Posted on

114 Goes To Court


Tomorrow is the scheduled court date in our lawsuit to stop the implementation of Ballot Measure 114.

A lot has happened in the last 24 hours. Second Amendment Foundation, with Firearms Policy Coalition, has filed a second suit in Federal Court  and Gun Owners of America has filed a friend of the court brief in our case.

The SAF suit essentially mirrors all of the arguments and points we made about the impending magazine ban.  They do not discuss or argue the permit to purchase .

While it’s clear that we consider the magazine ban a significant problem with Ballot Measure 114, we strongly oppose the permit to purchase requirements as well. The amicus brief filed by GOA does a good job of further explaining how that element is both extremely damaging and unconstitutional.

There is really no way to predict what will happen tomorrow and it’s unlikely that we will have an answer from the court before next week. And, of course, the clock is ticking on the complete shut down of gun sales on December 8th.

As you know, the current background check system is in near collapse, and while some transfers are taking place, over 30 thousand people are in limbo waiting for approvals (or any response) from the State Police.  It is impossible to imagine that any of those people will be able to take possession of the firearms they have paid for if Ballot Measure 114 goes into effect.

The State Police, as you can imagine, have no plans or rules in place to implement the onerous restrictions that 114 imposes on law abiding Oregonians, and sheriffs and police chiefs across the state are faced with the impossible situation of having to provide “permits” that do not exist. Meanwhile tens of thousands of Oregonians have had their rights eliminated BEFORE the measure has gone into effect with no reason to believe there will be any kind of resolution any time soon. So, the outcome of tomorrow’s hearing is way beyond critical.

But for right now, we wanted to take a minute to express our gratitude for every single person who has sacrificed and given so generously to this effort. It is an understatement to say that there are simply no words to convey our thanks.

While the suit filed yesterday by Second Amendment Foundation is being funded by large corporate donors such as Patriot Ordinance Factory and Oregon’s Radian Arms, we have no such benefactors. Every dime of this extremely costly effort has come from people like you, individuals, small dealers, gun clubs, and local collector’s organizations. While we certainly would have welcomed the help of companies like Radian when we were the first to jump into this fight, (and the fight at the ballot box) we will always be in debt to you, the people and small business of this state. (And a few other states.)

We also cannot sufficiently express our thanks to the individual sheriffs who have bravely stepped up to either officially join our suit or express an intention to join.

Sheriffs Brad Lohrey of Sherman County, Cody Bowen of Union County, Brian Wolfe of Malheur County, Gary Bettencourt of Gilliam County, Chris Kaber of Klamath County, Mark Garton of Polk County, and Terry Rowan of Umatilla County have all demonstrated unusual courage and. If you live in one of their counties, you are fortunate to have sheriffs who honor their oaths.

Our legal team has been working on this non-stop and have put aside many other commitments to present the best possible case. Because of the last minute introduction of another lawsuit in the same court, we now face even more unknowns.  Of course the minute we know the outcome you will too. 

It has always been our policy to respond to donations with formal “thank you’s” as quickly as possible. As you can imagine, we are a bit behind on that and appreciate your patience.

But, right here and now we wanted each one of you to know how deeply grateful we are for your support.

Posted on







We have now concluded the third of our “debates” with the proponents of Ballot Measure 114.

If you have not received your ballot in the mail it should arrive soon.

One thing has become clear about the proponents of the measure, they cannot defend what’s in it and they cannot answer a question.

Instead they prefer to divert the conversation into meaningless and rambling diatribes about, well, we don’t really know what they are about, except that it has something to do with equity. Or something.

Here are the links to the three debates or “interviews” as the case may be.

The first one is with Portland’s far left newspaper “Willamette Week.”  Some time after this debate, we were shocked (shocked I tell you) to see they endorsed the measure.

The  second is with the Portland “Oregonian”, Portland’s other far left newspaper. As with Willy Week, after this “interview” the Oregonian endorsed the measure. Once again, who would have ever imagined that an aging, far left “newspaper” would have done that?

In this interview, Mark Knutson, who runs the “church” that has collected thousands and thousands of dollars to promote firearms confiscation, accused OFF’s Kevin Starrett of anti-semitic racism.  For those who are wondering why, this is the page he is referring to:

The final debate was presented by the Portland City Club and moderated by Fox 12 TV in Portland.  As a side note, the Eugene City Club invited OFF to debate Mark Knutson. A date was set and agreed upon. Shortly before that date, the Eugene City Club emailed us and disinvited us with no explanation.  The Salem City Club extended an invite to debate but no one from the other side agreed to.

While OFF would have eagerly accepted any opportunity to debate Knutson one on one, he was …not available. So we accepted the Portland City Club where it was only two on one to keep it fair. Neither of our opponents actually had anything to do with writing the measure. Those folks prefer to stay in hiding.

That debate can be seen here:

Maybe the highlight of the last debate was the closing moments when we got to ask the proponents a question. We think you’ll be amused by their answer.

Ballots are hitting. Oregonians have legitimate concerns about the integrity of our voting systems. We strongly recommend you NOT mail in your ballot but take it to your county clerk yourself. Early voting does allow for potential mischief, so you may want to consider not sending in your ballot right away. But you MUST vote. Your rights and safety are on the line.

Special bonus video.

