JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
9,751
Reactions
18,068
Hopefully text was copied over correctly. Formatting was a mess.
Email not apparently designed for forum placement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oregon's Only No Compromise Gun Rights Organization

http://www.oregonfirearms.org/category/off-alerts

GUN BAN MOVING FORWARD

10.22.14

Yesterday the Corvallis Human Services Committee voted to move a ban on loaded firearms to the full city council.

Was this based on any actual incidents of violence or accidents involving openly carried firearms on public property?

Was this the result of a long, reasoned debate that identified a real issue or problem?

No, this was the result of one member of the committee, Penny York, getting in touch with her feelings.

As the Corvallis Gazette-Times reported; "York, who admitted that her "decision is colored by my feelings," described her experience of knowing five people who have died from gunfire, four by suicide and one in a hunting incident."

What this has to do with lawful open carry is a mystery. But then, when dealing with gun
grabbers, any logic or reason takes a vacation.

As Richard Johnson, a 2nd Amendment defender who was at the meeting put it; "I was surprised to finally hear the truth from Councilwoman York today.
In a trance-like soliloquy she detailed her reason for supporting the loaded open carry
ban. It had absolutely nothing to do with the open carry of a handgun. It also had nothing to
do with pubic safety, or reduction of violence. It wasn't even about the "fear factor" which was
repeated in the three minute testimonies again and again. By her own admission it was all about Councilwoman York and her own personal desire to take guns away from everyone (except the police for whom she professed a great fondness).
There was no attempt to hide the truth." So the rights of the people of Corvallis, and anyone who visits, are going to be trampled on
because of Councilor York's "feelings" Not because of any facts. Not because of any real problem. Just because of her "feelings".
According the the Gazette Times, three times as many people spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance as supported it, but York's "feelings" carried the day, and now the ban moves to the full council. The council is scheduled to take this up at its 6:30 p.m. meeting Nov. 3 at the downtown fire station,

400 N.W. HarrisonBlvd. Let's fill that room.

Ceasefire Oregon and "Moms Demand Action" were there to spread their usual lies and hysteria. It's important the the truth gets a hearing as well

The other committee member who was there for the vote, Bruce Sorte, claimed "most" of the emails he received were "in support" of the ban. He needs to know what you think. Creating restrictions on your rights and ability to protect yourself and your family based on delusions and paranoia is not a rational way to make laws. Let's stop this illness before it spreads.

Penny York is living in a parallel universe. She is probably beyond help. So let's hope the other members of the council have some grasp on reality.
Contact info for the entire council is available here.

Individual emails for the council follow. You can click on the councilor's name for a pre-written message that you can modify if you choose.

Roen Hogg [email protected]

Richard Hervey [email protected]

Dan Brown [email protected]

Mike Bielstein [email protected]

Joel Hirsch [email protected]

Bruce Sorte [email protected]

Biff Traber [email protected]

Hal Brauner [email protected]

Julie Manning [email protected]

In another battle, out-of-state money and workers are pouring into Oregon to defeat Bruce Starr and try to replace him with anti-gun extremist Chuck Riley. New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg is bankrolling these efforts in an attempt to take over the Oregon Senate and ram new prohibitions down the throats of Oregonians. We need to keep this seat. Please donate to, or volunteer for Bruce in these critical closing days of the campaign. Bloomberg has mercenaries walking and dialing to pass new gun bans. We need to meet them head on. You can help Bruce out here.

Gabby Giffords came to town yesterday.

With a boatload of money from Bloomberg and other well protected billionaires, she has somehow morphed her anti-gun campaign into a domestic violence issue. She is "on tour" touting the dangers women face from "guns", while ignoring the fact that three people who were killed when she was injured were men.

For some time now in Oregon, there has been an active effort to use extra legislative efforts to ban as many guns as possible under the guise of "protecting women" when in fact, all these plans just make women less safe.

Here's a clip from Daylight Disinfectant of yesterday's "invitation only" meeting in Portland with some of those "behind the scenes"

Oregon Firearms Federation | Box 556 | Canby | OR | 97013
 
Last Edited:
While I'm not the best public speaker, I will update this thread with my letter to the council:

Dyjital said:
Dear Council Members,

I attended the meeting on November 3rd of 2014. I sat in the Majestic theater and listened to concerned citizens stand up and speak about fears and concerns about seeing firearms. I would like to point out that the ordnance that was being proposed had no bearing on whether those people would see firearms. I believe that they were misunderstanding the point of the meeting. They thought that you as city council members could stop citizens from lawfully carrying a firearm. Sadly they were mistaken. The Oregon Constitution states that citizens are allowed to open carry firearms (loaded and unloaded based on location) where allowed by law. It was sad to see such massive amounts of misinformation being passed around. Why was this allowed to happen? Why didn't anyone on the council make a stand other than at the end to say that they should refer it further to a committee for further analysis.

