Category: OFF Alerts

A VICTORY FOR GUN OWNERS AND FOSTER PARENTS.

In January of 2007, as the last legislative session was getting underway, the Oregon Firearms Federation heard from several foster parents who had been informed that their right to own and use firearms was incompatible with their desire to help children in need.

Talia Heath wrote:

“Dear OFF,
Just wanted to say thanks for your efforts to protect our rights. I specifically want to thank you for taking action in regard to DHS’s restrictions for foster parents.
My husband and I are foster parents but our home is currently on hold because of this issue. We are both CHL holders and have had to choose between fighting for our rights and taking care of needy children. This is a horrible position to be in. Thank you for what you are doing on our behalf. Please let us know if there is any way we can be of help in this area.”

The Department of Human Services, which oversees the foster parent program, had informed them that new rules were in place that drastically reduced their ability to possess firearms. Concealed handgun license holders were not exempt.

The DHS rules essentially rendered all firearms in a foster home inaccessible and useless.

OFF agreed that it was absurd to trust adults with CHILDREN, but not firearms. We asked the State Representative Jerry Krummel to investigate.

Krummel is blessed with one of the hardest working staffers in Salem, Dawn Phillips. Phillips contacted DHS and demanded an explanation for a rule they have no authority to make.

In the ensuring months, Phillips kept OFF informed of all the efforts she was making to get DHS to comply with the law, and every effort DHS was making to avoid complying.

Legislative Counsel (the lawyers for the legislature) wrote an opinion reaffirming what gun owners, and others who read the law knew. DHS has NO authority to regulate firearms without the express permission of the legislature. Oregon’s Attorney General concurred.

DHS has now agreed that their rule was unlawful and has rescinded it.

This is a victory for gun owners, foster parents, foster children and the rule of law.

It is still essential that foster parents and gun owners continue to provide input. No doubt there will be efforts made in the future to restore these restrictions.

The agency is seeking public comment on new rules for certification standards through August 23rd. You can learn more about the rules on their web site: http://www.dhs.state.or.us/policy/childwelfare/drafts/2007/ii-b1.pdf or call 503-945-6897 or 503-945-5651.

We thank the foster parents who had the courage to come forward and speak out against an agency that clearly held their rights in contempt. We thank Representative Krummel for his willingness to stand up to a bureaucracy that violated the law and the rights of the most investigated and responsible people in the state, and we thank Dawn Phillips for her tireless efforts on behalf of foster parents in Oregon.

CONFISCATION PROHIBITION BILL PASSES

Yesterday, in late Senate Floor session, the Oregon Senate passed HB 2370. This bill transfers emergency powers in times of catastrophe from the State Police to the Oregon Military Department.

Included in the language of the bill is a prohibition on the confiscation of firearms in times of declared emergency. It also allows a person whose firearm is seized illegally by a government agency to recover all costs associated with the return of that firearm.

In the wake of the Hurricane Katrina debacle, more Americans are realizing that they are very much at risk from their own government. This prohibition is a great victory for gun owners, especially now when the Oregon Legislature is dominated by anti-gunners. The House agreed with the Senate vote at 9pm tonight and now the bill goes to the Governor who is expected to sign it.

But even as we are gaining ground on a state level, we are facing new threats on a national level.

The NRA supported HR 2640 . a massive expansion of the “Brady background check and unjustified denial bill” is still very much alive.

This bill, which was rammed through the US House of Representatives on a voice vote, with no hearings, is now in the Senate, and only you can stop it.

Please see the extensive analysis Gun Owners Of America did on this dangerous legislation.

As you probably know, the incidents of unjustified delays and denials has skyrocketed in Oregon, and should this bill become law, you can rest assured things will get much, much worse.

The bill gives the Federal government access to massive new amounts of personal information on American citizens. Since this bill is the brainchild of some of the most anti-gun politicians in the country, you know that this new invasion of privacy will be used for one thing only. To prevent firearms’ purchases.

As we have said before, it is essential that you contact your US Senators, Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden and tell them “NO MORE GUN CONTROL ON AMERICAN CITIZENS.NO ON HR 2640.”

Ron Wyden  E-Mail And Office Contact Info

STOPPING THE NRA’S GUN CONTROL BILL

As you know, the NRA revived a gun control bill that was all but dead and rammed it through the US House of Representatives.