Posted on

The Clock Is Ticking


Ballots will be arriving soon. We wanted to give you an update on Mz 114 and our efforts to defeat it.

Currently we have radio ads running in most parts of the state. Our thanks go out to Sheriff Brad Lohrey for his help on one ad, and Damian Bunting for producing the second one. (You can see the video from Damian’s ad here.) Our efforts to buy time to run his video on digital platforms were turned down. So we are running it as a radio ad.

The Stop114 committee produced and distributed thousands of “No on 114” signs around the state.  Thank you to everyone who requested one. We are sorry we could not fill every request.

We have too many volunteers to thank for their efforts getting those signs transported, distributed and placed. After this is behind us we hope to be able to thank each one individually.  And for everyone who just took action themselves, getting the word out, producing and distributing their own signs and buying ad time, we can’t thank you enough.

At this point we have completed two “endorsement interviews.” These were basically debates at Willamette Week and the Oregonian.

As of today we have seen no articles or the video from the Willamette Week* interview but you can see the Oregonian debate here;

The follow up article is available here

We have not seen either paper actually take a position yet. But it is interesting to note that this measure is so extreme even the Democrat Party refuses to endorse it. And for that you can thank some diehard Democrats who refused to be bullied by the extreme left and insisted on sharing the truth.

As you might expect, other cartel media outlets have endorsed it and it will come as no surprise that proponents are lying about the measure every chance they get, including in voter pamphlet statements.  There ought to be a law…

But the fun is not over yet.  On October 21st OFF will be debating the proponents of this measure at the Portland City Club. Oregon Firearms director Kevin Starrett will debate Deschutes County DA John Hummel and NAACP’s Eugene President Miles Pendleton.

Hummel, by the way, has his name attached to one of the voter guide arguments that contains a blatant lie. No surprise there.

Hummel has made the hilarious and preposterous claim that the live fire requirement in the measure can be satisfied by pretending to shoot a gun. No, really. And this guy prosecutes people. (Unless those people make false allegations against gun owners and then he protects them. Look up the outrageous case of what happened to Shane Morgan in Bend after being falsely accused.)

In the Oregonian interview Hummel claimed the measure was “perfect” even though the people who drafted it and promoted it have repeatedly admitted it has to be “fixed” by the legislature. Even though it is so badly written that it refers to Oregon statues that do not exist. And even though one of its drafters has admitted that not only does she know nothing about firearms, she also admits to having irrational fears of them. (An admission she made while serving on the committee that drafted the “explanatory statement” for the measure ironically enough.)

Pendleton, the NAACP President, has repeatedly stated that he does not believe people should go to prison for committing crimes. Most recently he shared that position in the Oregonian interview. Of course, while Measure 114 does create a whole new category of crimes, and it does make criminals out of good (formerly) law abiding Oregonians, it does not contain one single word about actually punishing people who commit crimes. But none of the laws attacking gun ownership ever do.

Missing from the Portland City Club debate will be Mark Knutson, the fraud in vestments who poses as a man of faith while pushing a measure that will publish the names and addresses of rape victims. This is a disappointment. We’d love to have the opportunity to expose this creep again.

Knutson likes to start his speeches talking about the army of volunteers who helped get the measure on the ballot. He never mentions the almost $200,000.00 dollars he spent on paid signature gatherers who lied to people to get them to sign the measure. He also does not talk about the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have received from Kate Brown, the ACLU, Gabby Giffords, the Oregon Education Association, Nurses United etc. The National Eduction Association threw in half a million.

As you can imagine, we were not exactly competitive in the fund raising department. 

The Portland City Club Debate will be on ZOOM.

If you would like to watch it, the City Club has provided this link.

Here is the flyer they provided for it.  Ok, they are not graphic artists. We’re not judging…











KQEN interview.

Please visit and share and thank you for all you are doing.

*UPDATE  Willamette Week has endorsed the measure.

Video of the interview can be viewed here.

Posted on

Ballots Are Arriving



Ballots are arriving. You may be disgusted, you may be frustrated, but you must vote.

All indications are that Ballot Measure 114 is very close.  If this passes we will face a long time and a lot of money to defeat it in court.

Make no mistake, it will be defeated. The proponents know it, the Secretary of State knows it, and the media knows it. But why should they care? When it comes time to fight it, we get to pay for our lawyers and their lawyers. So please get your friends and family to fill out those ballots and bring them to a “secure” drop box or directly to your elections office.  Do NOT assume the Post Office will deliver them.

114 is the most extreme anti-gun effort in the country. If it passes, we see no way for most gun dealers to survive while the legal battles get sorted out.  So every single vote is going to count.

In other races, there is no question this has been the strangest election we have ever witnessed.

The Republican Caucus (the people already in office) have done everything in their power to torpedo good, independent thinking, candidates. They have gone so far as to threaten candidates OFF supported and recruit opponents to principled, pro-gun candidates.  In short, most Republicans in office, and their hired lackeys, have done all they can to assure that strong candidates have no chance.

After Republican House “Leader”  Vikki Breeze Iverson, had her consultant husband attack OFF as a “fringe group” who should be ignored, we received a request for money from… Vikki Breeze Iverson.

Meanwhile the Republican Party has done little but sabotage any effort to accomplish anything positive by continuing to allow the most destructive people to hold party office and attack the few who actually ever did anything.

