Category: OFF Alerts

Session Starts and Rally Reminder

Happy Superbowl Sunday. May your favorite team win.

We have a number of things to share with you today.

First, the 2013 Oregon Legislative Session begins actual operations tomorrow. We expect to see a fairly large number of gun bills introduced in the coming days. As you may know, there is a link on our home page    that will take you to a list of any bills affecting gun owners.

If you think there is an important bill that is not posted, PLEASE let us know ASAP.

We will let you know when hearings are scheduled.  Showing up for these hearings is important.

Second, the pro gun rally on January 19 was a tremendous success and we want to thank the folks who put it together and everyone who showed up in defense of liberty. It was an amazing thing to see. We were overwhelmed by the support we received at that event and the many new members we signed up.

Because of that event, and other efforts by our friends across the state, OFF has grown dramatically. We have added staff  to keep up, and if you are a recent joiner, we want to thank you for your dedication and support.  We are a bit behind processing all the new members, so if you have not heard back from us or are awaiting a package with a book or hat or patch, rest assured we are working 7 days a week to get our thank you’s out to you.  Don’t hesitate to drop us a line if you think you have been missed. We will get someone right on it.

Finally and most important, a follow up rally will be held at the Capitol on Friday Feb. 8th from 10am to 2 pm.  Let’s make it even bigger and better than the last one.

All eyes are on New York where their legislature violated all their own rules to ram through a massive and unconstitutional gun ban in the middle of the night.  It’s clear that New Yorkers are not taking this lying down.  A big turn out on Friday will let our legislators know that Oregon will not stand for those kinds of games.

Reminder, “OPEN carry” is legal in Salem, however, if you do not have a concealed handgun license, LOADED carry is NOT legal. If you have any questions email us .

See you there.

Today Obama announced his proposals to punish law abiding gun owners in America, partly by bypassing Congress with executive orders and also with a push for a new ban on firearms and magazines.

This is the man who starts every speech with “no one wants to take your guns.”
His proposals include an end to private sales and greater Federal intrusions into mental health records.

As you no doubt know, Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County has written a letter to Joe Biden saying he would not enforce unconstitutional gun laws. According to KGW news, Crook County Sheriff Jim Hensley said Tuesday he sent the same letter to the Vice President.

Now Sheriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County has joined them. Things are going to get a lot more interesting.

To contact your own sheriff and tell him to get on board, use the map at the bottom of our CHL Central Page.

NRA CHANGES GEARS, FINALLY

After long opposing guns in schools by anyone but police, the NRA today held a press conference that implies they would support civilians in schools with guns. Although most of the press conference referred primarily to police officers :

“I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school — and to do it now,”

LaPierre’s speech seemed to leave the door open to train and encourage school staff to be armed as well:

“Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners that you’re willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care?”

This is a long overdue and welcomed response by the National Rifle Association and mirrors what have been saying and suggesting since the Sandy Hook massacre.
Welcome aboard NRA.
For a transcript of the press conference see the following link:

http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

GET READY

Tomorrow, the NRA has stated, it will emerge from hiding and “make a statement” about the Connecticut massacre. If the past is any indication, the NRA will not be making a strong stand for the protection of Second Amendment rights. The NRA has long opposed allowing parents and teachers to be armed in schools, so don’t expect them to suggest we end the delusion of “gun-free schools.”

What is far more likely to happen is one more capitulation, one more compromise and one great step backward for liberty and logic. While we will certainly hope for the best, it would be wise to prepare to let the politicians know that you are not ready to sacrifice your rights and the safety of your family because one sick killer was allowed to gun down innocents where no one at the scene could legally stop him.

Here in Oregon, the predictable is happening. In the wake of the atrocity committed in a place where no adult present was allowed to be armed to defend the children, Senate President Peter Courtney is calling to enforce that deadly policy here.

The stupidity of this idea is staggering. The single thing that could have saved some of the children was an adult equipped to deal with an attacker. Now Courtney wants to guarantee that our schools will be prominently posted : “KILLING ZONE.” This is lunacy.