HR 2640 was the brain child of Carolyn McCarthy of New York, who went to Congress for one reason, to pass more gun control. But she was failing until the NRA teamed up with her to pass another dangerous intrusion into your privacy and another vicious attack on your gun rights. Sarah Brady is calling the bill “a victory for gun control.”

Using the shootings at Virginia Tech as a pretext, the NRA joined with some of the most anti-gun members of Congress to pass this bill without so much as a committee hearing. Charles Schumer, the Senate’s most vocal gun hater had high praise for the bill. ““When the N.R.A. and I agree on legislation, you know that it’s going to get through, become law and do some good,” Mr. Schumer said.

So now the NRA is in the business of pushing for bills that Charlie Schumer likes. The irony that Virginia Tech is being used as an excuse for this is profound. The people who died there were all denied the right to protect themselves and instead of addressing that, the NRA joined forces with the worst of the gun control zealots.  Worse still, it is the official policy of the NRA that virtually ALL law abiding people should be disarmed on school property. Wayne LaPierre has stated unequivocally  ” First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America’s schools, period … with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.”

So not only does the NRA want to vastly expand the failed Brady background check system, it wants to deny law-abiding gun owners the ability to protect themselves and others while at a school . This policy is madness.

HR 2640’s supporters claim it is simply a way to identify people with mental problems. But a review of George Bush’s positions would make you conclude that Bush believes EVERYBODY has mental problems.

A story in the British Medical Journal in 2004 stated that a Bush presidential commission “recommended comprehensive mental health screening for “consumers of all ages,” including preschool children.” The headline of this story was “Bush plans to screen whole US population for mental illness.” The article also notes some disturbing ties Bush has to the pharmaceutical companies that would profit greatly if more people were determined to be “mentally ill.” The article noted ” Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, has multiple ties to the Bush administration. George Bush Sr was a member of Lilly’s board of directors and Bush Jr appointed Lilly’s chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat on the Homeland Security Council. Lilly made $1.6m in political utions in 2000—82% of which went to Bush and the Republican Party.

Of course, the entire process of declaring people “mentally ill” is largely subjective and open to abuse and personal interpretation. That’s what makes this bill so dangerous.

Time is NOT on our side. If this dangerous bill moves as swiftly in the Senate as it did in the House it could pass any day.  It is critical that you contact your US Senators and tell them the NRA does NOT speak for you when they promote disarming Americans and forcing new gun control bills.

Please call or e-mail Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith. You can use the suggested text below to cut and paste into their web-mail windows, or you can call their offices.

____________________________________________________

Dear Senator,

HR 2640 is a bad idea. The last thing Americans need is vast new amounts of their personal information being turned over to the Federal Government.
The Brady “instant” check system has turned out to be the “Brady Unjustified Denial System.” This bill will make things far worse for law abiding gun owners. The NRA does NOT speak for me. Vote no on HR 2640.

________________________________________________________

Gordon Smith E-mail

Gordon Smith’s State and DC Offices

Gordon Smith contact info for illegal aliens.

Ron Wyden  E-Mail And Office Contact Info

We warned you on June 10th, the NRA was working with anti-gun forces to pass new gun control.

Today, far sooner than we would have imagined, the bill passed in the US House, with almost no notice and no recorded vote.

HR 2640 passed on a voice vote, with so little notice provided to the public that when we contacted Congresswoman Hooley’s office, her staff was unaware that the bill had passed.
(You can use this link to search for the bill or use this link to download the bill as a .pdf.)

The bill gives the Federal Government vast new access to people’s mental health records and opens the door for expanded abuse of power, delays and denials of firearms purchases.

The bill purports to given people a chance to have their names removed from the no-buy list, but only at great personal expense with no guarantee of success.

If the past is any indication, purchasing a firearm is about to become a lot more complicated.

Keep in mind, for years the ATF has been forbidden from doing any investigations to expunge records and return people’s gun rights.Now, with the help of the NRA, even more restrictions are being created.

Of course, unlike a “crime,”  “mental illness” is a very subjective evaluation.

As Corey Graff from Wisconsin Gun Owners writes;

“Since 1952, the American Psychiatry Association (APA) has utilized the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as its standard for defining, diagnosing and treating mental health disorders.

