will need to fill out and submit this form to the Board Clerk.

The Board members phones and emails are available here.

A sample email  to the Board follows:

____________________________________________________________

Members of the Board,

I strongly object to proposed Ordinance 4-18-13. Once again, politicians are using the behavior of criminals as an excuse to attack the rights of the law-abiding.  As a responsible gun owner, I object to the County dictating to me how to store my firearms. Open carry of firearms hurts no one. (Why do you suppose you need a license to carry concealed but not openly?) None of the firearms related proposals in this ordinance will stop a single crime. They are clearly designed to harass the law-abiding. I urge you to defeat this needless and counterproductive attack on my rights.

Yours,

_______________

___________________________________________________________

 

04.11.13

GUT AND STUFF COMING FOR GUN BILL.

As we predicted,  SB 696 is likely to be “gut and stuffed” when it gets heard next week.

SB 696 started life as a bill to increase the value of guns an Oregonian could keep, protected from liens, in the event of a bankruptcy.

It was clear from the moment this bill was scheduled that it was being heard as a vehicle for other things.

The proposed “gut and stuff” amendments include both good and bad and come from the Sheriff’s Association.

Right now a person with a conviction for possession of a small amount of pot can still get an Oregon CHL, but only if that conviction was in Oregon. So someone who had a similar conviction out-of-state is… out-of-luck.

This amendment would fix that and mirrors a bill we requested and which was introduced by House Rep Kim Thatcher.

Another provision of this amendment would change the requirements for military veterans who were applying for CHL’s.

Now, many sheriffs will not accept the military document (the DD 214) which lists the training a Vet received as proof of handgun training, unless that document specifically  lists “handguns” as something the Vet was trained with.

This amendment would change the statute to say “firearm” instead of “handgun” where it lists what a person must have been trained with.  This is a perfectly fine idea, but probably unneeded since the sheriffs can already accept DD 214’s just listing “firearms” training if they choose too.

The bad parts of the amendment specifically add people with domestic violence misdemeanors to the list of those ineligible for CHL’s.

Currently anyone with a domestic violence misdemeanor loses his gun rights for life, no matter how small or misunderstood the “transgression”. That is Federal law.  But we see no reason to enshrine that into Oregon law. As much of a long shot as it is, someday the Federal law may be changed to reflect reality and it makes no sense to have the same bad rules in state law as we have in Federal law.

The amendments also expand the many ways a person can lose their rights to a CHL because they have a “restraining order” against them.  The problem with restraining orders is they are not proof of, or even an accusation of, a crime.

People have restraining orders sworn out against them every day who have been proven of  doing nothing criminal.  This is a dangerous path.

We’ll follow up with more info and what you can do shortly.

04.10.13

The four gun bills scheduled to be amended and voted on today have been pushed back until Tuesday.

Although at the hearing, Floyd Prozanski noted they would be heard on Monday, we have heard from the Committee Administrator it will be Tuesday and that is how it is currently scheduled on the legislative website.

Prozanski stated that the delay was due to numerous amendments that are being drafted as a result of the testimony last Friday. At this point we have no idea what they will be.

(SB 281, the bill that would extend medical marijuana use to persons with PTSD passed out of committee with no amendments warning users that using medical marijuana prohibits them from owning firearms.)

Keep in mind that these schedules can change minute by minute, so while it’s always best to keep an eye on the committee schedule on the legislature’s website, what’s posted there is no guarantee of what will happen when the hearing or work session actually starts.  This is important for people who travel or take time off from work.

Also remember that at “work sessions” there is no public testimony taken, so all public input has to happen before a work session.

Of course at a “work session” bills can be amended into completely different animals than the original bill which received public testimony.  When that happens, there is no opportunity for the public to comment on the final bill in a “public hearing.”  A bill you may have strongly supported can turn into an anti-gun bill with you on the record as being in favor of it.

This is why we are concerned with the two bills scheduled for the following day, April 17th.

One is a bill to allow for firing ranges to be built on farmland. The other is a bill that increases the value of firearms not subject to a lien in a bankruptcy.  The second bill is so obscure that it would be very odd for it to get a hearing at all, except for one thing.  The “relating clause” in the bill.

The “relating clause” dictates what amendments can be made to the bill. So a very specific relating clause (“Relating to permission of retired police to carry firearms in public buildings” for example) would allow far fewer amendments than a relating clause like “Relating to firearms” which is exactly what this bill’s relating clause is.

We are quite certain that this bill will be used as a vehicle for issues unrelated to what it proposes now.

We’ll be watching.

Thanks for your support and activism.

04.09.13

Tomorrow, as you know, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be voting on 4 anti-gun bills.

These are Senate Bills 347, 699, 700 and 796. All of these bills do nothing more than attack law-abiding gun owners. None serve a single positive purpose.  For an analysis of these dreadful bills, please use this link. To make your feelings known (one last time) to the committee members, use this link.

Added to tomorrow’s schedule is SB 281. This bill allows persons with post traumatic stress to use medical marijuana. We told you about our concerns with this bill here.

And now some additional bills have been added for hearings.

On April 16, the House Judiciary Committee will be hearing HB 3261.

This bill allows a tax credit for the purchase of an “approved” gun safe. This bill has, as its cosponsors, some committed friends of gun owners, it also has some of our avowed enemies.