The Governor’s race features three liberal women. And while everyone agrees that a Tina Kotek victory will mean a rapid acceleration of Oregon into a complete dystopian nightmare, it’s impossible to tell which of the other two choices is the least bad. We cannot support either of them.

The following are candidates for the legislature who we believe truly want to make a difference and are not in the pocket of the greedy failures currently in office. If you are in their districts they deserve your support.

For Senate:

Kim Thatcher District 11

John Verbeek District 17

Kim Rice District 18

Ben Edtl  District 19

For House:

Jason Fields District 26

Sandra Nelson District 27

Gina Munster Moore District  29

John Woods District 34

Greer Trice District 36

Rob Reynolds District 41

James Hieb District 51*

*Hieb certainly screwed up. But from the moment he was appointed to the seat vacated by Christine Drazan, the Republican Caucus did all it could to undermine him. That has to count for something.

You can view voter guide statements here.

Posted on

The Media Is Lying And Losing


The Media Is Lying And Losing

We have what we hope will be good news on Ballot Measure 114.

In spite of massive spending by the leftists who are promoting the measure, a poll published by the Oregonian shows support from only 51% of Oregon voters.

Why would that be good news?

Well, if you read the whole story the Oregonian published, it’s clear, that just like the rest of the cartel media, they are doing everything they can to deceive Oregon voters about what the measure does.

It’s safe to say that the poll is as slanted as the article was and even with grossly biased polls, massive spending, and endless deception by the media, there is not overwhelming support for the measure. And with a margin of error of 4%, it looks even worse for the extremists who are attempting to destroy civil rights.

In spite of gifts of $100,000.00 from Gabby Giffords, $50,000.00 from the Oregon Raindrop Fund, $48,000.00 from the “Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety”, $20,000.00 from the “Nurses United Political Action Committee”, $10,000.00 from Kate Brown, $10,000.00 from ACLU and others, they have still not been able to fool most Oregonians.

But make no mistake. The media is completely in the tank to pass this measure and they are not going to let up any time soon.

This quote from the article demonstrates how misinformed people who answered the poll are:  Mark Magee, a voter in Southeast Portland who participated in the poll, said he supported the measure because he feels there are too many “over-the-top weapons” out there.”

Unless Magee considers common sporting shotguns to be “over the top” weapons his comment makes no sense when discussing this measure.

After a lengthy interview with the Oregonian “reporter” who wrote this article, even after she was fully informed that the new “rules” were impossible to comply with, that the police oppose this measure, that there is NO cap on the cost for required “classes” (that virtually no one will be able to give) that this will have a devastating effect on low income communities, destroy youth shotgun competition, and put countless small shops out of business, she absurdly stated Opponents call the measure an overreach that doesn’t guarantee adequate funding from permit fees to pay for the required classes and the database, among other objections.”

And that highly biased comment does not even make sense.  “Permit fees” won’t pay for the required classes.  People trying to exercise their rights will pay for the required classes. That is if any are even available.

The pattern is clear and has been since this measure made the ballot.  The legacy media has, and will continue to, do all it can to hide what this measure actually does. It’s so extreme even the Oregon Democrat Party has refused to endorse it.

Police from across the state oppose it and with every new court decision it becomes undeniably clear that it will, if passed, be declared unconstitutional. Eventually.

But that fight will take years and millions to battle through the Kate Brown controlled courts.  So it’s essential that we beat this atrocity at the ballot box.

Please share the website with everyone you know. Whether they are gun owners or not, voters need to be informed about how dangerous and extreme this deceptive measure is.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this fight with donations and volunteer efforts. You are making a difference.

Posted on

Measure 114 Update


As you know, Oregon is facing a ballot measure which will create the most extreme restrictions on firearm’s rights in America.

The cartel media is all in on promoting this measure as a simple “permit to purchase”…  a “minor inconvenience to keep people safe.”

In fact, this measure will make it almost impossible to purchase a firearm in Oregon. Not only will gun buyers be locked out, it will essentially destroy gun dealers as well.

In the last few weeks the proponents of this dangerous measure have ramped up their fundraising and now have raised considerably more than we have.

With the media in the tank for them, they will not have to spend much on spreading their message, while we have been forced to spend a lot.

An excellent video produced for us is being denied digital distribution because it “involves guns.” Of course it does. It’s a gun ban ballot measure!

That has forced us to confine our media buys to radio.  We are in the process of acquiring yard signs and expect have them available at the Albany Gun Show this weekend. 

Please visit the Stop 114 website.   It is essential that we share this info with as many people as possible.

The media is doing all it can to mislead Oregonians about what Measure 114 does.  The STOP 114 website contains vital information and downloadable fact sheets to share.

You can make a much needed donation to fight the gun grabbers here:

The elections are coming. The gun grabbers are determined to make sure people cannot protect themselves even as the police no longer respond to violent crime. Please help us stop them.

Share the site and donate to

Thank you.

Posted on

STOP 114!


Ballot Measure 114.

As you know IP 17 is now Ballot Measure 114. It has been approved for the November election.

The measure essentially ends the sale of all firearms in Oregon for the foreseeable future and bans the sales of most shotguns and all standard capacity magazines forever.