Since its first printing, the manual has undergone five revisions, the most recent being the DSM-IV, which was finalized in 1994. Currently a fifth version is being prepared and is due out by 2012.

Each new version contradicts the previous version; new authors with new perspectives and agendas write each new release. The standard keeps changing, shifting, sometimes radically so — the result is that mental illness is never clearly or objectively defined. It is a moving target shaped by political and social pressures.

Following controversy and protests from gay activists at APA annual conferences from 1970 to 1973, the seventh printing of the DSM-II, in 1974, no longer listed homosexuality as a category of disorder. After talks led by the psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, who had been involved in the DSM-II development committee, a vote by the APA trustees in 1973, confirmed by the wider APA membership in 1974, replaced the diagnosis with a milder category of “sexual orientation disturbance.”

In today’s politically correct climate, the most recent version of the DSM-IV contains “no reference to homosexuality.”

Which DSM was correct or were both wrong? One can easily see the danger this contradiction raises if these diagnoses were synced up with a gun owner database that acts as an automated judge, jury and executioner for the gun buyer.

Such variance also calls into question the credibility of those who define mental illness.

Psychiatrists can’t even agree amongst themselves over a relatively short period of time on how to precisely define mental illness on any given issue. Thirty years ago no one heard the term “attention deficit disorder” or “post-traumatic stress disorder” — today diagnoses for these new mental illnesses are commonplace.

If NICS is expanded, expect entire groups to be denied their right to purchase a firearm.

Legislation like this paints with a broad brush and will disarm many good people who should be able to buy handguns. One such group is veterans.

“[NICS Expansion] could have a significant impact on American servicemen,” wrote Gun Owners of America recently, “especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some type of psychiatric care.

Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally ‘incompetent’ and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system.”

Once again, the NRA has colluded with anti-gunners to pass new gun control and tell gun owners it’s good for them. (Click here to read the NRA’s BRAGGING about passing this bill with a “no accountability” voice vote.)

According to CQ.com  “Advocates of House-passed legislation say it likely would have prevented the gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, from buying a firearm because of his history of mental illness” But this is, of course, nonsense.  The Brady law has not kept criminals from getting guns and won’t stop madmen from getting them either. But it might very well stop you.

To stop this in the Senate will mean fighting not only the anti-gunners in the Legislature, but America’s biggest “gun lobby.”  We’ll need all the help we can get. Please consider making whatever ution you can to OFF.

Today’s Washington Post has reported that the NRA has, once again, cut a “deal” with the anti-gunners in Congress over your gun rights.

According to the Post, “Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.”

As many Oregon residents have learned, the background check system, a prior restraint on your rights, is a failure.

This system, which assumes you are guilty and requires you to prove your innocence before exercising a God-given, Constitutional right, has delayed and denied countless Oregonians attempting to make legal firearms purchases. In many cases, buyers have been told (illegally) they must wait weeks or more to take possession of firearms they have every right to own.

Well, if Congress and the NRA have their way, things are about to get a whole lot worse. In a deal the Post calls “a marriage of convenience for both sides,” and NRA lobbyist Chris Cox calls “good politics,” the failed National Instant Check system is poised to be expanded even further. Furthermore, the proposed legislation will punish states that do not supply all the private mental health records the Feds will be demanding.

Cox reportedly said “if the legislation becomes a ‘gun-control wish list’ as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill.” But this is the same line they used on their second attempt to pass liability protection for gun dealers and manufacturers. That bill became a “gun control wish list” and the NRA not only supported it, but demanded that it pass with all the gun control that was tacked on to it.

What do gun owners get in return for this vastly expanded intrusion into their privacy?  According to the Washington Post “Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records. “

Individuals with minor infractions, and military veterans don’t get their names removed from government “no-buy” lists, they get the “chance” to “petition” to have their names removed.

We are quite confident predicting that that process will be a nightmare if it can be done at all. The recent implosion of the passport issuing system is a perfect example of the kind of morass that all government databases become.

According to the Washington Post “Under the bill, states voluntarily participating in the system would have to file an audit with the U.S. attorney general of all the criminal cases, mental health adjudications and court-ordered drug treatments that had not been filed with the instant-check system”

If that does not terrify you it should. The current background check system is an intrusive, error riddled mess. Now NRA and the anti-gunners in Congress want to expand a system that can’t keep criminal records straight, and add vast new amounts of data about people’s “mental health” records.  The abuse and misuse of people’s private information is nothing new and it’s a very short trip from “court ordered drug treatments” to  “has attended an  AA meeting.”

