House Rep Greg MacPherson finds out what he is saying is…public

Greg MacPherson, a House Rep from Lake Oswego, and a reliable anti-gun vote, was at a public “town hall” meeting when a citizen and voter dared to tape the event.

The man behind the camera is Jim Karlock, a staunch supporter of gun rights and individual liberties. It’s interesting to see what happens when a “public servant” finds out what he is saying is…public.

MacPherson , who is, and constantly reminds us, a lawyer, argues that having a camera at a PUBLIC MEETING is somehow interfering with “the free flow of ideas.” What he really fears is a record of HIS positions. MacPherson, (again, an attorney) expresses ignorance of the law on recording PUBLIC MEETINGS, but takes the advice of an unknown member of the audience who makes an inane suggestion about the lawfulness of an Oregon resident, taxpayer and voter recording a PUBLIC MEETING.

MacPherson is the CHAIR of the House Judiciary Committee, the committee that deals with criminal laws in Oregon. His fear of being placed on the record, and his ignorance of Oregon law is both telling and chilling.

For an even more revealing look at what happens when ignorance meets arrogance, we have copied below the text of an e-mail MacPherson has sent voters concerning HB 2852. This bill expands the powers of the Port of Portland Police, who are currently breaking Oregon law.

Thank you for writing.  I understand your position on the Port’s ban on concealed handguns on airport property.  But House Bill 2852 has nothing to do with that issue, other than it also involves law enforcement at the Port.  I do not believe we should hold a good bill hostage because of disagreement over a different issue involving the Port.  If you think the public should have the right to carry concealed weapons in airports, I suggest you have legislation introduced to establish this right.  Then there can be a full and open debate of that issue.

I appreciate hearing from you.  I will start sending my electronic newsletter, The Mac Report, to your email address so you can follow the legislation I’m working on.  I send it out every month or so.  I do not share the addresses with anyone else.  If you prefer not to receive them, just reply to this or any future newsletter with “unsubscribe” in the subject line.

Best regards,

Greg Macpherson
State Representative
House District 38

It is truly amazing that MacPherson would suggest having “legislation introduced to establish this right” when “this right” is already clearly established in Oregon law. But no doubt recipients of this e-mail feel better knowing they have been subscribed to MacPherson’s newsletter.

Posted on

03.16.07 Range Shut Down Bill Goes To Burdick.

On February 28th, we warned you about a bill that was written to close virtually every shooting range in the state.

At the time, the bill was in draft form. We promised to keep you informed of its progress.

As many of you know the bill now exists in bill form. It is SB 1012

Yesterday the bill was assigned to Ginny Burdick’s Judiciary Committee. As you know, Burdick is Oregon’s most fanatical gun hater.

It is imperative that you contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and express your opposition to this very dangerous bill. A suggested message appears at the bottom of this page. Feel free to alter it.

You can see all bills in both html and easier to read PDF format here.

You can contact your own representatives, even if you don’t know who they are by using this link.

You may also want to consider contacting your local police department. Many departments rely on local private ranges for practice. Obviously their costs will skyrocket if this bill becomes law.

Suggested Text:

_________________________________________________________________

Dear Senator,

Senate Bill 1012 is extreme, unneeded and unwise.

At a time when everyone agrees that firearms safety is essential, SB 1012 would effectively close virtually every range where people can safely shoot.

I urge you in the strongest terms to oppose this draconian and dangerous legislation.
Very truly yours,

______________________

_________________________________________________________________

 

Posted on

03.15.07 Deschutes County Reverses Illegal Gun Policy.

Gun owners in Deschutes County got a small but significant victory today.

On March 9th, OFF was contacted by a Deschutes County gun owner and informed that the county buildings were posted with signs stating that carrying a firearm in a county building was a felony,even with a permit. This is not true. CHL holders are very specifically allowed in county buildings with firearms.

We contacted Deschutes County and informed them that their policy was unlawful.

On March 14th we received a phone call from Deschutes County Commissioner Mike Daly. He informed us that he thought we “were right” and promised to change the policy. Today, March 15th, we received an e-mail from Dave Kanner, the County Administrator simply saying “The signage will be changed. The county has no formally adopted policy, but will comply with ORS 166.”

If you know of similar violations in your area, please let us know.

Posted on

03.06.07 Hearing for HB 2334 cancelled.

We recently alerted you that a hearing was scheduled for HB 2334 tomorrow, Wednesday, in House Judiciary.