Possession of those items outside your home will be a criminal offense. If you are caught in possession of a standard capacity magazine INSIDE your home you will be required to prove that you had it before the law went into effect.  There will be no presumption of innocence.

You could be charged multiple times for possession of the same magazine.

You will need a “permit” to buy any firearm which will require a class that may only be taught by police, which virtually no police agency will be able to provide, and all your private information will be in a published database.

The “permit” this measure requires does not even allow you to purchase a firearm. It includes an Oregon State Police background check that has no time limits and permits any kind of investigation police agencies choose to dream up.  If you can somehow actually get a permit, it only allows you to attempt to make a purchase with another mandated background check that can take literally forever.

While clearly unconstitutional, if it passes, virtually all gun stores will have no ability to actually sell any firearms until the unfunded permitting system is created. Many police agencies have said they see no way to comply with it.

We have created a PAC specifically to fight this extreme and dangerous measure.  Please visit and share the Stop 114 website for details on the measure and a downloadable fact sheet you can share with you family, friends, and local gun dealers.

Posted on

Another School Endangers Kids, Ballot Measure Update

Official Fiasco Status


There are two items of importance in this alert.

First, now the Salem Keizer School Board is planning to place their students in danger by banning self defense and lawful firearms possession on their property.

Please take a moment  to contact them to oppose this dangerously foolish policy.

You can view their agenda here.

You can send a message to the school board using this link:

Your contact information is required to make sure the system is not abused. It will not be shared.

Second, today the “Explanatory Statement Committee” on Ballot Measure 114 (the gun ban initiative) met to consider public comments made about the proposed statement.

The statement is supposed to be a simple and understandable description of what is in the measure.

The proponents of the measure, once again, demonstrated mind blowing ignorance about every aspect of how firearms work and current law.

They insisted that a person could meet the requirements to “fire” a gun in a classroom. They also continued to completely deny the fact that most shotguns will be outlawed under the measure.

One backer of the measure stated the she was “terrified” of firearms and had a visceral reaction of fear to them. Yet, in spite of her admitted, irrational behavior, she dominated the conversation on what the statement should say.

There was far too much nonsense in today’s hearing to recount, but some things were particularly outrageous.

The committee decided to include, in the explanatory statement, that “Concealed carry license holders may qualify…” for the proposed required permits to purchase.  This is flat out false.  There are no CHL classes that would qualify for this permit. Not only do CHL classes typically not cover state and federal law, but they are rarely taught by police and most classes don’t have live fire components.

(One proponent of the measure actually objected to the word “grandfathered” because it was “gendered language.”)

Whenever the opponents attempted to point out the obvious flaws and misrepresentations in the proposed statements, the proponents demanded that they “move on.”

The committee has not yet voted on this version. If they do not agree on the version they worked on today, the version that was made public previously (which received hundreds of objections) will be printed in the voter’s guide

In short, it’s obvious that the explanatory statement will be nothing more than a state sanctioned effort to mislead the voters in an effort to pass a very dangerous ballot measure.

You can help us fight this absurd attack on constitutional rights and common sense by donating to our Political Action Committee.

If you prefer PAYPAL there is a donation button on this page:

Thank you.

Posted on

Misleading “Explanatory Statement” For Gun Ban Adopted


Yesterday, the “Explanatory Statement” committee met and adopted a proposed “explanatory statement” for the voter’s guide for IP 17, now ballot measure 114.

This, as you know, is the measure that will virtually end the sale of firearms in Oregon.

As expected, the deck was totally stacked. The only statement even considered was the one drafted by the proponents of the measure.

Neither of the opponents of the measure voted to approve the draft but the committee was weighted against them so it was adopted.

The proposed statement is a total fraud, as it was intended to be. It is intentionally misleading and contains outright falsehoods.

There is still time to send in your objections to this obvious attempt to mislead voters.

We have attached a copy of the draft statement so you can read it for yourself, but we’ll point out some of the more egregious elements.

First, no matter how much the proponents tried to hide it, the measure outright bans most modern shotguns. Period.  Tubular magazines on most shotguns are capable of holding more than 10 rounds of certain ammunition. Therefore they will be banned.

The proponents attempted, lamely, to argue that shotguns were exempted because of  the exception for “lever action firearms.”  And no matter how much the opponents attempted to clarify that “lever action” is not the same as “pump action” the proponents insisted that was simply “argument” or “speculation.”  And clearly it is not.

Tubular fed, semi-automatic shotguns were not even discussed. The language they did insert in the statement only confuses the issue more.  Under the section “Regulates Large Capacity Magazines” they state: Particular application to certain firearms set forth in measure.” Whatever that means.

The measure requires that if you already own a “large” capacity magazine, you may only remove it from your property to go to a range or hunting trip. But it must be unloaded and removed from the firearm and locked separately from the gun. As anyone with a tubular fed shotgun knows, this is not a matter of simply pressing a magazine release and requires disassembly of the firearm.

The measure allows you to keep magazines you already own, if they don’t leave your property, but you can be charged with a crime if you cannot prove you owned them before the ban.  Under the measure, it becomes your responsibility to prove your innocence. And, of course, nothing prevents you from being charged again and again for the same magazines since conventional magazines contain no identifying marks.