No one supports arming people who are a danger to themselves or others, but adjudicating someone’s mental health is an inexact science at best. And there is no reason to believe that this latest attack on your right is going keep dangerous people from getting guns.

One of the legislators responsible for this “deal,” anti-gun Congressman John Dingell ( who has voted with his anti-gun colleagues 96.8% of the time)  said “No law will prevent evildoers from doing evil acts, but this law will help ensure that those deemed dangerous by the courts will not be able to purchase a weapon.” But of course, that’s preposterous. All this law will bring us is more invasions of our privacy, more government databases, and more denied purchases.

You can use Gun Owners of America’s Legislative Action link to contact your member of Congress to oppose this latest attack on your rights.

Gun owners in Oregon have had significant victories in spite of the anti-gun majority in both Oregon’s House and Senate.

House Bill 2334 passed the Senate yesterday, May 21st, after passing in the House.

You’ll recall that 2334 was the second attempt by Oregon’s sheriffs to alter the concealed handgun license law.

In its last incarnation in 2005, the bill was one anti-gun provision after another. Because of your decisive action, that bill was killed.

This session, because of your input, that bill came back with no anti-gun provisions, but it did include something we have been attempting to accomplish for two sessions. That is the common sense provision that active duty military can renew CHL’s by mail.

It has always been clear that the men and women who serve in the armed forces don’t get to decide where they will be deployed, and to punish them for their service by forcing them to lose their CHL’s, because they cannot go in person to the sheriff’s office, is not acceptable.

Senate Bill 81 passed the House on May 18th after passing in the Senate. This bill addresses the ridiculous federal law that takes away gun rights FOR LIFE for people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. Thousands of people plead guilty to this charge after being told by overzealous prosecutors that it is the easiest way to put a minor issue behind them. But they are never told the draconian ramifications of their pleas. For the rest of their lives they may not possess even a single round of ammunition.

SB 81 requires that a person be informed of this dangerous federal law before pleading guilty.

House Bill 2370 is scheduled for its second hearing tomorrow in Ways and Means. This bill includes a provision that forbids local authorities from confiscation of firearms in times of emergency.

These are all positive developments for gun owners, but we still have a way to go before the danger passes. Your extraordinary efforts have bottled up every anti-gun bill and killed two separate attempts by the law-breaking Port of Portland to expand their police powers, but they not have given up. On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be hearing House Bill 3442A. The language in the bill, and its relating clause make it the perfect candidate to be amended to accomplish the Port’s goals. We’ll be watching it carefully. We have plenty to do before the session ends, but so far your activism has been an against-the-odds success.

 

House Bill 2334, which started life last session as a dreadful anti-gun bill, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee as a pro-gun bill because of your tireless efforts.

The bill contains language that OFF wrote last session giving active duty military personnel the ability to renew concealed handgun licenses by mail.

The bill now moves to the Senate floor where we believe it will pass.

This bill represents a great victory for the activism of gun owners even in the face of a vocally antigun legislature. Thank you for all your hard work.

We are still watching to see if one more efforts will be made to pass a bill to give the law-breaking Port of Portland more police powers. While it is too early to tell, there are bills still in play that could be amended or “gut and stuffed” to give the Port’s Police expanded police powers.

In particular House Bill 3442 A, due to be heard on May 24th in Senate Judiciary, could be a vehicle to be amended.

If there is another attempt to slide the bad language of previous Port of Portland bills into this or other bills, we will need your activism to defeat it, but right now congratulate yourself on your efforts to clean up and pass HB 2334.

“Thank you for writing.  House Bill 2890 (formerly HB 2852) was recently considered by the House Judiciary Committee on which I serve as Chair.  It will not be moving forward this session.”

With those words, Greg MacPherson (Chair of the House Judiciary Committee) may have closed the book on the Port of Portland’s efforts to expand their power in spite of their refusal to obey the law.

Today was the deadline for hearings on bills in the house where they originated. Since the “gut and stuff” bill 2890 was removed from the schedule,it would appear the bill is no longer an issue.