HB 2334 has several very bad provisions and many of you contacted your reps to oppose it.

We have just been informed that tomorrow’s hearing has been cancelled.

We will let you know you if it is rescheduled.

Numerous new gun bills were introduced today. The legislative website is having technical difficulties, so right now we cannot link to the new bills. As soon as that is resolved we will update you.

Posted on

03.01.07 Gun Bill Scheduled, Contact Your Reps Today.

Gun Bill Scheduled For Hearing.

House Bill 2334 is scheduled for a hearing on Wednesday, March 7th at 8:30 AM in the House Judiciary Committee.

(Please note. Schedules are subject to change. Please use this link for updated committee schedules.)

This bill is a rewrite of the Sheriff’s concealed handgun license bill that OFF members killed last session. (For more, click on this link and scroll down to the alert dated 05/25/05)

This year’s version is a big improvement over last session’s and does contain language we sought in 2005 that would allow active duty military to renew concealed handgun licenses by mail, however the bill still contains some significant flaws

The bill has added language to deny CHL’s unless the applicant “Is not an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance.” That sounds reasonable, except that in this case, we are not talking about people who have a conviction for drug use, or even an arrest. The bill describes drug users as follows:

(10) For purposes of subsection (1)(m) of this section, a person is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance if within the four years prior to the application:
(a) There have been two or more official reports by a law enforcement agency that document incidents involving the person’s unlawful use of a controlled substance;
(b) The person has admitted to being addicted to a controlled substance to a peace officer, a corrections officer or a parole and probation officer;
(c) The person has been addicted to a controlled substance and the fact of the addiction has been documented, electronically or in writing, during the course of an investigation by a law enforcement agency

Basically, you are a drug user if a law enforcement officer SAYS you are.

In our lengthy meetings with the Sheriffs last session, they could not provide any satisfactory explanation of what prevented any law enforcement officer from “documenting” drug use whether it had occurred or not.

Our position then, and now, is that if there is evidence of unlawful use of drugs, there should be an arrest. In the absence of one, we believe this provision is an open invitation to abuse.

OFF hears from people regularly who face unlawful delays for CHL’s and the incidence of lengthy delays for firearm’s purchases in Oregon is exploding. The unfortunate reality is that not all law enforcement officers or agencies are supportive of gun rights. Many police officers are committed Second Amendment advocates, but often the bosses’s of departments do not share those beliefs.

Another area of concern is Section 3, sub section(4) of the bill, which states:

Any peace officer or corrections officer may seize a concealed handgun license and return it to the issuing sheriff { – when – } { + if + } the license is held by a person who has been arrested or cited for a crime that can or would otherwise disqualify the person from being issued a concealed handgun license { + or if the officer knows of the existence of any other circumstance that would disqualify the person from being issued a concealed handgun license + }. The issuing sheriff shall hold the license for 30 days. If the person is not charged with a crime within the 30 days, the sheriff shall return the license unless the sheriff revokes the license as provided in subsection (3) of this section.

(The red text is new language.)

Once again, we believe this language is dangerously over broad and ripe for misinterpretation and abuse. We believe gun owners deserve clearer laws.

We know of many cases where sheriffs have used “discretion” they were not entitled to by law, and believe that without clear cut guidelines gun owners are in jeopardy.

Please contact the House Judiciary Committee and urge them to remove these dangerous provisions from the bill. Their contact information and a sample letter follows:
___________________________________________________

Dear Representative,

House Bill 2334 contains several provisions that could create unnecessary problems for concealed handgun license holders. In particular, Section 2(10)(a)(b)and (c) and Section(3)(4) are dangerously vague and open to abuse. I urge you to amend this bill to remove those provisions. Gun owners and police benefit when the laws are clear and unambiguous. Unfortunately, these provisions of the bill are not.
Very truly yours,

_____________________________________

House Judiciary Committee
Greg Macpherson, Chair
rep.gregmacpherson@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., H-385, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1438

Jeff Barker, Vice-Chair rep.
rep.jeffbarker@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., H-476, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1428

Gene Whisnant, Vice-Chair
rep.genewhisnant@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-372, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1453

Suzanne Bonamici
rep.suzannebonamici@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE, H-374, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1434

Kevin Cameron
rep.kevincameron@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-383, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1419

Linda Flores
rep.lindaflores@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., H-287, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1451

Betty Komp
rep.bettykomp@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-276, Salem,, OR, 97301
503-986-1422

Wayne Krieger
rep.waynekrieger@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., H-378, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1401

Tobias Read
rep.tobiasread@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE, H-489, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1427

Posted on

2007 Bills – SB 283. An Analysis

Senate Bill 283, which creates criminal penalties for people who do not lock up their firearms, may be one of the most poorly drafted bills in recent memory.

