Category: OFF Alerts

MORE MUCKRAKERS PILE ON.

A “reporter” for the Salem “Statesman Journal” is demanding ALL information of concealed handgun license holders.

Stacey Barchenger has contacted several sheriffs demanding “information about all people with concealed handgun licenses in Marion County, including all fieldsthat are part of the CHL applications.” (Emphasis added.)

This particular demand makes it clear that Barchenger is seeking not only names, addresses, phone numbers and references, but also the social security numbers of any license holder who disclosed it.

In Barchenger’s demand letter, she says “Please understand that we seek these records for the purposes of public interest, and we hope that the spirit of openness in Oregon government will prevail.”  However Barchenger has refused to disclose the reason for the demand, and while making her demands “in the spirit of openness,” doesn’t even allow people to see the contents of her “twitter” page.

Most sheriffs are making good faith efforts to protect the privacy of license holders, but like hyenas in a feeding frenzy, we fully expect the “press” to use the recent court decision in Jackson County as an excuse to divulge sensitive information.

It’s essential that we do all we can to make sure legislation is passed in 2011 to guarantee the privacy of CHL holders. In the meantime we suggest that you contact Barchenger and let her know that having a CHL does not make a person newsworthy and that you expect to have your privacy respected.

Stacey Barchenger
Statesman Journal
280 NE Church St.
Salem, OR 97301
503-399-6610
sbarchenge@statesmanjournal.com

http://www.facebook.com/sbarchenger?ref=search

MySpace – www.myspace.com/11962605

OFFPAC Alert

CHL INFO TO BE MADE PUBLIC, AND WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

Please help us retire Judy Steigler and elect Jason Conger.

As you may have heard, the Jackson County Sheriff has lost his battle to protect the private information of concealed handgun licensees.

The Medford Mail Tribune has demanded, and now will receive, the names, addresses, phone numbers and occupations of license holders in Jackson County. They may also demand this same information for the entire state, as can anyone, “newspaper,” “reporter” or thief. (Many applicants included their Social Security numbers. It is not at all clear if these will be available as well.)

This info was demanded so the Tribune could “out” as many teachers as possible after the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation funded a lawsuit to protect the rights of a Medford teacher.

Most sheriffs have taken steps to safeguard this information from future snooping, but those efforts have not yet faced legal scrutiny. So for now, if you are a license holder, your privacy is very much in jeopardy.

There is no reason this information should be available to the public. These are not records of “government activity” as has been falsely claimed by the “Tribune” and the ACLU. These are records of private information, extorted by the state in order for Oregonians to exercise what should be a right. There is no more a need for this information to be in the public domain than should be your tax records.

In 2009, House Rep’s Kim Thatcher and Jeff Barker introduced HB 2727 to make this data private. The bill had broad bipartisan support and seemed to be a sure thing, until House Rep Judy Steigler (D Bend), stepped in to torpedo it.  Later Steigler blamed voters who strongly supported the bill for its failure! Steigler was also responsible for the death of a bill in 2009 that would have had Oregon recognize other states’ concealed handgun licenses, a bill that was strongly supported by the Oregon Sheriffs Association.

In 2011, CHL privacy legislation will almost surely be reintroduced. But we need to do all we can to make sure Steigler is not around to kill this important bill. That’s why OFFPAC is asking that you do all you can to help return Steigler to private practice and replace her with someone who respects gun rights.

Frankly, Steigler has done more to damage progress on gun rights in Oregon than even Ginny Burdick, whose efforts to attack gun owners have been almost exclusively failures except when she had millions in out of state money and the help of John McCain. (2000’s Measure 5)

If you live in Steigler’s district, obviously, you can vote against her, but no matter where you live, you can help her opponent Jason Conger.

Remember, the laws are made by legislators whether they are in your district or not. We believe substantial progress would have been made in 2009 except for the actions of Steigler and we hope you will help us replace her.

Conger has answered our survey 100%. OFFPAC is asking that you consider the most generous donation you can make to help send Judy home and elect Jason Conger. You can ute directly to Conger’s campaign here.

No doubt we will see months of analysis of this lengthy SCOTUS decision.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that Chicago’s handgun ban is unconstitutional and remanded the case back to a lower court
If you want to read it yourself, click here.