However, while we are hopeful that this is the case, the show is not yet over.

The deadline DOES NOT apply to the Rules Committee in both the House and Senate. They can continue to hear bills well after other committees are closed to new bills. And of course, the “rules” can always be suspended. But for now, it seems likely that your efforts have paid off.

We intend to continue to monitor any bill that can be used to revive the language MacPherson attempted to stuff into HB  2890, but we believe that the bill is dead for now.

We will count on your activism if the bill returns in any form or shape, but right now please congratulate yourself on a job well done.

Port of Portland Bill Gets Even Worse.

As we warned you yesterday, the Port of Portland is trying to use an unrelated bill to expand their power in spite of their continued refusal to obey the law.

We can now confirm that House Bill 2890, a bill originally intended to outlaw handcuff keys, will have all its original language removed and replaced with the language of the Port of Portland bill that has died. But it gets worse.

These amendments not only have all the original language from HB 2852, they also include a new crime, “possessing or controlling a firearm in a restricted access area.” What do gun owners get in exchange? A promise from Port of Portland Executive Director Bill Wyatt that he will “recommend” that the Port of Portland Commission “take all necessary steps to conform Port ordinances concerning weapons possession to current Oregon law.”

Some deal. The Port Police get expanded powers, gun owners get a new crime and a promise that a “recommendation” will be made that the Port start obeying the law.

Director Wyatt tacitly admits that the Port is breaking the law and violating your rights and he is going to “recommend” that they start obeying the law?

Oregon Firearms was NOT consulted about this “deal” and certainly does not agree to it. (To the best of our knowledge, no one else in the gun lobby was consulted either.) Furthermore, these amendments and this “deal” have been made entirely outside of the public eye, with even some legislators not being told what is going on.

This is clearly bogus.

The hearing for this bill is scheduled for tomorrow. There is still time to contact the House Judiciary Committee and tell them not to exchange rights for promises from people who are breaking the law now.

Contact info and a sample message follow:

UPDATE 04.27.07. Gun owners who have contacted the committee members have received positive responses from Representatives Flores and Krieger saying they will not support the bill until the Port of Portland obeys the law. We have no indication yet where Representatives Cameron and Whisnant (both Republicans) stand. Please be sure to contact them.

____________________________________________________________________

Dear Representative,

The deal to gut and stuff HB 2890 is a cynical and underhanded way to pass legislation that rewards law breakers.

You have already heard from many gun owners expressing their opposition to HB 2852, and the language that would be added to this bill is even worse.

The Port’s executive director has NOT promised to change illegal anti-gun policies, only to “recommend” they be changed. Please do not reward them for vague promises while they continue to violate gun owners’ rights.

Very truly yours,

______________________________

_________________________________________________________________

You made your voices heard, and once again, it worked.

In its original form, HB 2334 contained several provisions that were a danger to gun owners and confusing for law enforcement. But today, after you made your feelings known, the bill was amended to address all the concerns we had about it. What’s even better, the bill contains provisions we have been working towards since last session.

If this bill makes it through the full House and then the Senate, active duty military personnel will be able to renew concealed handgun licenses by mail, a goal we have been working towards for two years.

As amended, the bill more specifically defines “residency” for purposes of obtaining a CHL and prohibits persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the military or are registered sex offenders from gaining CHL’s. The prohibition would also be extended to people who have had two convictions for possessing marijuana.

The sections that address the marijuana convictions are a bit complicated, but they state that only one conviction for a marijuana violation does NOT disqualify a license applicant. The exception would be a person who has  both a conviction, and has been through a court supervised “diversion” program. These programs are sometimes offered to persons who have been convicted, and if completed allow the conviction to disappear. So if, after a person has completed one of these programs they have a subsequent violation, they can be denied a CHL.

However, all the vague language that referred to mere “reports” by police about drug use have been removed, and other sections that were subject to misinterpretation and abuse have been stripped from the bill. This and the inclusion of the military renewal language were clear victories for your activism.

On another note, we told you in an alert on 4.21.07 that there are very well founded rumors that the Port of Portland may be attempting to use another bill to expand the powers they were denied when your response (apparently) killed HB 2852.

While we have been unable to get a confirmation, the best information we have now indicates that the bill that may be used is HB 2890, a bill which creates a crime of having a handcuff key. We believe that this bill may be “gut and stuffed” with the language the Port’s Police want to expand their power. This bill is currently scheduled to be heard this Friday.