If you want to take a look at the bill yourself, you can view it here.

When this bill was first introduced, we alerted our members to the danger that it could penalize you, if one of your guns was stolen and misused by a person under 16. Upon further analysis, we came to the conclusion that in fact, you were NOT liable if your firearm was stolen.

Upon even further analysis, we concluded that maybe we were right the first time.

Let’s take a look at some of the provisions of this bill. It’s very complicated, so bear with us.

Section 1 says the following:

SECTION 1. { + (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful storage of a firearm if:
(a) The person, with criminal negligence, stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a minor who is younger than 16 years of age is likely to gain access to the firearm;
(b) A minor who is younger than 16 years of age gains access to the firearm; and
(c) The minor:
(A) Possesses the firearm in a public place;
(B) Exhibits the firearm in a careless, angry or threatening manner; or
(C) Injures or kills a person by means of the firearm.

Notice, these are three different ways you can be liable.

Subsection “A” says you are liable if the minor under 16 gains possession of your firearm and is in a “public place.” But what if the minor is in a public place with a firearm he owns himself?

A minor is allowed to own a firearm with his parent’s permission. If your 15 year old daughter takes her own rifle and walks to the gun club, thereby crossing a “public place,” has a crime been committed?

Section 3 of the bill says the following:

(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:
(a) The minor obtains and possesses the firearm while under the direct supervision of the minor’s parent or guardian..

That’s fine if you are with them all the time. But if, as in the above example, they are away from you for a brief time, and on public property, has a crime been committed and by whom?

If they got the gun from your gun safe, it would seem you are. But if the gun was always in their possession, meaning it was kept in their own room, what does that mean?
Immediately following the above mentioned section is this:

(b) The minor obtains possession of the firearm:
(A) In a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another; or
(B) Through the illegal act of any person other than the person referred to in subsection (1)(a) of this section;
(c) The firearm is equipped with a trigger lock or other safe storage device;
(d) The firearm is stored in a securely locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure;
(e) The firearm is rendered inoperable by the removal of an essential component of the firing mechanism; or
(f) The person is a peace officer or member of the military forces of this state or the United States and the minor obtained the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance of the person’s duties.

Section 3(B) of the bill would appear to mean that if the gun were acquired through any illegal act, the liability would not apply. So any gun that was taken from your possession by an illegal act and misused, would not expose you to criminal penalties.

But that would cover almost anytime a minor had one of your firearms without your permission. Persons under 18 may not have handguns without their guardian’s permission. So if a minor had one of your handguns and you did not give it to her, it would seem that would be an “illegal act” and not subject the penalties in this bill. Similarly, if a long gun were taken without your permission, that would seem to be a theft. Does that mean no criminal penalty would apply?

Following section (B) are subsections (c) (d) (e) and (f).

One reading of this bill would treat them like they are to be dealt with separately from section (B) meaning that if your gun was equipped with a locking device you would not be liable if the gun was misused, in addition to the protections you would have if the gun was stolen.

But an entirely different interpretation could be that those mandatory lockup provisions would protect you if the gun were stolen, but you would NOT be protected if the gun was stolen and did NOT have a locking device. Confused? Don’t feel lonely.

Our experience with authorities has shown us how often the law is misunderstood and misapplied.

Consider how many sheriffs think that US Citizens must live in their counties for 6 months before applying for a concealed handgun license, a provision that legally only applies to “legal resident aliens.” Or consider how a Judge in Multnomah County ruled that Portland’s New Years party was a “private” event and therefore CHL holders could be banned.

This bill is clearly intended to punish gun owners. Oddly it exempts police. We have to wonder why? Why does it not penalize those who allow people 16 year old and older to gain access to firearms?

If negligence is now to be a crime, it should be a crime for everyone, not just gun owners. If you leave a baseball bat available and a minor gets it and beats a neighbor’s cat to death, should you not be as criminally liable as if a gun gets into the hands of a minor who then takes it to a “public place?”