Of all the dangerous schemes the anti-gunners are planning to introduce in the coming session this is the one most bordering on madness.

Please take a moment to contact Courtney and let him know you will not stand for any effort to render our children as helpless as Connecticut’s children were. His contact info and sample email text follow. Then please use our automailer to send a message to the rest of the legislature.

Peter Courtney
Capitol Address:
900 Court St. NE, S-201
Salem, OR 97301
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1600

sen.petercourtney@state.or.us

_____________________________________________________________

Senator Courtney,

Your plans to disarm parents and visitors to schools is not just terrible policy, it’s horribly dangerous. It is hard to fathom, in the wake of the Connecticut massacre, why you would want to replicate their failed policy in Oregon. Did putting up a “no guns” sign save a single life? This proposal is a slap in the face to the parents and children of our state.

You and your colleagues are protected by uniformed and plainclothes police everywhere you go in the Capitol. Instead of guaranteeing that our children are unprotected targets, why not reassign the many State Police who protect you to schools around the state?

Or are politicians more important than children?

Yours,
___________________________________

IT’S TIME.

It’s time to stop the denial. It’s time to stop listening to the bed wetters and start saving our children. It’s time to arm teachers and other school employees. Instructors are agreeing to offer free handgun training to school  employees. The Canby Rod and Gun Club was the first to make this offer. Others have made the same offer.

Below is an email Oregon House Representative Dennis Richardson sent to three southern Oregon school superintendents.  What followed was the predicable response.

“Medford schools Superintendent Phil Long, who received the email from Richardson, said he believes it’s best if teachers focus on getting children to safety if a shooting occurs.”

How’d that work out for the dead teachers in Connecticut Phil?

“Medford police Chief Tim George disagreed with Richardson, saying that it’s not the responsibility of teachers to make deadly force decisions on the job.”

What unspeakable nonsense. What choice do they have?

George said. “In crisis situations there are a lot of very complex things happening all at once and you have to constantly train for deadly force incidents.”

Then shut up and train them. Note to George, THE COPS ARE NOT THERE WHEN BABIES ARE BEING GUNNED DOWN! THE TEACHERS ARE.  Stop acting like you have a monopoly on the ability to engage evil people. That is everybody’s job! Connecticut tried it the gun grabbers way. They are now mourning their babies.

It’s time to arm school  employees. It’s time.
Please use our automailer to contact Oregon legislators.
http://automailer.oregonfirearms.org/

Prepare Now To Protect Our Students & Teachers

My heart aches for the families of 26 children and adults killed last week as a result of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, and I am frustrated over our failure in America to protect our school children and teachers from future attacks.

Instead of responding to the latest mass murder with calls for more gun-control, the real issue should be ensuring the protection of our children and educators from armed psychopaths. Currently, when a killer begins his rampage the only armed person in the school for at least five minutes after the sound of the first gunshot is the mass murderer.

Training in classroom lock-down techniques is valuable, but passive. Classroom lock-down procedures alone fail to protect the children and adults who continue to be murdered before the police arrive. A police officer in every school is not the answer; a police officer would be the first target of a shooter and the cost would be prohibitive for most school districts.

Lives would be saved by stopping the shooter. Seconds count when the police are five minutes away. It would be simple, inexpensive and enable immediate response after the first gunshot in a school was fired if two or three volunteers in every school (administrators, staff members or teachers), were encouraged to obtain additional training and practice in the use of firearms and were encouraged to have a firearm concealed on their person or locked in their desks. School district employees with prior military or law enforcement experience would be the initial candidates for this voluntary assignment. No one outside of school and district administration would know the identity of these volunteers.

In short, having armed and trained personnel in every school would enable immediate response with lethal force if and when the lives of our children and teachers were endangered by a mass murderer.

If this procedure had been implemented, the number of children killed in every school massacre from Columbine to Sandy Hook would have been greatly reduced. (The same would be true if it were implemented by the shop-keepers and mall personnel.) In Israel and Thailand armed school personnel save the lives of their children. In America the slaughter of our school children continues.