Several Capitol insiders have informed us that there is extensive talk of a “deal” where the Port will rescind its illegal “no-guns” policy in exchange for this power expansion. If that’s true, that’s fine with us. All we have demanded all  along is that they obey the law. However, unless there is an unequivocal elimination of the illegal ordinance, we are still opposed. Vague promises of future action are not enough.

We are having important and significant victories but please take the time to contact the House Judiciary Committee one more time and tell them “no” to any “deal” that does not fully remove the illegal Port policy.

Sample message follows:
___________________________________________________________________________

Dear Representative,

I have received a report that there may be an attempt to “gut and stuff” a bill to allow the Port of Portland Police to expand their powers. As you know, this very idea was rejected when they attempted it in HB 2852.

I urge you not to make any “deals” with the Port of Portland until it rescinds its illegal “no-gun” policy.

Very truly yours,

__________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

HB 2334 To Be Heard Tomorrow

On 03/01/07, we alerted you to HB 2334, a bill requested by the Oregon Sheriffs. A very similar bill was introduced last session and then killed after you made your voices heard and let legislators know how badly drafted and dangerous it was.

This session’s version of the bill is scheduled to be heard tomorrow in House Judiciary.  (Please note, the hearing has been moved up a half hour and will be at 8 instead of 8:30 as we reported in previous alert.)

In its current form, the bill is, as we have said, still a bad deal for gun owners. However, so many of you contacted the House Judiciary Committee that numerous amendments to the bill have been drafted, which, if adopted, will make the bill a reasonable piece of legislation.

The amendments are the “Dash 2” amendments and we are asking that you contact the committee members with the simple message, “Adopt the Dash-2 amendments to HB 2334.”

Suggested message follows.

__________________________________________________________________________

Dear Representative,

Please support the “Dash-2” Amendments to HB 2334.

In its current form, the bill is dangerously vague and a problem for both gun owners and law enforcement.

The “Dash-2s” will be a major improvement.
Very truly yours,

______________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

On a national level, as we have told you, there is a major push to expand the failed background check system.

As we pointed out in our 4.21.07 alert, the system is already a tremendous failure causing countless delays for law-abiding gun owners.

Expanding this failing and intrusive system is a sure way to guarantee even more gun buyers are denied legal purchases.

In an alert sent out today, the National Rifle Association published a link to an article by NRA board member Ted Nugent pointing out the absurdity of “gun free” zones, but it is the official policy of the NRA to support them.

As we pointed out in our previous alert, the NRA is working WITH anti-gun politicians to expand the background checks which will, no doubt, stop more lawful gun purchases and may even cost lives.

HR 297 is fast tracked in the US Congress. It is essential that you let your Representative know that the NRA is NOT speaking for you when it supports such pointless and counterproductive bills.

You can use the Legislative Action Center of our friends at Gun Owners of America to contact your member of Congress.

 

Mayhem, Collaboration and New Gun Control Bills

(Some links in this alert may require registration)

This week has shown us, with astonishing clarity, the ugly failure of the gun grabbers’ agenda.

Over thirty innocent people, young and old, are dead as a result of the arrogance and stupidity of college administrators and legislators in Virginia.

As horrifying as the events at Virginia Tech were, gun owners will be equally horrified to learn that the largest “gun lobby” in America supports the policies that cost those students and teachers their lives. The following quote is not from Sarah Brady. It is not from Nancy Pelosi. It is not from Charles Schumer. It is from Wayne LaPierre,

“First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America’s schools, period … with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.” 

Both the Washington Post and the New York Times have reported that the NRA is “negotiating” with the gun grabbers to expand the already onerous and intrusive “instant check” system, which is anything but.    Representative John Dingell is quoted as saying “The N.R.A. doesn’t have objections. There are other gun organizations on this that are problems.” As well they should be.

In Oregon, the State Police have been delaying and denying qualified gun buyers in tremendous numbers. In many cases they have informed buyers they must wait weeks or more to take possession of purchased guns. This is something they have no authority to do as we have reported in previous alerts.

Many of the delays are imposed on people with concealed handgun licenses. Some have much more extensive government security clearances, yet the Virginia Tech killer passed quickly through the system in spite of his well documented history. And now the gun grabbers, with support of the NRA, want to expand and extend this failed system.