NRA BACKED FREE SPEECH GAG PASSES HOUSE

After several hours of debate, (some of it fairly comical) the US House has passed HR 5175, the Democrat’s latest effort to protect the incumbent majority.

While pretending that the purpose of the bill is to prevent evil “corporations” from buying elections, it ignores the fact that most grass roots advocacy organizations, like Oregon Firearms Federation and dozens of other pro-gun groups, are corporations.

As you know, the National Rifle Association will be exempt from the bill as a result a deal they cut with the Democrats in power.

Representative Dan Lungren of California stated that Republicans were not even allowed to see the final version of the bill until yesterday.

Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia (who once openly worried that Guam might “capsize” if too many US Troops were stationed there) stated that the bill must pass to prevent Republicans from getting elected.

There is no question that the bill is unconstitutional. The Democratic majority and the NRA know this, but the fact that this bill would almost certainly be struck down does not matter.

The purpose of this bill is to help the Democrats stay in power through the next election. The NRA’s complicity is unforgivable.

No surprises here. All 4 Oregon House Democrats voted in favor of the NRA approved, free speech gag bill, HR 5175:

Blumenauer
Schrader
DeFazio
Wu

Oregon’s only Republican, Greg Walden voted “no.”
A complete vote count is available here.

GUN OWNERS TO BE “OUTED”

After a lengthy legal battle the Oregon Appeals Court has ordered the Sheriff of Jackson County to turn over the names, addresses and phone numbers of concealed handgun license holders to the Medford Mail Tribune newspaper. You can read the decision here.

The paper demanded the names in an effort to “out” teachers who had CHL’s.

The paper initiated their demands after a local teacher was harassed and threatened by the Medford School District when they learned she had a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

In an effort to learn the names and addresses of other teachers who had CHL’s, they demanded that Sheriff Winters turn over the personal information of CHL holders to the newspaper.

Winters refused and the Tribune sued him to get this personal information. The lower courts decided that the Tribune should have the names, which they would be free to publish.

Winters continued to refuse to disclose the sensitive information and the case was appealed.

The Appeals Court has ruled in favor of Bob Hunter, the Tribune’s editor. Now the Tribune is free to disclose the names, addresses and occupations of CHL holders in Jackson County.

In 2009, Representative Kim Thatcher introduced a bill to protect this information, understanding that Oregon’s “open records” law was intended to keep the records of the government’s actions available, not the records of law-abiding Oregonians who are compelled by law to share their private data in order to exercise a “right”.

Her bill, which had over 40 co-sponsors, was shot down by the intervention of one Bend House Rep, Judy Stiegler, who, after torpedoing the bill with amendments that essentially gutted it, blamed voters for the bill’s failure.

On another note, it is possible that the NRA-sanctioned “Disclose” bill may be up for a vote as soon as tomorrow. This bill would silence almost every pro-gun group, except the NRA, who have promised not to oppose it as long as they are “carved out” of its mandates.

Consider this. The bill is in response to a Supreme Court ruling stating that much of the “McCain Feingold” anti free-speech bill is unconstitutional.  After that ruling, the Democrats in Congress sought to once again silence anyone who opposed an incumbent.

The NRA signaled their opposition to this bill until a deal was made to exempt them. They then agreed not oppose the bill, throwing all other pro-gun organizations under the bus. That much is not at issue. What continues to amaze us is that the NRA says they were very vocal opponents of “McCain Feingold” yet they are now the biggest cheerleaders for John McCain’s reelection.

McCain was part of a three million dollar campaign to cripple gun shows in Oregon. Does this make sense to you?

HR 5175 Delayed, Not Deceased.

“We did what was in the best interests for the NRA and the Second Amendment, and we would do it again. We do not take positions on bills that do not affect us.”

That was NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam quoted in “Politico” discussing HR 5175, a bill that would allow free speech for the NRA and cut out almost everyone else.

HR 5175 is a blatantly unconstitutional bill that would end free speech for countless organizations and was opposed by the NRA until they cut a backroom deal with Democrats in Congress. NRA would be “carved out” of this bill and the NRA would slink away and end any opposition to it. All other pro-gun organizations, including other national and all state-wide groups would be silenced, with the NRA’s tacit blessing, and the NRA would be assured of a monopoly on political speech before elections.