We think the potential for this bill to be misused is tremendous. We hope you will join us in opposing it.

As always, we invite your comments.

Posted on

02.28.07 New Gun Bills, DAS may have changed its tune, Burdick boasts about WA bill.


Several new gun bills are in the works for the 2007 Legislative session. Some are quite good and others are quite dangerous.

You can view all the bills we are tracking here.

The newest additions are SB658, a new “stand your ground” bill, and HB 2888, a bill that would make it legal for a person with a concealed handgun license to have a loaded handgun while operating an ATV. (It is currently a traffic violation.) It is also a violation to have a loaded firearm on a snowmobile. This bill does not permit license holders to carry while on snowmobiles. Finally, and most importantly, we have LC 142, a draft of a bill intended to shut down shooting ranges.

A copy of the draft was provided to us by the Oregon consultant for the NRA and we thank him for the information.

It’s hard to imagine a worse bill for shooters and gun clubs. Where this will go remains to be seen, but we’re keeping track of it and will let you know.

On another issue, OFF was contacted recently by a gun owner who found a page on the website for the Oregon Department of Administrative Services that stated that no one, even those with concealed handgun licenses, was allowed in DAS controlled buildings with a firearm.

DAS has no authority to make a rule of this kind. So, OFF contacted legislators and asked that they look into this policy. Representatives Kim Thatcher and Brian Boquist contacted DAS and made it clear that this policy was not legal. As of now, the offending page has been removed. It is not clear if DAS has really gotten the message or if they have just changed the website, but we will be keeping a eye on this. To view a PDF of the old website, click here. The same page now, can be seen here.

The Department of Human Services, which deals with foster parents, also currently has a policy restricting CHL holders who have foster children. We believe their policy is unlawful as well and are working with legislators to address the issue. We will keep you posted.

Finally, Ginny Burdick has issued a press release rejoicing over her role in a Washington State bill to destroy gun shows there. In her release, Burdick states “Neither I nor the Washington State Legislature is in the business of taking away the right to own firearms.”

This must be the new Ginny Burdick. The old one promoted a bill to put you in jail for 10 years and fine you a quarter of a million dollars for being in possession of a semi-automatic firearm. The old Burdick has pushed for years for a law that would turn schools into no-safety zones.

In fact, Burdick’s efforts to spread the damage to other states is nothing more than an attempt to add whatever restrictions she can to the lives of gun owners. So far this session, it would appear that the Senate leadership has thrown a net over her efforts to harass gun owners in Oregon, so she’s turned her attention to Washington.

Posted on

02.23.07 Alert Update HB 2304 Pulled From Schedule.

HB 2304 Pulled From Agenda.

In an earlier alert sent today, we informed you that on March 2nd, the House Judiciary Committee would be hearing two gun related bills, HB 2300 and HB 2304.

We also expressed our concerns about HB 2304 and asked that you contact the House Judiciary Committee and urge them to oppose it.

As of today, Feb. 23rd, HB 2304 has been pulled from the schedule.

Should it reappear in the future, we will let you know.

You can keep track of hearings on bills by using this link:

Thank you for your activism.

Posted on

02.14.07 Burdick’s Road Show. New Gun Bills.

Ginny Burdick Takes Her Show On The Road.
New Gun Bills Introduced.

Senator Ginny Burdick has branched out.

After her successful ballot measure in 2000 which seriously damaged Oregon’s gun shows, Burdick has expanded her efforts and is now trying to destroy gun shows in Washington State.

You can read all about it here.

House Rep Greg Smith has introduced HB 2652, a bill to forbid gun seizures during times of emergency and two new hunting bills have been introduced in the Oregon legislature.

While we are not specifically a “hunting” organization, we know many of our supporters are hunters and outdoorsmen. We thought you would want to take a look at these bills yourself.

The first one, SB 490 deals with “Internet or closed circuit media to remotely control weapon for purpose of hunting.”

The second one, SB 572 “Prohibits hunting, wounding or taking or attempting to hunt, wound or take exotic mammal or game mammal held or obtained by
person.” We think hunters should take a particularly close look at this one.
You can view all these bills by using this link.

Posted on

02.10.07 Some Progress On Good Bills

Some Good Bills Make Progress.

Two bills of importance to gun owners got quiet, but important action this week.