Waiting three weeks or two months to take possession of a firearm is an annoyance and inconvenience to a gun owner merely seeking to add to his collection, to a woman being stalked,it could be a death sentence.

If you are an NRA member, please let the NRA know that you DO NOT support the disarming of the innocent. Please tell them to repudiate their long standing policy of making people in schools the favored targets of killers and NOT to support any more expansions of a failed and dangerous “background check” system. (To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683) And please use GOA’s Legislative Action Center to contact your representatives in Congress to express your opposition to more failed anti-gun policies.

Back here in Oregon, gun owners are facing hearings on numerous bills that affect gun rights. Three bills are scheduled for hearings next week.

The first is scheduled for Tuesday, April 24, in the House Judiciary Committee. That bill is HB 2415.

This bill makes it illegal to sell guns, explosives, cars or  gasoline to people who are “visibly intoxicated.”

It’s doubtful that any rational person would support the idea of selling these items to people who are drunk, but it still seems hard to believe that this problem is so pervasive that it requires a new law. The bill also creates twice the penalty for selling a gun to a drunken person than it creates for selling them explosives. The punishment for selling a gun to a drunk is 12 times the punishment for selling them a car. Given that cars are used to kill more people than guns are, this seems bizarre.

We are also concerned that this bill would be used to entrap both FFL and private dealers who make sales, since neither are trained (like bartenders) to determine when a person is “intoxicated” and the term is never defined.

In addition to our belief that this law is simply unneeded, we are watching to make sure it is not amended to become an attack on all gun owners’ rights.

On Wednesday, the same committee is scheduled to hear HB 2334.

This bill is a particular concern as we have warned you in the past.

The bill contains new restrictions on CHL’s and is so badly drafted that it could create serious problems for license holders.  We strongly urge you to contact the committee and tell them that the language in the bill is dangerous and vague and needs to be amended or eliminated.

Suggested text of a message, and the contact for the committee members can be found here

Even if you have contacted the committee about this before, please contact them again and let them know you are very concerned about the unintended consequences of this bill.

As you know, your efforts have derailed a bill that would expand the police powers of the law-breaking Port of Portland.

Because of your rapid and overwhelming response, HB 2852 seems to be dead this session. (Although nothing is certain.) However, we have been reliably informed that the Port of Portland Police are pulling out all the stops to achieve the same ends, perhaps in a different bill.

It is possible that the POP may try to use a procedure called “gut and stuff,” (where the language of an unrelated bill is totally removed and replaced with new language) to expand their powers in spite of their continued refusal to obey Oregon’s clear preemption statute.

Although we cannot know for certain what bill they may use, it is possible that they will try to “gut and stuff” HB 2327 or HB 2890, two bills that appeared to be going nowhere and then were suddenly scheduled for hearings next week. 2337 on Thursday and 2890 on Friday.

We will be watching both bills carefully and ask that when you contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee to express your opposition to HB 2334, you also urge them not to vote for any bill that is “stuffed” to expand the Port’s Police powers as long as they insist on breaking the law.

In our 03.06.06 alert, we informed you that HB 2334 had been removed from the schedule. We told you that we would let you know when it came back. Well, it’s back.

The bill is now scheduled to be heard on April 25th at 8:30 AM in room 357. As always, if you cannot make it to the hearing, you can watch it live here.

For in depth information on what’s wrong with this bill and what you need to do about it, please refer to our previous alert of March 1st. You have been tremendously effective making your voices heard. Let’s do it one more time.

On another note, if you not yet heard, your front porch is now considered public property. That means you can be arrested for possession of a loaded firearm on your own property.Here’s the Oregon Appeals Court Decision. It is a new low for judicial absurdity. OFF is working with legislators and other organizations to formulate a response.

The landmark decision of the DC Court of Appeals stating that gun ownership is an individual right is in grave danger. And that danger is coming from the NRA.

As you know, the Appeals Court of the District of Columbia recently ruled that DC’s ban on guns was unconstitutional. It made clear, that despite what anti-rights activists have claimed for years, the Second Amendment means exactly what it says. The right to keep and bear arms is a right of people, not some vaguely defined “state militia.”