The proponents also included a clearly false description of the database police will keep on anyone applying for a “permit to purchase” a gun.  Their statement says: “Requires State Police to maintain electronically searchable database of permits, information is exempt from public disclosure.”

But the plain language of the measure says the State police shall annually publish, the required report. There is nothing in the measure that exempts the report from public disclosure.

The statement also misleads voters by suggesting that the live fire requirement in the mandated classes for the “permit to purchase” can be completed with “hands on demonstration of basic firearms handling” by the instructor, when in fact, the student will need to be firing the gun. And of course, since you would need a gun to demonstrate that you could load, unload, and fire it, and you can’t buy a gun without the required permit, first time buyers will have an almost impossible hurdle to overcome.

The whole statement was designed to confuse and mislead voters and is totally unacceptable .

There is still time to send your objections to the Secretary of State. The committee is scheduled to meet again to consider objections.

You can email your objections to: 

Talking points:

The explanatory statement is seriously flawed.

The statement refused to acknowledge that most modern shotguns will be banned under this measure. That is NOT speculation.

The statement falsely claims that the database of gun permit applicants is exempt from public disclosure. That must not be allowed to remain in the statement.

The statement ignores the lack of training facilities or people qualified to provide the training. This is a critical element of the measure.

The statement misleads voters about the live fire requirements.

The statement ignores the complete lack of funding for this expensive measure.

The statement fails to clarify many mandates that will be created later by the Oregon State Police without public input.

The flawed, proposed statement can be seen here.   


Yesterday’s entire (painful) meeting can be viewed here.

Posted on


Last week we asked you to send comments to the “Explanatory Statement Committee” about the content of IP 17, the gun ban ballot measure.

Now, thanks to the request of one Republican and one Democrat legislator, there is another committee that needs to hear from you.

As noted by the Secretary of State:

The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) received a written request from a member of the Legislative Assembly from each major political party requesting a racial and ethnic impact statement pursuant to ORS 137.685 for Initiative Petition 17 that is related to crime and likely to have an effect on the criminal justice system. The CJC is responsible for preparing an impartial, simple, and understandable statement explaining the racial and ethnic impact. 

To submit written public comments, please email them no later than July 28 at 10:30 AM to

The Secretary of State will hold a public hearing to receive testimony on the the racial and ethnic impact statement for IP 17 .

UPDATE 07.27.2022  The in-person meeting has been cancelled. Remote only now!

9:30 AM – 10:30 AM

Thursday July 28, 2022

Register to attend online via Zoom

Or attend in person:

Large Conference Room, 2nd Floor

Oregon State Archives

800 Summer St. NE

Salem OR 97310

Basically the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission needs to hear from the public about the potential impacts of the ballot measure on different racial communities.

These comments should not take a position on the ballot measure or make statements opposing it. The measure will be on the ballot so comments opposing the measure won’t matter.

What is needed are some points about how this measure is almost sure to have a massive negative impact on minorities.

Some talking points:

The measure requires a “class” before a person can apply for a “permit” to purchase a firearm. Since this class requires live fire, low income urban residents will have the hardest time finding an approved class.

The required “class” must be taught by police or those approved by police.  If the police in minority areas choose to simply not provide the class, minority residents will be required to find a class far from their home at unlimited expense.

The measure gives police unlimited ability to require any information they want when approving a person for a “permit.”  This discretion has enormous potential for abuse and can be applied selectively.

There are no time limits on the multiple background checks required for a permit and there are no limits on the cost for the “class” that is required. At this time even the sponsors of the measure have admitted they have no answers for these concerns. These issues are certain to impact low income communities disproportionally.

The existing racial statement covers none of these issues.  Please send your comments with your concerns before July 28th to

The statement, along with additional information and documents, will be shared on the Secretary of State’s website.

Posted on

Anti-gun Ballot Measure Explanatory Committee Announced


Today the Secretary of  State announced:

“For each ballot measure to be voted on at the General Election, the explanatory statement committee is responsible for preparing an impartial, simple, and understandable statement explaining the measure, not to exceed 500 words. Upon completion of this task the statement is filed with the Secretary of State Elections Division, so that a public hearing on the statement may be scheduled. If a statement receives comments during the public hearing, the explanatory statement committee must meet to review comments and consider revisions to the statement.”

For ballot measure 17, the gun ban ballot measure, the committee will include Elizabeth McKanna, Margaret Olny, and HK Kahng.

McKenna is one of largest donors and lenders to the measure. (The ACLU also donated $10,000.00)

Olny is a lawyer who regularly works for left wing causes. Kahng’s Linkedin page lists him as “Web developer and infrastructure wiz, eager to create, launch and nurture applications that help build organizations and communities by facilitating collaboration , streamlining processes and sharing knowledge.”

UPDATE 07.20.2022 A 5th “neutral” member of the committee was picked from a list provided by the Secretary of State: Judge Lynn Nakamoto.

The first meeting for the anti-gun ballot measure IP 17 committee is scheduled for this Monday at 2pm.

The legislative website currently has all of the committee’s meetings listed at the following URL:

After the meeting, video of the meeting will be available in the Archive section of the Oregon State legislative website.

According to the Secretary of State: “The committee is not required to take public testimony at each meeting, the Secretary of State’s Office will hold a public comment meeting on Wednesday, August 3, 2022, from 1 – 3 p.m…. Additional information will be publicized when information is available.”