Senate Bill 81 passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and House Bill 2370 passed out of the Joint Committee on Emergency Preparedness.

SB 81 would require that persons charged with crimes involving “domestic violence,” be informed prior to pleading guilty or no contest, that Federal law could prohibit them from owning firearms for life.

This bill was requested by the Governor for the Oregon Military Department.

Since there is no exception in Federal law for military or police, you can see the motivation.

Domestic violence accusations ensnare countless gun owners annually, so this bill is a positive change. The bill still has a long way to go before becoming law, but at least we know it’s not likely to face a veto threat.

House Bill 2370 is not a “gun” bill but it has a major provision that will be important to gun owners.

The bill: “Creates Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management in Oregon Military Department. ”

This bill turns over tremendous powers in emergencies to the Oregon Military Department.

Anyone who has seen the video of National Guardsmen invading private homes in New Orleans and confiscating legally owned guns in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, would have justifiable concerns about this.

The bill, however, has been amended to forbid any government agency from confiscating guns in times of emergency.

House Rep. Wayne Krieger requested the amendment and it passed unanimously. Thanks to Representative Krieger for the amendment and to Senator Gary George for his work on this important change.

This bill now goes to the Ways and Means Committee.

Although this committee is not supposed to make substantive changes to any part of the bill that is not fiscal, there are ways they can do it, so we will need to be watching it.

As with SB 81, there is still a long process before this bill can become law, but in both cases gun owners are making progress.

Posted on

01.31.07 Domestic Violence Bill Gets Hearing.

On January 25th, we warned you about House Bill 2336.

This bill would eliminated any possibility of expunging a “domestic violence” conviction or record of arrest.

As you know, any offense that is considered one of “domestic violence” eliminates, forever, your right to own firearms or even a single round of ammunition.

The legal definition of “domestic violence” is so overly broad that the potential to be swept up in a charge of this kind, for a truly trivial event, is enormous.

Today the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill.

Based on the proceedings, it would appear that the committee members have gotten your message. For everyone who took the time to contact them, we thank you.

We’d also like to send a special thank you to the OFF member who came and testified at the hearing and shared his personal story about his experiences with a stacked judicial system, and how this bill would impact people who had done nothing to require law enforcement involvement. We believe his testimony had a major impact on the committee members and we think it demonstrates the importance of every gun owner’s involvement.

Several legislators told us that they recognized the dangers of the bill and we believe that the majority of the committee sees its flaws.

One member made it clear that he intended to vote against it and had personally killed it in a previous session.

The bill is, by no means, dead. It is still quite viable. But, we believe, based on what happened at today’s hearing, that we have a good chance of killing it. Your willingness to communicate with the committee members will have a major impact on whether this bill goes anywhere.

Please take minute to send a note to the members of the committee and urge them NOT to approve HB 2336. Their contact info and a sample message follows.
________________________________________

Dear Representative,
I believe you have heard sufficient reasons to reject HB 2336.
While domestic violence is a serious problem, HB 2336 does nothing to address it while doing much to punish those who may be guilty of nothing more than a misunderstanding.
Please do not support HB 2336.
Very truly yours,

__________________________

Contact Info:

Greg Macpherson, Chair
rep.gregmacpherson@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., H-385, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1438

Jeff Barker, Vice-Chair rep.
rep.jeffbarker@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., H-476, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1428

Gene Whisnant, Vice-Chair
rep.genewhisnant@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-372, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1453

Suzanne Bonamici
rep.suzannebonamici@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE, H-374, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1434

Kevin Cameron
rep.kevincameron@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-383, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1419

Linda Flores
rep.lindaflores@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., H-287, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1451

Betty Komp
rep.bettykomp@state.or.us
900 Court St NE, H-276, Salem,, OR, 97301
503-986-1422

Wayne Krieger
rep.waynekrieger@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., H-378, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1401

Tobias Read
rep.tobiasread@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE, H-489, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1427

Posted on

01.25.07 Domestic Violence Bill Could Ensnare Gun Owners.

On January 31st, the House Judiciary Committee will be hearing HB 2336, a copy of which can be viewed here.

The summary of the bill states “Prohibits, in any case involving domestic violence, setting aside conviction or setting aside record of arrest when dismissal is result of diversion.”