This is a call for our school superintendents, board members and principals to face and address the reality that mass murderers are armed with guns, knives, explosives, and, as we saw last year in China, even hammers. In 1998 students were killed in Oregon’s own Thurston High School. In Sandy Hook Elementary 28 are dead. The current passivist approach of Oregon’s school administrators fails to adequately protect our children and teachers. Candidly, if I were a school administrator or board member and, knowing how these mass murders continue to occur, if I failed to promote preparation for immediate, lethal response in case an attack were to occur in my school, the blood of multiple innocent victims would be on my hands. The time for passive hand-wringing is past; the time for parents, teachers and other concerned citizens to demand preparation is now.

Dennis Richardson

FIRST ANTI-GUN BILL MADE PUBLIC

As we predicted, the anti-gun bills are starting to show up in Salem. The first one by (of course) Ginny Burdick bans the “transfer” of magazines that can hold over 10 rounds.

This bill (and no doubt others) were drafted some time ago and we were expecting to see it when the session began. But Burdick has, not surprisingly, decided to use the tragic murders at Clackamas Town Center to market her bill. In a hastily drafted email to legislators, Burdick said:
“I invite you to sign onto the bill as co-sponsor. If you would like to sign onto the bill before next Friday’s deadline for pre-session filing, please contact my office at 503-986-1718, or come by our office, S-213.

While Burdick’s use of this crime to promote her agenda is shameful, it’s no surprise. Why let a good crisis go to waste?

We can assure you that this is only one of many anti-gun bills that will be coming our way when the session begins. We expect a ban on semi-autos, restrictions on licensed carry wherever school children are and attacks on preemption. Be prepared for a busy session.

Holiday Warning.

If you have an Oregon concealed handgun license, you may well have (or might soon) receive a fundraising letter from “Oregon Gun Owners.”

If you choose to ute, be aware of where your money might go. “Oregon Gun Owners” has endorsed and uted to some of the most anti-gun legislators in the Oregon legislature.

“Oregon Gun Owners” supported Floyd Prozanski who has worked overtime to kill or mangle every pro-gun bill that has come to his committee. You can read all about it on our alerts page.

They also made a donation to House Rep Chris Garrett who voted to allow CHL records to be available to the public.

“Oregon Gun Owners” also sent a check to Senate President Peter Courtney who, in the last days of the last session, revived an atrocious anti-gun bill and tried to ram it through with no public hearings. You can read about that here.

But beyond their long support for gun control, “Oregon Gun Owners” are also liars.

For proof, take a quick look at their “Legislative Report” for 2012.

Two quotes from this report stand out. First:

“Since OGO had already worked to kill the bill once in its form as SB 1550, other groups thought it was safe to leave the final days of the session un-monitored.”

While it is laughable for OGO to have taken credit for killing anything it’s patently false that “other groups”  left the final days of the session “unmonitored.” In fact, SB 1550 was killed by Floyd Prozanski in a fit of anger because the House Committee Chairs would not go along with his games. You can read about that here.

See alerts from OFF here, here and here.

More interesting?  This quote ” However, OGO remained vigilant, and once the bill was re-introduced by Senate President Peter Courtney (D- Salem), we were able to respond immediately. Within hours we had met with House and Senate leaders, Committee members and legislative allies to ensure that this bill would not move.”

They then describe how the bill DID move.

“The bill moved out of committee with no conversation on a party line vote 3-2. Portland Democrats Ginny Burdick and Dianne Rosenbaum voted in favor of the bill with Eugene Democrat Lee Beyer.”

No mention of the money “Oregon Gun Owners” sent to Peter Courtney.

This Christmas season, when you face so many expenses, we think it would be wise for you to know  who is asking for your money.  If you really want to support anti-gun organizations, why not just cut a check to Ceasefire Oregon?

In the wake of the election many gun owners are wondering what to expect in the coming legislative session.

On the national front we have re-elected a person who has used executive power to cover up gun running to Mexican drug gangs and thinks that anyone who has ever started a successful business “didn’t build that.” He has already stated his desire to reintroduce a ban on most rifles and shotguns and has also commented on more restrictions on handguns.