Of course, just like much of McCain Feingold, this bill, if passed, will be overturned by the courts. But not before the next election, and that is exactly what the anti-gun majority is planning for. The bill is intended to protect people like NRA darling Harry Reid for one more election cycle.

Since the NRA cut this shameful deal they have been working overtime to spin, and yes, lie about the bill, their positions and their intentions.  Start with their letter to Congress here.

Notice how they describe this bill: “This unnecessary and burdensome requirement would leave it in the hands of government officials to make a determination about the type and amount of speech that would trigger potential criminal penalties.”

Yet when offered their few pieces of silver, the NRA said “fine with us” and of course “we’d do it again.”

The NRA’s Chris Cox says “there is no legitimate reason to include the NRA in H.R. 5175’s overly burdensome disclosure and reporting requirements.” But smaller, less well funded organizations should be included.

In their column called “Setting The Record Straight On The “DISCLOSE Act” The NRA may have inadvertently done just that. There, they state “Consequently, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on political speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in final consideration of this bill in the House. If it doesn’t, we will strongly oppose the bill. ”

In other words, this is by everyone’s estimation a horrible bill, but as long as the NRA get’s its “carve out” they will not oppose it.

NRA’s first vice president, David Keene writes this “I consider such restrictions to be not only repugnant, but blatantly unconstitutional, an opinion shared by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris Cox”  and “The so-called “DISCLOSE ACT” is a horrible piece of legislation designed to do exactly what you suggest. It would require advocacy groups to run a regulatory gauntlet designed to make it very difficult for many of them to play the role for which they were formed and is both bad policy and flies in the face of recent Supreme Court decisions.”

And yet, the NRA, in spite of their own descriptions of this bill as “horrible” have withdrawn an opposition as long as they are not included. So state-wide groups from coast to coast will be left spinning in the wind with the blessing of the NRA, because they were exempted from something THEY call  “repugnant.”

We know there are some who will defend the NRA under any circumstances. Whether it be their joining the Brady Campaign  to pass HR 2640, the anti-gun “mental health” bill or Charlton Heston’s radio proclamation that American citizens have no right to own military style firearms. But we firmly believe that this action by NRA is inexcusable.

If only the richest organizations deserve free speech then our Constitution is truly a relic. If the NRA is ok with that, then those of their members who are not , should let them know.

HR 5175 was pulled from the schedule last week. That was a certain, but very temporary victory for liberty and the Constitution. But it is far from dead. With the exception of Greg Walden, all of Oregon’s congressional delegation are in the pocket of Nancy Pelosi. It would be far more productive in the short time we may have before this bill returns to contact NRA and demand they oppose HR 5175.

You can reach the NRA at (800) 392 8683. or by e-mail at:
ILA-CONTACT@NRAHQ.ORG.

or contact their officers here:

Ronald L. Schmeits, NRA President:
Home: 18 Private Rd #2001ST, Raton NM 87740, (575) 445-5836, (575) 445-2080 fax
Office: International Bank,200 S 2nd Street, Raton NM 87740-3908, (575) 445-2321

Charles L. Cunningham, Director, NRA-ILA Federal Affairs:
4864 Oakcrest Drive, Fairfax VA 22030
703-352-3245, 202-651-2570

David A. Keene, NRA 1st Vice President:
5602 Dawes Ave, Alexandria VA 22311-1102, 703-671-5602

James W. Porter II, NRA 2nd Vice President:
215 21st St N # 1000, Birmingham AL 35203-3710, (205) 322-1744

The NRA’s shameless sellout of gun owners and the US Constitution continues. HR 5175, a bill to cripple free speech is fast tracked for passage in the US House and the NRA’s “do what you want to the girl just don’t hurt me” approach gets worse every day.

You can listen to Wayne LaPierre’s bumbling, contradictory explanation of this contemptible roll-over here.

You can read about this bizarre and dangerous stand the NRA has taken here, here and here.

You can contact your Congressman using this website. You can make it short and sweet. NO ON HR.5175.

If you are an NRA member, you can contact them, but we will tell you what they will say and in fact, even have said on their outgoing message if you call them. The craven double talk follows:

We appreciate some NRA members’ concerns about our position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act.” Unfortunately, critics of our position have misstated or misunderstood the facts.