Persons who could no longer seek to have convictions set aside would be, according to the bill:
A person convicted of a crime involving domestic violence as defined in ORS 135.230. or
A person who, as part of a diversion agreement, has pleaded guilty to a crime involving domestic violence as defined in ORS 135.230 and has subsequently had the accusatory instrument pleading domestic violence dismissed as a result of fulfilling the diversion agreement.

ORS 135.230 defines “domestic violence” as ” abuse between family or household members” and defines “abuse” as:

(a) Attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing physical injury;
(b) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly placing another in fear of imminent serious physical injury; or
(c) Committing sexual abuse in any degree as defined in ORS 163.415, 163.425 and 163.427.

While no one would downplay the seriousness of domestic violence, we believe that the definitions in the law are dangerously broad and could ensnare people for relatively mild transgressions.

OFF has heard from numerous people who were involved in minor incidents with family members, that in the past would never have involved the intervention of law enforcement.

Many chose to plead their cases simply to avoid costly and protracted legal proceedings. None of them knew that a domestic violence conviction comes with a LIFE LONG prohibition on firearms ownership. That of course, means an end to hunting with firearms for life.

If you, or someone you know, has been affected by a domestic violence issue, we urge you to read this bill and determine what impact it could have on the ability to seek to have a conviction set aside.

Posted on

01.10.07 Session Begins. Gun Bills Introduced.

The 2007 Oregon Legislative Session has begun.

Yesterday, January 9th, the first gun bills were introduced.

For some indication of what to expect, the Democrats in the Senate have already passed a Resolution calling for annual sessions. (Twice the opportunity to erode your rights.) They did this without a single word of public testimony. No public hearing was held on the issue at any time.
So far gun bills are the introduced versions of drafts we have had posted on our website for some time.

To keep track of, and see the bills, (and all future bills) please use this link

There will be plenty more as the session continues.

There are some important developments of which you should be aware, that will make you a more informed and effective citizen lobbyist.

Please make use of the following links:

This is the Home page of the Oregon Legislature.

If you spend some time you will find it to be very useful. This page has contact information for all legislators and a link to find your representatives.

On the right side of this page you will find a link entitled “Esubscribe.” You can use this link to get regular e-mail updates of committee schedules. You can sign up for whatever committees you want. We suggest you sign up for the schedules of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. These schedules will let you know when gun bills are being heard. If you choose, you can come to the capitol and offer your testimony.

For those who cannot come to the Capitol, the Legislature now offers a way to watch any hearing or floor session, live on your computer.

For that, please use this link: It will take you to a page where you can pick whatever hearing room or chamber you want to monitor.

You can learn the times and locations of any hearing, by using this link.

2007 promises to be a pivotal year in the battle for gun rights, but you will have more tools than ever before to be effective in this fight.

Please keep an eye on our legislation tracking page and please be sure to make your voice heard.

Posted on

12.2006 Sovereign Immunity Needs to Go By Larry Pratt, Gun Owners of America

Sovereign Immunity Needs To Go.

(This is about more abuses by BATFE. If you’re interested in helping to reverse these abuses, we suggest you see this link.)

by Larry Pratt. Gun Owners of America.

Most people in the 21st century look back on earlier times and wonder how folks could ever have believed in the divine right of kings (other than the king himself).

Well, we better wipe that condescending smile off our faces, because we are no better today right here in the good old U.S. of A.

The divine right of kings carried with it the notion that whatever the king did was OK, because the king was the law. Another way of saying the same thing is the king was considered to be above the law.Today we have renamed this very mistaken view as the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

The sovereign is immune from suffering any consequences of his acts. Sometimes the sovereign (government) graciously allows himself to be sued in specific, limited cases. But for the most part, there is no accountability for government officials who lie, cheat and steal and even on occasion, for those who commit murder. Remember Ruby Ridge, where an FBI sniper shot in cold blood a woman holding a baby?

Bob Arwady runs the Ammo Dump, a gun store in Houston, Texas. His first exposure to the abuses of sovereign immunity came from a knock on the door from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. After operating his new shooting range for police and public shooters for four months, the Commission shut him down with the threat of fining shooters $5,000 for each bullet they put in the dirt berms used as bullet traps. They claimed that they had a water sample that proved that those bullets were leaching lead in dangerous quantities into the stream behind his range and polluting water downstream.