You may have seen internet postings about the new “banned gun lists,” although we cannot confirm that these are accurate. What we do know is that almost immediately after winning a second term, Obama renewed efforts to get a gun control bill via United Nations treaty. It may be impossible to overestimate that particular threat. A gun ban by international treaty would be unlike any threat to our gun rights we’ve seen before.

Obama has shown no reluctance to bypass Congress to enact his agenda and Congress has shown precious little backbone to stop him. As a result there is a very real possibility that we may face some kind of new restrictions that Congress does not even weigh in on.

You may recall that when Bill Clinton was President, a whole family of shotguns was made illegal overnight by Clinton’s administration simply reclassifying them as “destructive devices.” Countless people who owned these guns were made felons overnight and many never knew it.  There is little reason to think this could not happen with virtually any gun you own, whether it’s that black “assault weapon” in your gun safe or the “sniper rifle” you’ve hunted with for 20 years.

On a statewide level, both Houses of the Oregon Legislature are once again under the control of anti-gunners. While the numbers in the Senate have not changed, some of the players have.

There are now two Democratic Senators who have a history of being pro-gun most of the time. This was the case last session, but now one, Joanne Verger, has been replaced by Arnie Roblan, who was co-speaker of the House last session. Roblan often supported gun rights in the House, and we can hope that he will continue to in the Senate, but with the exception of Senator Betsy Johnson, every other Democratic Senator is anti-gun. That means that if anti-gun legislation moves in the Senate (which it certainly will) we need to get Roblan or Johnson to buck their caucus AND we need every single Republican to take a stand or the bill passes. That’s going to be a tough hill to climb.

In the House, the numbers are even worse. What had been an evenly split House is now controlled by anti-gunners 36-24.  The even split forced both sides to work together but you can bet that the Obama victory and the takeover by Democrats will be seen as a “mandate” for more gun control.

While we have a handful of fairly pro-gun Democrats in the House, there is simply no telling how much pressure will be put on them by the Democratic Caucus, and it gets worse.

The new Speaker of the House is Tina Kotek. Kotek is anti-gun, as are most House Democrats, and she will have the power to decide who sits on which committees and to appoint committee chairs. Committee Chairs have virtual life-and-death power over bills that come before them.

For some time, Democrat Jeff Barker has been chair or co-chair of House Judiciary, which hears gun bills.  Barker has been solid on gun rights all this time, but there is no guarantee that he will get this chairmanship again. If he does not, the most likely candidates for the job are all anti-gun.

This is probably the most dangerous situation for gun owners. If Kotek appoints a chair of House Judiciary who is anywhere near as militant and irrational as the likely chair of Senate Judiciary, Floyd Prozanski, gun owners in Oregon are in for the fight of their lives.

We believe multiple anti-gun bills have been “pre-session” filed and will be ready for introduction on the first day of the new session. It’s safe to say they will include a ban on modern rifles, shotguns and ammunition feeding devices, a reversal of Oregon’s “preemption” law and a ban on concealed carry anywhere school children congregate.

One more factor will be important in 2013. Long time NRA lobbyist Rod Harder is retiring. At this time we do not expect him to be replaced, so barring something really unexpected we believe there will be no regular NRA representation in Oregon. As you know, we have had many differences with NRA over the years, but Rod has been a close friend and trusted colleague for a long time and he will be missed.

There is no question that gun owners will have their work cut out for them. There will be an awful lot to do in 2013. It’s not going to be easy. But we’ll be there, and with your help, we’ll win.

We wish you a very happy Christmas season and suggest you rest up. We’re all going to be busy.

As we told you on October 3rd, the Department of Justice is crafting an “administrative rule” to implement House Bill 4045, the “concealed handgun privacy” bill. A meeting to discuss the proposed rule was held on October 5th. You can see a transcript of the meeting minutes here.