We have heard concerns from numerous supporters that this could be a potential tool to identify gun owners. In fact, it’s not at all clear with whom this information will be shared. We think that’s a valid concern.  Of course, as the bill is written, you would not be required to take the tax credit. However, a more pressing concern is what this bill might become in the future, maybe the near future.

For years, anti-gun legislators have been trying to require that you keep your firearms locked up and unavailable. It’s not hard to imagine that this bill could be a stepping stone to that kind of policy. And of course, if this bill clears the House, it would most likely be sent to Senate Judiciary where anti-gun Chair Floyd Prozanski can turn it into virtually anything.   Whatever your feelings on this bill, please let the House Judiciary Committee know them. Their contact info can be found here.

On April 17, the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up two more gun related bills.

These are SB 696 and SB 713.

696 increases the value of firearms that a person may keep in the event of bankruptcy or liens against their property. Simple enough, but the relating clause is “Relating to Firearms.”  This bill can be amended into almost anything. It will need to be watched.

The second bill, SB 713, expands the number of places where “Firearms Training Facilities” can be located.

Neither of these bills seem like a good fit for the Judiciary Committee. There are other committees that typically deal with land use and revenue. Both of these bill are good in their current form but bear watching carefully.

As always you can communicate with the Senate Judiciary Committee using this link.

Remember, these schedules can change at any time. Check this link for last minute changes.

You can watch hearings live on line using this link. Tomorrow’s gun bill hearings will be at 8:30 in room  343.

Thanks for your continued activism.

04.08.13

Today the Oregon House Higher Ed Committee heard two bills dealing with concealed carry on college campuses

HB 3009, would specifically direct Oregon public colleges and Universities to obey the clear law of Oregon and not prohibit licensed concealed carry on their property.

HB 3114 would do the exact opposite. It would effectively ban license holders from protecting themselves and others while on college property.  This strategy, a proven failure, would leave anyone on those grounds defenseless to rapists and glory killers so that people who have no understanding of firearms could “feel” safe instead of be safe. It’s also an unmistakable attempt to whittle down Oregon’s “pre-emption” law by adding one more place where your rights are denied.

The committee is heavily weighted with radical anti-rights politicians including the Chairman, Michael Dembrow and Mitch Greenlick, both of whom sponsored a bill to ban virtually all modern firearms and send many law-abiding gun owners to prison for the rest of their lives if they did not turn in their guns. The bill, HB 3200, would also allow the police to invade your home with no warrant to make sure you did not own guns. (And these people call us extremists.)

We heard the usual testimony about how college students are drunks and likely to shoot up the dorms when they break up with their girlfriends.  No explanation for why these same drug addled psychopaths are not doing that now, even though it’s been legal to have guns on campus for about 40 years.

The committee heard testimony from Jeff Maxwell, the Marine Corp Vet who was arrested at Western Oregon University for having a totally legal firearm. He explained that he opposed the bill that would ban concealed carry on campus just so others would not be subjected to the outrageous abuse he suffered because of the paranoia of the anti-gun zealots.

One interesting comment was made by Penny Okamoto of Ceasefire Oregon. She said that most women who are attacked on college campuses are freshman or sophomores. Her point, apparently, was that these younger women are too young to have CHL’s so they would not be protected by allowing guns on campus.  Putting aside the fact that they would also not be allowed to be protected by other responsible people on campus, the obvious reality is, (if she is right) they are attacked because they can’t protect themselves.  The supporters of this bill would like to extend that vulnerability to everyone!
In regards to HB 3009, the bill that would protect self-defense firearms on campus, House Rep Chris Gorsek has been sending (in a display of amazing arrogance and ignorance)  this message:

“As a former police officer and a current criminal justice instructor at Mt. Hood Community College, I believe that only trained professionals should be allowed to be armed on campus for two reasons.

First, professionals will be trained in the proper response to live shooter incidents and in the proper rules of engagement.

Second, I believe that additional people carrying weapons would increase the likelihood of innocent lives being lost, whether through errant crossfire or police responding in a high danger situation and not being able to differentiate quickly enough between the original shooter and those who happen to be carrying and may have drawn their weapons in response to a threat.”

You would think he could come up with new cliché’s. In fact, while we hear these tired old lies over and over, the anti-rights zealots never provide a single example of this kind of problem actually happening.

As of now, HB 3009 and HB 3114 have not been scheduled for a “work session.” That’s when the actual vote, and any amending, takes place. However, the anti-gun bills heard last Friday are scheduled to be voted on Wednesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In addition to the anti-gun bills (SB 347,699,700 and 796) the schedule now includes SB 281.

SB 281 would allow persons suffering from post traumatic stress disorder to use medical marijuana.  The danger of this bill of course, is that veterans who took advantage of it would be at risk of losing their gun rights under Federal law. The sponsor of the bill, Senator Brian Boquist (a supporter of gun rights and veterans) offered an amendment that would let medical marijuana users know of this danger. We don’t know if this amendment will be considered. The proponents of the bill mistakenly thought this was an effort to prevent vets from taking advantage of the medical marijuana program. It was not.

There is still time to make your voice heard on these bills.

Please consider contacting the Senate Judiciary Committee members and urging them to vote against  SB 347, 699, 700 and 796.  Please also mention the unintended dangers in the medical marijuana bill, SB 281.

Thanks for your efforts and activism. You can watch these hearings live on line at this link: http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/

The Senate Judiciary usually meets in Room 343. Their work session Wednesday is scheduled for 8:30 am. Schedules change, so be sure to use this link to keep track of schedules:  http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/agenda/webagendas.htm