It turns out that the signed affidavit by the Environmental Quality officer stating that he had taken the water sample was a lie. Arwady never got to use his expert toxicology witness who would have argued that metallic bullets never, ever leach. They are not soluble. Only lead salts (such as those found in lead paints) are dangerous.

Arwady’s expert testimony was used last year in California to stop a new EPA attack on lead shotgun pellets. But the lying government “scientist” never lost a day’s pay, let alone served time in jail for perjury. Perhaps it is a bit much to expect a prosecutor to press charges against a perjurer he knew, or had reason to know, was lying through his teeth.

Soon after, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) brought criminal charges against Arwady. They filed nine charges claiming that he was illegally selling guns, thus serving as a source of guns used in crimes. Three witnesses were used at the trial to show that Arwady knowingly sold guns illegally (not keeping a record of the customers who bought them) and that he knowingly soldthem to felons.

One of the witnesses against Arwady was a retired cop who had stolen guns from Arwady while working for him and then sold them illegally.

He testified in exchange for a lesser sentence. Another witness was a gunsmith who had bought guns from Arwady even though he was a felon. Arwady dealt with him before background checks were federally mandated, when people simply asserted that they were not felons.

The gunsmith also testified in exchange for the promise of a lesser sentence.

The third witness against Arwady was the parole officer who at one time had supervised the gunsmith. The BATFE (and perhaps state and county officials) pressured him to testify that he had called Arwady several times warning him that the smith was a felon. It turned out that was a flat-out lie.

The parole officer had not supervised the gunsmith for a full five years before the smith began to buy guns from Arwady. A motion by Arwady’s attorney to charge the parole officer for perjury was denied by the judge. After all, a lot of BATFE agents, local cops and state and federal prosecutors might have been implicated in the lie.

At least the jury acquitted Arwady of all charges. Now Arwady is facing the loss of his federal license to do business based on a case the BATFE has developed using information from their criminal case against Arwady. They do not even blush that this is strictly and precisely forbidden by federal law (18 U.S. C. 923 (f) (4)).

I thought it was curious that after months of deliberating, BATFE announced the day after the November 7 elections transferred control of Congress to the Democrats that the agency was going to pull Arwady’s license.

So far, Bob Arwady’s direct expenses (not counting loss of business) in defending himself against a string of lying, lawbreakers with badges exceeds half a million dollars. Gun Owners Foundation will be helping Arwady with his legal expenses.

Tax-deductible donations can be made to the Foundation so it can
help Bob Arwady. Donations may be made on line at
http://gunowners.com/donate.htm or by calling (703) 321-8585.

Posted on

12.14.06 First Gun Drafts Introduced.

GUN BILL DRAFTS POSTED

We now have copies of the drafts introduced yesterday in a joint session of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

Most of these drafts, (which will be introduced as “committee bills” so no legislator’s names are on them,) will be introduced as House Bills. The “lock up your gun” draft has been introduced in the Senate.

As you know, while anti-gunners control both the House and Senate, they are stronger in the Senate. (The recent defection of Ben Westund to the Democrats gives them an additional vote.) We believe that bills introduced in the House will have any pro-gun language stripped out when the bills make their way to the Senate, where they will be under the control of Ginny Burdick.

One of these drafts eliminates the ability to petition for a restoration of rights after a felony conviction. Keep in mind, if Burdick has her way, almost all gun owners will be felons.

Another is the Sheriff’s bill from last year that OFF members killed. It is basically a wish list of new ways to revoke or deny permits. Interestingly, it includes our language from last year which would allow active duty military, who are deployed away from home, to renew concealed handgun licenses by mail. This was the token pro-gun addition the Sheriffs allowed last year in hopes of getting our approval. That bill had been introduced in the House as well, and we knew that when it went to the Senate and Burdick, it was likely that the pro-gun token would be stripped out. The rest of the bill was bad news. We opposed it, and when you made your voices heard the bill died
.
We have no plans of supporting any bill that reduces gun owners’ rights. Last year the bill was opposed by the NRA. We have no idea whether we can count on their opposition this year.

Also returning is a bill that would define the word “unloaded” for situations where a person was operating a snowmobile or atv. Currently, it is a traffic violation to operate either with a firearm that contains a round even if not in the chamber. This bill would define “loaded” has having a chambered round, or a round under the hammer of revolver.

All the drafts can be downloaded here.

Please bookmark this page. It will be where all gun bills will be tracked in the 2007 session