We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).

Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members’ freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings—even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.

The NRA provides critical firearms training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement throughout the country. This bill would force us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refuse to let this Congress force us to make that choice.

We didn’t “sell out” to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully honored, we will strongly oppose the bill.

Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn’t happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.

There are those who say the NRA has a greater duty to principle than to gun rights. It’s easy to say we should put the Second Amendment at risk over some so-called First Amendment principle – unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.

The NRA is a bipartisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That’s their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.

Note. You can view and track HR 5175 here.

You can read an analysis of the bill here.

As you know from yesterday’s alert, the NRA has cut a deal to exempt themselves from proposed  legislation that is intended to greatly curtail the free speech and activism rights of other organizations.

Today the NRA issued a statement saying the bill  “would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA’s right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.”

OFF has heard from some who claim the bill is not a problem because it does not mention guns. Others have claimed that groups like Gun Owners of America have sensationalized the bill “to raise money.”  Well apparently the NRA had the same impression of the bill that GOA had. But NRA has cut  a deal that protects them from a bill they claim creates “onerous restrictions on free speech.”

In their statement they note: “The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment.”

Now that they have been exempted they plan no opposition to the legislation.

You can read the NRA’s statement here

NOTE THE NRA HAS MOVED THIS LINK SEVERAL TIMES. IF IT IS NOT WORKING SEARCH THE NRA’S WEBSITE OR CONTACT OFF FOR A PDF COPY.

Will OFF be silenced?

Dear Friend of Liberty,
A recent alert by Gun Owners of America has had some people wondering if GOA was overreacting. It would seem not.

HR 5175 was the subject of this alert by GOA;

This alert is now somewhat dated because it mentions the damage that might be caused to groups like GOA and the NRA. But now it seems the NRA has made a deal to protect itself while throwing organizations like OFF under the bus.

See here and here.

We urge you to take a moment and use GOA’s web site to contact your representatives and let them know that you oppose any efforts to silence your organization.
Thank you.
_________________________________________________

As you know, on March 8th, David Pyles’ home in Medford was surrounded by “swat” teams from multiple jurisdictions.  We reported on this raid here.

David’s “crime” was the perfectly lawful purchase of several guns. Since then we have had the opportunity to meet with David several times, and OFF members have been very generous in their support of David as he attempts to address the injustices to which he has been subjected.

You can read a letter we received from David here. As a result of his dismissal from his job, and the state’s position that he cannot receive unemployment insurance, coupled with the obvious difficulty David will have securing other employment, his financial situation has become quite precarious. If you can afford any donation to help David through this difficult time, I can assure you he will be very grateful.  If you choose to send a donation to David directly, you can do so at

David Pyles
c/o the “David Pyles Legal Defense Fund”
P.O. Box 728
Medford, OR 97501

You can also make a tax deductible donation to the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation. 100% of all donations for David will be transferred directly to him.

If you donate by check please make a note that your donation is for David. If you prefer to donate through our secure website please be sure to pick “Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation” as the “Donation Type” and make a note that your ution is for David. Thanks you for your continued generosity.

June 10, 2010

Mr. Kevin Starrett
Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation
P.O. Box 556
Canby, OR 97013

RE: David Pyles’ thank you for OFEF’s & OFF’s “No Compromise” support, as related to the Medford SWAT (ODOT et al) unprecedented operations of March 4th to 8th, 2010

Dear Kevin:
I am writing, following the phone call and brief status update I provided earlier this week, to thank you for the continued support of the Oregon Firearms Education Foundation and the Oregon Firearms Federation! I cannot express my sincere gratitude and appreciation enough, to again thank the OFEF, the OFF, yourself especially, as well as all the OFF members and other individuals who have reached out to me in support to educate, inform and empower me to fight the alleged and obvious injustices I experienced first-hand on March 8th, 2010. Based on my experience, understanding and belief, ” ’No Compromise’ is not an option, but rather a responsibility, to ensure our inalienable Constitutional and First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights!”