We have been in contact with numerous police departments and Sheriff’s offices. All have agreed that complying with this measure will either be exorbitantly expensive or impossible. None have said they will be offering the “training” required to apply for the permit to purchase that sheriffs and local police will be tasked with administering.

In addition to all the more well known provisions of the measure, most people are unaware that it will ban the new purchase of most shotguns because of the definition of “high capacity magazines.” (Almost all modern tubular fed shotguns are capable of holding more than 10 “mini-shells.”)

Tune in if you can and be prepared to provide comments when that opportunity becomes available.

Posted on

Ballot Measure Will End Gun Sales


As we prepare to celebrate Independence Day, let’s not forget what we are celebrating.

The blood of countless patriots was spilled to free us from a tyrannical and unaccountable government determined to control and oppress us.  Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

The recent Supreme Court Decision striking down New York’s unconstitutional ban on self defense outside the home is reverberating across the country.  As you may have heard, this decision is poised to impact multiple other 2nd Amendment cases nationwide.

We believe that, long term, we will see many local restrictions overturned as a result of the ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs Bruen. The key words here being “long term.”

In the short term we are facing a challenge whose severity cannot be overstated.

Almost immediately after the decision came out, New York started crafting language to create as many obstacles and impediments to the court’s ruling as they could. Other states are sure to do the same.

At a time when crime is skyrocketing and Soros funded DA’s are making sure criminals are not punished, places like New York are not only doing all they can to prevent people from having self defense firearms, they are also trying to outlaw things like body armor.

It has never been more clear that the state is doing all it can to keep the populace defenseless in the face of rising mob violence.

And Oregon is following suit.

The sponsors of gun ban initiative  IP 17, believe they have enough signatures to put this measure on the ballot. Oregon’s Secretary of State, who will verify the signatures, is a rabid anti-gun extremist who has never hidden her disdain for gun owners and OFF in particular, so we have little doubt the measure will be approved for the ballot.

If that happens you can rest assured that the cartel media will promote and misrepresent what it actually does.

While the proponents of the measure will probably receive massive influxes of cash for media buys, they will certainly be getting most of it for free from the controlled establishment press.

As such, it is essential that people know what this measure actually does so they can share this information with others.

It is not an overstatement to say that, for many, this measure would essentially ban the future purchase of firearms.

That is NOT an exaggeration.

Section 2 of the measure calls for the “regulation of sale, purchase, and otherwise transferring of all firearms.”

Section 3 creates a mandate for a “permit to purchase” a firearm. Any firearm.

As you know, Oregon already requires the permission of the Oregon State Police before a person can purchase a firearm. Firearms may not be purchased or transferred without approval of the State Police through the Oregon background check system.

Oregon State Police have no statutory time limit on how long they can take to conduct a background check. There are many cases of people waiting over 2 years for the completion of a check. Requests for information or corrections from OSP are routinely ignored.

While current law allows a transfer to take place after 3 business days if the OSP has not completed the check, in practice that virtually never happens because dealers fear retribution from the ATF. (This ballot measure removes even that one small and rarely used safeguard.)

IP 17 creates a second and far more onerous “permit to purchase” that will be required before you can even start the often frustrating process of getting permission from the State Police.

Under the proposed “permit to purchase” you must apply for the new permit from the police chief or Sheriff of your jurisdiction.

That will require an additional background check and fees.

The applicant must provide any information the “permitting agent” demands.

The applicant must complete a “firearms safety course.”  (Keep in mind this is required just to ask for permission from the sheriff, to then ask permission from the State Police to simply buy a firearm. Not to carry one.)

  Here is how the “safety course” is described:

8) As used in this section, “proof of completion of a firearm safety course” means the following:

(a) Proof of completion of any firearms training course or class available to the general public that is offered by law enforcement, a community college, or a private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by a law enforcement agency, and that includes the components set forth in paragraph (c) of this subsection; or

(b) Proof of completion of any law enforcement firearms training course or class that is offered for security guards, investigators, reserve law enforcement officers, or any other law enforcement officers, and that includes the components set forth in paragraph (c) of this subsection;

(c) A firearms training course or class required for issuance of a permit-to-purchase must include:

(A) Review of federal and state laws in place at the time of the class and other safe practices related to ownership, purchase, transfer, use and transportation of firearms;

(B) Review of federal and state safe storage laws in place at the time of the class and other safe practices related to safe storage, including reporting lost and stolen guns;

(C) Prevention of abuse or misuse of firearms, including the impact of homicide and suicide on families, communities and the country as a whole; and

(D) In-person demonstration of the applicant’s ability to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency. This requirement may be met separately from the other course requirements in subpargagraphs (A), (B) and (C) of paragraph (c), which may be completed in an on-line course, provided the on-line course has been conducted by a trainer certified by law enforcement.

(d) Proof of successful completion of a training course in order to meet the requirements for a concealed handgun license issued under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 may be submitted for a permit as a substitute for the requirements in paragraph (c) of this subsection, provided the completed course included each of the components set forth in paragraph (c) of this subsection.

(9) The department may adopt rules to carry out the provisions of this section.

The required course must be taught by “instructors certified by law enforcement”, not NRA certified instructors.

There is no requirement that these classes actually be made available anywhere. There is no definition of who is qualified to “review state and federal laws.”