Interested parties may submit comments about the rule in writing until December 7th, 2012 to the Rules Coordinator at the address listed below, or by e-mail to:
carol.riches@doj.state.or.us.
Carol Riches
Rules Coordinator
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street N.E.
Salem, OR 97301-4096

You may also provide oral or written comments at the rulemaking hearings, which will take place on the following:

DATE: November 26, 2012
TIME: 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
PLACE: Department of Justice
1215 State Street
Redwood Conference Room
Salem, Oregon 97301-4096

OR

DATE: November 27, 2012
TIME: 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
PLACE: Department of Justice
1515 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Marquam Conference Room
Portland, OR 97201

The proposed rule follows. We encourage you to submit your suggestions either in writing or in person if you have comments on the proposed rule.

137-004-0900 Public Records Requests for Concealed Handgun License Records or Information

(1) A public body, except the Judicial Department, may not disclose records or information that identifies a person as a current or former holder of, or applicant for, a concealed handgun license, unless:
(a) The disclosure is made to another public body and is necessary for criminal justice purposes;
(b) A court enters an order in a criminal or civil case directing the public body to disclose the records or information;
c) The holder of, or applicant for, the concealed handgun license consents to the disclosure in writing;
(d) The public body determines that a compelling public interest requires disclosure in the particular instance and the disclosure is limited to the name, age and county of residence of the holder or applicant;
(e)(A) The disclosure is limited to confirming or denying that a person convicted of a person crime, or restrained by a protective order, is a current holder of a concealed handgun license;
(B) The disclosure is made to a victim of the person crime or to a person who is protected by the protective order, in response to a request for disclosure that provides the public body with the name and age of the person convicted of the person crime or restrained by the protective order; and
(C) The person seeking disclosure provides the public body with written proof that the person is a victim of the person crime or is protected by the protective order; or
(f)A) The disclosure is limited to confirming or denying that a person convicted of a crime involving the use or possession of a firearm is a current holder of a concealed handgun license;
(B) The disclosure is made to a bona fide representative of the news media in response to a request for disclosure that provides the name and age o f the person convicted o f the crime involving the use or possession of a firearm; and
(C) The person seeking disclosure provides the public body with written proof that the person is a bona fide representative of the news media.
(2) Requests seeking records or information on the basis of a compelling public interest pursuant to subsection (l)(d) shall:
(a) Be considered by public bodies on a case-by-case basis;
(b) Be made in writing and signed by the requestor;
(c) Be addressed to the custodian of public records of the public body that possesses the records or information; (d) Identify the records or information being sought;
(e) State with specificity the reasons why the requestor contends that a compelling public interest requires disclosure ofthe requested records or information; and
(f) Include any documentation that supports the requestor’s contention that a compelling public interest requires disclosure.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public body that receives a request for disclosure under subsection (l)(e) or (l)(f) of this rule may conduct an investigation, including a criminal records check, to determine whether a person described in paragraph (l)(e)(A) or (l)(f)(A) of this rule has been convicted of a person crime or a crime involving the use or possession of a firearm or is restrained by a protective order.
(4) As used in this rule:
(a) “Convicted” does not include a conviction that has been reversed, vacated or set aside or a conviction for which the person has been pardoned.
(b) “Custodian” has the meaning given that term in ORS 192.410.
(c) “Person crime” means a person felony or person Class A misdemeanor, as those terms are defined in the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, or any other crime constituting domestic violence, as defined in ORS 135.230.
(d) “Protective order” has the meaning given that term in ORS 135.886.
(e) “Victim” has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.007.

Stat. Auth.: 2012 OL Ch. 93, Sec. 2(4) Stats. Implemented: 2012 OL CIl. 93, Sec. 2(4) Hist.: DOJ 14-2012(Temp), f. & cert. ef. 8-21-12 thru 2-8-13

As we told you on 8.29.12, the Department of Justice will be adopting a permanent administrative rule to implement HB 4045, the “CHL Privacy” bill.

As we pointed out, this bill is a very poorly drafted piece of legislation, so crafting an “administrative rule” that makes sense will be a challenge.

When we told you that this rule was going to be created and that OFF would be part of the committee to write it, many of you asked if this meeting would be open to the public. We have been informed that it will be.