But now that decision is under attack and that attack is coming from the National Rifle Association.

In an alert, dated March 28th 2007, the NRA tells its members “This week, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) introduced S. 1001, the Senate version of the “District of Columbia Personal Protection Act,” with 41 original cosponsors! Like its House counterpart — H.R. 1399, introduced on March 8, by U.S. Representatives Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and Mark Souder (R-Ind.) — the Senate legislation seeks to restore the constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment rights of the residents of the District of Columbia by repealing the District’s onerous gun ban.”

What’s wrong with that? Well if the politicians and the NRA have their way, and this bill is passed, the Court’s decision becomes meaningless and moot.

According to the lead lawyer in the DC case, Alan Gura, “If the D.C. gun ban is repealed before the appellate process is completed, Parker will be vacated and dismissed. It will have no precedential value. Whenever the Supreme Court might consider the Second Amendment in the future, it would likely be a criminal’s case, not the upstanding plaintiffs in the Parker case who
have been harmed by the DC ban.”

Gura added: “If Hutchison’s bill were to pass, all of our hard work would be wasted.”

In their March alert, NRA asks “all freedom-loving Americans to ask their Senators to vote for this bill.  We will continue to work until we right this injustice in our nation’s capital.”

The lawyers who worked so hard on this case made extraordinary efforts to keep the NRA out of it, convinced that it was NRA’s intention to torpedo the case.

In an alert from Gun Owner’s of America, Executive Director Larry Pratt said “GOA is encouraged by Gura’s report that the NRA shares his concern about Hutchison’s bill. Gura says that the NRA has “given us their assurances that they are not interested in ruining the case. And Wayne LaPierre, NRA’s Executive Vice-President, told me I can take that to the bank”

Gura and Pratt were too optimistic.

If the NRA is successful, this pivotal decision in favor of gun rights will be trashed.

The NRA is talking out of both sides of its mouth, and the victim of its deception will be you.

We will take a line out of their alert and urge you to follow it:

“You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121”

That’s sound advice. But please tell your representatives to oppose Hutchison’s ill conceived bill, S 1001.

Supreme Court Rules “No Duty To Retreat”

On March 29 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Oregonians have no “duty to retreat” when faced with a violent confrontation.

This is certainly welcome news. It also means that several bills that would have accomplished the same thing may now be unnecessary. That is particularly good news, since in the current legislative climate, the chances of those bills moving ahead is virtually zero.

In their decision, State of Oregon v. Sandoval, the Supreme Court correctly notes that Oregon law contains no requirement to retreat from an attacker and that previous rulings to the contrary are not only incorrect, but obviously so,

The Court noted “On a purely textual level, ORS 161.219 contains no specific reference to “retreat”, “escape,” or “other means of avoiding” a deadly confrontation. Neither, in our view, does it contain any other wording that would suggest a duty of that kind.”

It went on to describe a previous Appeals Court ruling this way: “The court’s analysis did not focus on or even consider the words of the statutes that we now recognize to be pivotal.” and “We conclude, in short, that the legislature’s intent is clear on the face of ORS 161.219: The legislature did not intend to require a person to retreat before using deadly force to defend against the imminent use of deadly physical force by another.”

The Supreme Court points out “Indeed, the entire analytical flow of the Charles opinion is distinctly odd: The court did not examine the wording of either ORS 161.209 or 161.219 at all… Instead, the court set out the wording that the Oregon Criminal Law Commission had proposed to the legislature regarding the use of deadly force as part of the final draft of the proposed 1971 Criminal Code, which wording explicitly imposed a duty of retreat to avoid the necessity of using deadly force. Then, after noting that the 1971 legislature had rejected that wording, the court cited a view expressed in the Oregon Criminal Law Commission’s Commentary to the 1971 Code to the effect that “the statute probably was not necessary” because of existing Oregon case law..”

This is a great decision for those who are forced to defend themselves, but at the same time it is chilling that it was even needed. Oregon law, as we repeatedly remind the Port of Portland, is clear. We wonder how many innocent people have been sent to prison for acting lawfully.

This decision also points out how easy it is for judges to ignore the law and make a ruling that can destroy a person’s life. OFF’s experience in courts in Oregon has been similar if less personally traumatic.

This decision is an overdue recognition that the law is the law. It is regrettable that it was even necessary.