I am also writing to provide the OFF and OFEF a more complete status update on my situation. As you will recall, I was placed on paid administrative leave on March 4, 2010, by my (now former) employer, the Oregon Dept. of Transportation (ODOT). This followed my consistent allegations via union grievances procedures, of the employer’s workplace harassment, discrimination and/or retaliation since approximately June 2009. Subsequently, during the early morning hours of March 8, 2010, I suffered the terrifying experience of the Medford SWAT “peace officer mental hold” incident and forced psychiatric exam at the Rogue Valley Medical Center. I understand this “psychological -oops!-eration” by these agencies was the direct result of alleged obvious, undue, unconscionable, unconstitutional and illegal influence and communications’ collusion of my former employer, the ODOT and its representatives, in coordination with the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office (JCSO), Oregon State Police (OSP), Medford Police Dept. (MPD) and other law enforcement agencies and their public official representatives. The alleged inappropriate and illegal communications resulted in compromised data integrity and confidentiality of the OSP firearms purchase background checks. I remained on paid administrative leave with ODOT, duty stationed at my home, until May 14, 2010.

I was wrongfully terminated, without just cause, by the ODOT on May 14, 2010. I was dismissed with over six-year’s exemplary public service and documented performance record. I was fired with only four-days prior verbal notice, and a letter of written “cause” for termination received only two days prior to May 14th.

Since being unjustly dismissed by ODOT, I have applied for state unemployment insurance benefits, only to be unexpectedly denied UI benefits last week by the Oregon Employment Department. It appears denial was determined “just because” ODOT says so, regardless of what violations I or my union have grieved and continue to grieve. Needless to say, I feel as if much of Oregon state government is out to literally destroy and further harm me by any means it is capable (e.g., now economic harm). I am presently seeking employment; however, as you can imagine in this economy and in this region, following the highly public, embarrassing, humiliating and defamatory events of March 8th and subsequent media coverage, I have certain obvious limitations and options for viable employment at this time.

However rest assured, I am doing very well in the big picture! I remain in very good spirits, am optimistic, and maintain a positive, healthy perspective on these most unpleasant and unfortunate matters. God has truly blessed me during this time. So many co-workers, friends, family, new acquaintances, organizations and persons I’ve never met have been so kind and generous to express their understanding, empathy and support to me since March 8th. Many have also provided small gifts of monetary resources, in addition to the kind resources the OFEF has provided. How can I express my thanks for such generosity? These gracious utions to date have assisted me to retain an attorney and legal counsel, Mr. Jeffery H. Boiler, of Springfield, Oregon, which otherwise, would have been very limited given my present (and near future) economic resources to apply toward fighting my case aggressively. I cannot express my appreciation enough, in any sufficiently appropriate manner at this time, which genuinely expresses my gratitude toward such an outpouring of support and resources. I am deeply touched and moved. “Thank you!”

Furthermore, the Association of Engineering Employees (AEE, my union) and Mr. Boiler are working in my interests, toward an aligned strategy which seeks appropriate justice and fair treatment of my case. Effectively, AEE is leading continued union contract grievance matters (Step 3 Dept. of Administrative Service grievances, and Step 4 Arbitration, as necessary) following my termination. Mr. Boiler is working to address and protect all legal rights and remedies available, which are employment law, civil rights, and/or constitutional law matters, external to the union’s labor contract with the State. As OFF, OFEF and its members can appreciate, the State of Oregon (and the other agencies involved) knows it has every advantage of government to avoid, delay, impede and confuse my ability to legally fight for justice.

Therefore, as I plan for a long, drawn out legal battle in the coming weeks and months, in principle seeking fairness and justice to vindicate my professional career and personal reputation, I know I am likely to face many more obstacles and hardships. Because of an anticipated minimum 60 to 90 day timeframe to address my appeal of the State’s UI benefits denial, I am facing near-future economic hardship simply to be able to survive and maintain a reasonable quality of life in my current home. I seek not to be homeless in the coming months, should I not soon find gainful employment, however this may be a looming reality. Yet, I am resolved to endure whatever is necessary, to ultimately win victory in this unnecessary employment issues “war” initiated by ODOT, which became something much more threatening to each and every Oregonian (U.S citizen?) on March 8, 2010. The injustices I’ve experienced cannot be tolerated or allowed to stand!