Members of the public will NOT be allowed to actually participate at the meeting, although they will be allowed to attend. There will be an opportunity for all members of the public  to comment later.

The meeting will be held this Friday at 9am. It will be held in DOJ’s Robertson building, located at 1215 State Street in Salem. We  do not have a room number at this time. As you enter on the main floor, please check in with the receptionist, who will provide a visitor badge and direct you to the conference room where we will be meeting.

We will let you know when and how public comments will be taken as soon as that information is available

As you know, the Oregon Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, HB 4045 the “CHL Privacy Bill.”

While HB 4045 started out as a simple and understandable bill to protect private information about concealed handgun license holders, it was twisted by Floyd Prozanski into a complex, poorly crafted, and easily misunderstood pile of legalize. We warned about this here, here and here.

A recent event in Clackamas County proved how little this bill has done to protect CHL holders.

Almost immediately after a shooting incident in a Clackamas Fred Meyer store, the shooter was identified as a CHL holder. Long before there had been an opportunity for an investigation, the CHL holder’s private information had been disclosed to the press by the Clackamas County Sheriff. While there are conflicting reports about  the confrontation, the shooter has been convicted of nothing and may very well have been acting in self defense.

Recently the Department of Justice adopted temporary rules to implement HB 4045. You can see those here. As part of the process to adopt permanent rules, DOJ will convene an advisory committee to make recommendations to the Department in order to “obtain a broad range of perspectives.”

OFF has been invited to be part of this committee. We welcome feedback from our supporters. Please feel free to share any ideas or concerns you have and would like to see addressed by this committee. While we do not yet have a date for the meeting we have been informed it will be in mid to late September.

We Can’t Even Shoot On Our Own Property?

Jerry Conrady and his wife have been fighting to be able to continue to safely shoot on their own rural property. This is their story in their own words, why it should matter to you, and how you can help.

Lincoln County is attacking Oregon residents’ rights to shoot on private property. If Lincoln County wins the repercussions for shooters in the State of Oregon will be staggering. Every county will be able to use the following cases as precedent to require anyone on private property to obtain a condition use permit before discharging a firearm. Your support is needed.

Jerry Conrady and his wife own 120 acres in rural Lincoln County. Mr. Conrady is a State certified teacher, has a degree in Gunsmithing from Lassen College and is an Eagle Scout. Mr. Conrady’s wife is an estate paralegal and writer. Neither have any form of criminal record. Mr Conrady gives out free gun locks at Portland gun shows.

Currently the Oregon Revised Statute allows for landowners and their guests to discharge firearms outdoors on private property without any permits. The Conradys and their guests have been doing so since they purchased the property in 2002 with no complaints or negative comments from anyone. In 2008 Mr. Conrady proposed building an indoor range in the center of his property. A small group of their neighbors, backed by someone with a good deal of money is now attempting to sue the Conrady’s into poverty and submission.

There are currently two cases pending:

Case number 111143 in which, after the County threatened to sue them if they didn’t stop shooting on their property the Conrady’s filed a suit asking a Judge to read and interpret the law. Instead of ruling on the law in question, the Judge determined that the County has a right to regulate shooting ranges. The County has taken that to mean that anywhere an individual discharges a firearm is then considered a range and thus they have the right to regulate the discharge of firearms on private property and that anyone who wishes to do so must apply for a conditional use permit. This case is currently in the Appeals Court.

Case number 112006 in which 5 of the Conrady’s neighbors are suing them for an “abatement of a nuisance”. Even though the Oregon Revised Statute says that noise from firearms cannot be regulated and does not fall under the nuisance statutes, the same Judge is allowing the case to go through and Lincoln County has jumped on board with the Plaintiffs. The remedy they’re seeking? First they want warrantless search and seizure. They want to be able to enter the Conrady’s property at any time for any reason and arrest anyone suspected of shooting, whether a firearm is present or not. Keep in mind that the Conradys are law abiding citizens who do not currently have nor have ever had a criminal record. They hold concealed weapons permits in multiple states and Mr. Conrady holds an FFL. If they were criminals they would never have passed the checks that allow them these privileges. The Plaintiffs also want the house that the Conrady’s are building on their property with approved permits removed, as well as their well and septic and anything else the County deems an improvement related to a shooting range. There are no improvements as no range was ever built as the County has been told multiple times.