There is no limit on what you will be charged for the “safety course.” The “instructors” will be required to have a range for live fire.

There is no time limit on how long the “permitting agent” can take to issue the “permit to purchase” as long as the “permitting agent” says he needs more time to determine if the applicant is qualified.

A person attempting to purchase a firearm could wait forever to get permission from the sheriff to then ask for permission from the State Police, which could also, literally, take forever.

In any location where law enforcement does not, or will not provide live fire training, a firearm’s purchase would be impossible.

The measure also requires a published database of persons attempting to purchase firearms lke that just released to the public in California.

The database can include any information the State Police decide to include. That means your name, date of birth, physical description, and home address and phone number.

The measure also outlaws the possession, sale, manufacture, or transfer of new firearm’s magazines over 10 rounds (the kinds most common in modern firearms), and the prohibition of having existing magazines outside your home unless they were transported locked up in route to a range.

In light of recent court decisions, the magazine ban will almost certainly be found unconstitutional. However, if enacted by Oregon it will be law until challenged in court where our anti-gun Attorney General will certainly defend it at your expense.

The magnitude of this ballot measure simply cannot be overstated.  If you think Oregonians would never pass something this dangerous, keep in mind what kind of government the residents of Portland keep reelecting.  Keep in mind that Oregon voters overwhelmingly approved a measure to legalize hard drugs which has resulted in unprecedented crime and overdose deaths.

Voters often don’t read what is actually in ballot measures and rely on the emotional and inaccurate, but well funded campaign pitches by their sponsors. This measure will be no different.  Please be prepared to help us fight this insanity or the things our forefathers died for could become a memory.

Posted on

Scappoose School District Backs Down

Scappoose Backs Down


On June 21st we informed you of the Scappoose School District’s planned consideration of a policy that would ban law abiding, concealed handgun license holders from being anywhere on school property while legally armed.

This meant that parents and guardians who had the means and will to protect children from attack would be legally prohibited from doing so.

In the wake of the Uvalde, Texas debacle this was clearly an insane policy consideration.

We asked you to take action and you did.  The school board has concluded that there is no rational basis to change a policy that has been working safely for over 30 years.

We thank you for taking time to help the school board come to a sensible conclusion.

We want to thank the people who took the time to track down the contact information for school board members, which was not available on the District’s website that we were later able to add to our alert info.

Thanks also to radio talk show host Lars Larson who responded to our last alert and helped get the word out so we could put the brakes on this dangerous proposed change.

School boards are passing these restrictions one at a time, and it’s only because of alert citizens who are monitoring the agendas of Oregon’s many boards that we are able to stop some of these very bad decisions.

Thanks again to everyone for your activism.  Scappoose children are safer because of you.

Posted on

One Step Up… Two Steps Back.

Gun owners had a few brief hours of elation after the release of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs Bruen.

They were quickly whipsawed back to reality mere hours later when the Senate passed sweeping new gun restrictions.  The US House joined the Senate the following day to send the legislation to Joe Biden for his signature.

The left immediately, and predictably, lost its collective mind and declared the ruling the end of the world. It was only the decision on Roe v Wade, released the following day, that distracted them from their hyperbolic hyperventilating on guns and how blood would run in the streets.

(They quickly promised that indeed, blood would run in the streets.)

The new attack on gun rights is S 2938.  The bill was cheered by Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer as a victory, but, as he has been saying for about 40 years, is only a “first step.”

Republican Senator John Cornyn, one of the masterminds behind this latest attack on your rights and the US Constitution would have cheered the passage of the bill, but his lips were glued to Schumer’s backside and hence he was silenced.

Once again, Republicans have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. At a time when the Democrats are panicking about coming elections because their policies have America teetering on the brink of total destruction, the Republicans throw them a life line and spit in the face of the people who elected them.

It’s as predictable as congressional sex scandals. 

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called the bill a victory and claimed it protected the 2nd Amendment. Clearly the Senate bar is still open and free.

The bill bribes states to impose unconstitutional, “pre-crime” red flag laws which, in spite of the flaccid assurances to the contrary, will be misused against people who have committed no crime.

It further complicates failed background checks. In Oregon, the State Police, who are tasked with conducting background checks, do such an abysmal job that many have come to conclude it is the single role of OSP to prevent law abiding people from legally obtaining guns.

The bill also creates new obstacles for 18-20 year olds when trying to purchase firearms.

It adds new and confusing regulations on who must now obtain an FFL.

That’s what the Democrats got. In exchange for their fealty, the Republicans, and America’s gun owners got… nothing.  Another brilliant deal expertly negotiated by the brain trusts wearing the Republican Jersey.

But at least gun owners got some good news in the Supreme Court decision on gun rights. Right?

Well SCOTUS did strike down one element of New York’s arcane, byzantine, elitist, and incomprehensible pistol license law.

They said New York’s rule that licenses to carry would only be granted to those who could successfully bribe a NYPD official was unconstitutional.

In the brief moments before the next day’s Roe v Wade decision was made public, the taking heads and idiot politicians were calling the ruling “seismic” and predicting that it would have unimaginable effects on gun laws in many states.

Tina Kotek, the Democrat candidate for Oregon Governor, was apoplectic. 