In closing, as we briefly discussed, I am unexpectedly planning for the means and resources necessary to continue to raise monies to fight my case via personal legal representation. To such ends, I would welcome any further brainstorming, ideas or options we might be able to apply, toward the personal sale, auction or other legal personal property transfer of my firearm(s), which will assist financially to fight my legal case. First up for sale or auction, I offer the American made I.O. Inc., AK-47C “Liberty” model ( see: http://www.ioinc.us/ ), which apparently overly- “gruntled” some public officials at ODOT, JSCO, OSP and the MPD on March 8, 2010. Starting bid, $599.00!

I would appreciate any assistance, alert announcement or facilitation that OFF and/or OFEF may be able to provide to enable publicity of this sale to raise public attention and legal defense funds for my case, as I move forward in this principled Constitutional and employment rights battle. “Viva le resistance for life, ‘Liberty’ and the pursuit of happiness!”

I welcome our future correspondence and communications regarding these matters. The State of Oregon and all Oregonians are in good hands with your organizations’ leadership and advocacy. Thank you again, for OFF’s & OFEF’s no compromise support.

Kind regards,
David J. Pyles
PO BOX 728
Medford, OR 97501

GET A UTAH CHL AND HELP A PRO-GUN CANDIDATE.

A MESSAGE FROM OFFPAC.

If you have been waiting to get an Oregon or Utah concealed handgun license, you can now take both classes and have a part of your class fee donated to the race for an extremely pro-gun candidate for county commissioner in Yamhill County. (Residents of any county are welcome of course.)  The candidate is Mary Starrett, sister of OFF director Kevin Starrett. She beat the liberal incumbent in the May election by 9 votes, but because of the tiny margin will be forced into a run off in November. Her opponent is a well funded establishment big government supporter. But you can help Mary, and yourself, by taking this excellent class. We have reproduced the announcement Mary’s campaign sent to us. By the way, $50.00 of the total will qualify for a tax credit on your Oregon tax returns for 2010. that’s a pretty good deal.

Obtain Your Certifications to Apply for Your Utah & Oregon Concealed Handgun Permits While Supporting a Pro-Gun Candidate!
When: July 21st, 6:00 pm (doors open @ 4 pm for fingerprinting)
Where: 116 – S. Elliot Rd, Newberg, 97132 (Off 99 W) Use mapquest.com for directions.
Take Your Utah (permit valid in 28 States) and Oregon Concealed Handgun Class at the same time AND Support Mary Starrett’s runoff campaign for Yamhill County Commissioner.
This is the class that will teach you everything you should know about the Utah Concealed Firearms Permit. The obtained certification will allow you to apply for a Utah CFP (good in 28 states) but also for an Oregon Concealed Handgun License. Fee is $100/per student for both certifications plus we will provide you with passport photos and the required fingerprinting that you need to send to Utah for your permit (all included in the $100 class fee).  To apply for your Oregon CHL, you’ll need to contact your county sheriff and apply in person in their office.

Classroom will be open from 4PM and we will be taking fingerprints and photos at that time. It is okay if you can’t make it in that early, but class will start promptly at 6pm and go to about 10:30pm. Join Mary Starrett and  Executive Director of Oregon Firearms Federation, Kevin Starrett, for a special address at 5:45 pm.
Your registration is only valid after we received your payment and you must pre-register online at www.mktactical.com (Click on ‘Classes’, then ‘Calendar’, then click on the July 21st event) or go to:  http://www.mktactical.com/calendar.cfm

IMPORTANT: Please make sure to fill all fields and enter your full middle name.
Questions? Please call (503-577-6824) or email Michael Knoetig at  Michael@MKTactical.com

Please send your check or money order for $100.00 made payable to:
Friends of Mary Starrett 35775 Smith Road Newberg, OR 97132
Or pay by credit card online at:
http://www.starrettforcommissioner.com/Donate-Now.aspx

***Special note: Approximately 100 or so flyers were distributed with the initial date of June 30th. Due to scheduling conflicts, that date needed to change to July 21st. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Thank you for your support and we are looking forward to meeting you in class.

***Special thanks to Michael Knoetig and MK Tactical for taking their time to teach this class and thanks to the many volunteers who helped make this possible.

A Fairview City Councilor and OFF supporter is under  attack for, of all things, exercising his rights.