This case will be heard November 6th.

The Conradys don’t shoot 24 hours a day 7 days a week. They try to be respectful of their neighbors including voluntarily reducing their shooting hours. In addition, they are not the only people in the area who shoot. Several neighbors on Mr. Conrady’s property line discharge firearms on their property whenever they want, yet is it only the Conrady’s who are being sued.

Oregon Revised Statutes 166.170, 171 and 176 state that NO conditional use permit is necessary for a landowner and guests to discharge firearms on private property. In fact, Counties cannot restrict the discharge of firearms on private property in rural unincorperated areas. Lincoln County is attempting to get around this statute by claiming the Conrady’s were running a shooting range and that anywhere a firearm in discharged is a shooting range, thus they have the right to regulate all shooting. They have yet to define the difference between a commercial shooting range, private shooting range on private property or a landowner and guests discharging firearms on private property. The Conradys never ran a range. They created a non-profit and did what was necessary to prepare to apply for a conditional use permit to build a range. They sent letters and emails and left phone messages for the County asking for guidance which never came. Mr. Conrady had to finally send a letter to the County Commissioners before the county attorney finally responded with a contradictory and confusing letter that baffled every attorney the Conrady’s spoke with and left them wide open to litigation.

The Conradys have been fighting this battle for 4 years now and it’s taken a dramatic personal and financial strain on them. They are no longer fighting for just their rights but the rights of every shooter in the State of Oregon. If they lose, anyone who wants to set up a target or shoot at a can will have to have permission to do so first. It’s once again time to show that shooters will not be bullied.

If you’re interested in supporting the Conradys and your rights call the Lincoln County Commissioners and voice your opinion at 541-265-4100 or write or email them. Anyone who would like to assist with their defense fund may do so as follows:

MAKE CHECKS TO: GERALD CONRADY TRUST ACCOUNT
Send to:
Gerald Conrady Trust
Care of Attorney Russell L. Baldwin
P.O. Box 1242
Lincoln City, OR 97367

In the wake of the Colorado shooting, we all expected the media and the victimhood promoters to do all they could to use a crime to attack your rights as gun owners. But the anti-rights vultures never fail to find a new low to sink to.

We all know that Oregon is cursed with one of the worst congressional delegations in the country, given that 6 out of 7 of our members of Congress are foaming-at-the-mouth gun haters.

But every time we think we have reached a new low, the bottom feeders who “represent” us pull out their shovels and dig a little deeper.

Let’s take a look at a “survey” that Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer emailed out today. You can see it here:

Question 3 of his survey asks:

“Should the gun show loophole be closed, so that the people who buy weapons in the open-air gun bazaars, like what occurs in Portland at the Expo Center, be required to submit to the same background checks and record-keeping as people who buy from licensed gun-dealers.”

Let’s put aside that no Portland Expo show we have ever been to has ever been “open-air.” Does a rabidly anti-gun Oregon Congressman NOT know that private sales at Oregon gun shows have been banned for 12 years? Blumenauer was one of the main forces pushing for a ballot measure that banned private transfers in 2000. And now he is unaware that this is current law? Should this guy really have a job of this importance if he doesn’t know a law he pushed actually passed?

Question 4 says:

“Should people with a history of domestic violence be able to purchase guns and carry concealed weapons?”

Is this member of the Oregon Congressional delegation REALLY unaware that people with even the most minor “domestic violence” convictions are banned from owning guns or even a single round of ammo FOR LIFE and have been for 16 YEARS!?

Earl is a shameless liar who is counting on the ignorance of the people in his district to promote his anti-rights agenda. You may want to take a moment to answer his bogus survey.

You may also want to check out the following links to see more on the never-ending debate between those of us who take responsibility for ourselves and those who rely on the forces who “responded” to Hurricane Katrina.

Kevin Starrett vs Oregon University System