“Just weeks after 19 children were murdered in an elementary school in Texas, the Trump-dominated Supreme Court has issued a ruling that will increase the number of guns on the streets in cities and towns across the country. It will make communities less safe.”

Her comments were bizarre even for her. According to Kotek, the ruling will “make communities less safe” by requiring New York to have concealed handgun license laws that are more like…Portland’s.

While the two other “leading” candidates for governor, both of whom have pretended to be “pro-gun,” did weigh in on the abortion ruling, they were nowhere to be found on the SCOTUS decision about firearms.



New York’s Governor immediately promised to do all she could to undermine the ruling by crafting legislation that would create insurmountable obstacles to getting a permit in New York, or to put it another way, continuing to do what they are doing now.

New York’s mayor declared that his town was not the “wild, wild west.”

“We’re still analyzing the bill, but it’s clear New Yorkers and Americans are unsafe due to gun violence because of that ruling,” he said.

Oh. It’s because of “that bill.”  It wasn’t a “bill”  but in deference to his limited attention span we’ll let that go.

But he wasn’t finished.

“When you are in an environment such as New York City — highly densely populated, 8.8 million people — simple disputes can elevate into gunplay.”

Yes we know. That was actually known to happen before the court’s ruling. From time to time.

State and city overlords are seeking to turn as many places as possible into “sensitive locations” where they hope to ban concealed carry, within a thousand feet.

That would include government buildings, schools, bars, libraries, restaurants and even cemeteries, which across the country have regularly been the scene of shoot-outs between people with concealed handgun licenses. Of course, they also want the subways to be off limits. Because we certainly don’t want people to be fearful in now bucolic NY subways.

While certainly welcomed, if for no other reason then to watch the earth-scorching melt down of the leftist bed wetters, gun owners should not consider this court ruling a massive victory.  The courts made it clear that states can still keep a long list of restrictions on concealed carry licenses.  The decision essentially validates the entire concept of prior restraint on a fundamental right.

While the court  commented on the fact that no other right comes with a requirement for prior government approval, its validation of the permit process undermines the very concept they promoted in the ruling.

And by making clear that impediments like training requirements, fees and “sensitive location” restrictions were allowed, they created a road map for tyrants, like the governors of New York and New Jersey, to continue to make the right of self defense unattainable by most people.

If the state says a permit is $1000.00 a month, requires 100 hours of training by police and live fire, in a city where that is all but impossible, the court’s ruling will have little practical effect on the disarmed and endangered serfs of New York. 

Here are the Senators who sold out.

  1. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO)
  2. Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
  3. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
  4. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
  5. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
  6. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
  7. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA)
  8. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
  9. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
  10. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
  11. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)
  12. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT)
  13. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC)
  14. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA)
  15. Sen. Todd Young (R-IN)
Posted on

If We Save Just One Life

If We Save Just One Life

UPDATED 06.22.2022
The fight to protect kids in schools is a district by district battle.

While some school districts in liberal enclaves have predictably voted to put a big target on the backs of the kids in their “care,” other districts have heard you loud and clear and backed off of the foolish policy of disarming the good guys.

Now the Scappoose School District is considering a policy to prohibit staff and parents from being legally armed on their property.

The most recent revelations about what happened in Uvalde, Texas have demonstrated beyond any doubt, the lunacy of disarming people who would protect kids from attackers if only it were allowed.

We have all seen the videos of police preventing parents from attempting to save their children, even as armed, trained police waited outside of the crime scene doing nothing while kids died.

This is not acceptable.  The best intentions of the police will never beat an armed citizen already on the scene.

But now, incredibly, the Scappoose School District wants to disarm responsible, armed, adults as a response to the acts of deranged criminals. It simply makes no sense.

The Scappose School Board is scheduled to vote on this inexcusable policy on June 27th.  They need to hear from you.  Your efforts in the past have made a difference so please make your voice heard again.

As of the time of this alert, the Scappoose School District has no contact information for individual school board members, not even their names! Oddly, they have a gallery of photos, but zero identifying  information.

The school establishment is trying to make this debate about “arming teachers” and “increased insurance.”  Both arguments are fabricated straw men.

No one is talking about “arming teachers.”  That should be their decision. And the insurance argument is another bit of slight-of-hand.  All that responsible people are requesting is that they leave the policy the way it is. No change, no insurance issues.

No one should be denied the ability to pick up their children, attend a school function, or meet with a teacher simply because they have accepted the responsibility to protect kids.

Please contact the School Board and let them know that you strongly oppose this change and urge them to protect the kids and not bow to the woke mob.

Scappose School Board

A suggested message follows that you can modify if you choose.

UPDATE:  Thanks to several people who ferreted out the email addresses and names of the Scappoose School Board:

Tim Porter (Superintendent):

Will Kessi :

Summer Hoag:

Phil Lager:

Michelle Graham:

Jim Hoag:

Gwen Klobes:

Branda Jurasek:



To the Scappoose School Board,

I strongly oppose any effort to deny responsibly armed adults the ability to protect children and themselves while on school property.

We have seen the tragic results of assuming that the police alone will stop an attacker.

This issue is NOT about arming teachers. It is about using common sense and recognizing that people who are licensed to carry firearms do not suddenly become dangerous or irresponsible when they step foot on your property.

Please reject this dangerous and foolish proposal.