Ken Quinby , a long time supporter of the Oregon Firearms Federation, has a concealed handgun license. That makes some of his fellow councilors “nervous.”

Barbara Jones, another council member said  “I understand the Second Amendment allows you to bear arms; however my ‘pursuit of happiness’ and ability to live my life safely seems to be taking a back seat to those who run around with concealed weapons,”

” Run around with concealed weapons?”  What planet is she living on? Apparently the same one Council member Larry Cooper is. “I agree and have felt that way for a long time,” he said in an e-mail.  Now some council members want to do yet another end run around Oregon law and try to ban lawful carry in the City Hall for council members!

If they are successful, this will be one more nail in the coffin of our disintegrating “preemption law.”

Please contact the City Council and remind them that any effort to further erode the Second Amendment in Fairview will NOT be accepted.The email contact for Fairview City Council is council@ci.fairview.or.us

State Police Seek Huge Fee Increases  Exercise Your Rights.

Today, the Oregon State Police held their first “fee review” meeting to discuss their proposals for fee increases for background checks.

As you would expect, gun owners are being asked to subsidize most of the OSP’s budget with fee changes of twice to almost three times current charges.

The OSP has suggested that gun purchase background check fees go from $10.00 to $28.00, almost tripling the cost of a mandated background check for a gun purchase.

The fees for fingerprints for a concealed handgun license will be doubled from $15.00 to $30.00

Most states charge nothing for a background check for a firearms purchase. Furthermore, those states that use NICS as their “point of contact” do not record any information on the make, model, caliber or serial number of the gun. Oregon does record this information, charges a fee, and has used their database against gun owners when no crime was committed and no criminal investigation was on-going.

Some have suggested that they do not want the Feds doing the background checks in Oregon because they don’t trust them. But the fact is, the Feds are already involved in our background checks because the State Police check with NICS as part of their investigation. So why are we paying twice (once through the fee and once through our taxes) for a “service” we should not be compelled to submit to and certainly should not have to pay for?

The State Police told us that gun background checks make up about 23% of the checks they do. But at the new suggested fee, they would be collecting almost $9 million dollars from gun owners in every biennium just in background checks for gun purchases. This does NOT include the fees they would collect from people applying for CHL’s at the new doubled rate which would be about $819,420.00 in 2011.

The State Police have stated that their required budget for the 2011-2013 biennium is about $17 million. So gun owners will be asked to pay more than half of the budget for less the one quarter of the checks. This is clearly outrageous.

Gun owners are not getting a “service” from the State Police. They are compelled to pay these taxes to exercise a “right.”

We strongly recommend that you attend one of the fee review meetings, if you can, to express your opposition to fee increases.

You can see the proposed fee increases here.

You can see a schedule of “fee review” meetings here.

You can get more details about the OSP background checks here.

If you cannot be at one of these meetings, please contact the OSP ID unit to express your opposition to these giant tax increases.

You may e-mail:

David Yandell david.c.yandell@state.or.us

or

Patricia Whitfield patricia.whitfield@state.or.us

WYDEN JOINS ANTI-GUN FANATIC MICHAEL BLOOMBERG

New York’s “Mayor for Life” Michael Bloomberg, is on a personal crusade against gun ownership. But not just in the paradise he runs. He wants to attack gun ownership nationwide.

In his “Blueprint for Federal Action,” Bloomberg’s screed against gun rights, he expresses his support  for Senate Bill 843, a bill to end private sales at gun shows nationwide.

But Bloomberg has no problem with guns for himself.  In a New York Times article we learn;

“The mayor also takes along a police detail when he travels, flying two officers on his private plane and paying as much as $400 a night to put them up at a hotel near his house; the city pays their wages while they are there, as it does whether Mr. Bloomberg is New York or not. (sic) Guns are largely forbidden in Bermuda — even most police officers do not use them — but the mayor’s guards have special permission to carry weapons.”

This level of hypocrisy will surprise no one. But Oregon Senators should not be part of this outrageous elitism.

Senator Ron Wyden is a cosponsor of this bill .

With a coming election, we think it’s important that gun owners in Oregon know where one of their Senators stands. Solidly with a millionaire eastern liberal whose hypocrisy is incalculable.