The entire debacle regarding what one person feels is offensive and what another knows as a right guaranteed to them by the constitution of both Oregon and this nation has me thinking. Below you will find a few points I hope you take note of. When people are allowed to protest something that they object to (it doesn't matter what it is) they tend to run off of emotions. Where emotions are, facts, logic and reason are nowhere in sight. We must make a logical, rational and fact based decision regarding what's happening in this town. I'm providing you as well with some more instances that we should also press forward with ordinances to restrict because I'm sure that there are others in this community who find it offensive.


1: Halloween Decorations: Three days before the city council meeting I was driving my wife and son home down Summerfield Dr (North, towards Goodnight), as we had dropped off a friend who lives in the apartments off of Rivergreen. When we approached the intersection, there is a house at the "T" in the road there that always has Halloween decorations up. I thought nothing of it. I pulled out, made the left heading West and heard my 9 year old son in the back seat say "are we past it?". Not knowing what was up, I asked. The issue is those yard decorations are offensive to my son. They cause actual mental anguish, nightmares and prohibits him from sleeping at night. The family who lives there should be considerate and not decorate with such offensive yard art, or we should pass an ordinances within the city of Corvallis stating that there needs to be proper and adequate fencing to shield children's eyes from the macabre. We do this at porn shops, why not adjust this to encompass this as well? After all it is for the children. We must stop somebody's freedom of expression that's guaranteed to them by the First Amendment when it upsets somebody else.


2: Public Displays of Affection: We are a civilized society and as one person brought up in the council meeting that PDA's should be stopped. Nowhere is it written that somebody should be allowed to freely hug, kiss, hold hands or express their affection towards another human being. I know that there are those inside Corvallis who may be more prudent or as some may say "old fashioned" and find any two people (homosexual or heterosexual) in a public display disturbing. This must end. We have a right as a civilized society to look after those who can be upset or offended. We must overlook those doing the offense and their rights as citizens and focus our energy on preserving the mental well being of the ones who are upset.


3: Overhead Air Traffic: A recent study has shown that in the entire year of 2013 there were 265 deaths by aviation. As of the information I gathered on July 28th 2014 there were 761 deaths in a little over ½ of the year. This is cause for alarm. Disregarding previous stats on the decline of them in the previous 30 years, we can clearly see that 2014 marks an upswing in this number. We must act in our interests of public safety. It is only a matter of time when the air traffic that comes in and out of our local airport (CVO), one crashes and causes the death of one, two or even more residents. We must act to keep our children safe. What would happen if a plane crashed into a school? We could have hundreds of families mourning the loss of their children.


4: Dogs: We must act now in the best interest of those who have dogs. Dogs account for 4.5 million injuries per year according to the CDC[ii]. It is not good enough to have dog parks, leash laws or even muzzle laws. One trip downtown will yield a dog that is not leashed, muzzled or under its owner's physical control. There are residents of Corvallis who have fears of dogs. Some may have been mauled like a childhood friend whose face bears the scars of it, while others have been harassed and backed into corners fearing that they would be attacked. We must prevent dogs from being in public. Dogs are animals and have no rational thought, therefor they cannot be judged when or where they will revert back into some primal form and start attacking. Children bear the majority of this because in pack mentality they pack goes after the smaller and weaker of the herd. Please keep children in mind when 850,000+ nationally seek medical care and when another 25,000+ require reconstructive surgery. Police officers have firearms to protect themselves from dogs that attack, let's remove the dog from the situation in the interest of public safety.


5: TV Commercials/Advertisement: I'm sure we have all watched some form of television at some point. We are watching a show and then on comes a lewd, obscene or risqué commercial. We look blankly at it trying to figure out how that show we were watching ended up having some commercial about zombies, condoms, equal rights for everyone or any other commercial that did not fit the show OR channel that you were watching. The same people who are fearful of dogs could be disturbed by seeing a visual of an attacking dog that's advertising some show, the child who is sensitive to macabre scenes seeing that out of character commercial about death or the living dead. We must protect their fear of seeing something that's inanimate when it can cause no harm in itself.


When we make rules and ordinances based on the feelings of others we open the proverbial Pandora's Box and start to let emotions rule. We cannot do this as a civilized society; everything we do must be based on logic and reason. I appreciate your time and reading this and hope that any of your decisions from here on out are based on rights that are assured to us by the two Constitutions above us, state and federal. Please don't make a knee jerk reaction to something that is a non-issue.



With all of that said, I stand 100% against the restrictions of any type that are made based on emotion and when they restrict law abiding residents and visitors of this city.



Thank you
Dyjital (The One and Only) --- Yes I actually had my real name sent to them.
Voter
 
Guess it's worthy to note that city council decided to not move forward with this open carry ban for non-chl holders.
 
Guess it's worthy to note that city council decided to not move forward with this open carry ban for non-chl holders.
For the time being, Oregon is a preemptive state, so they can't bar CHL holders. Only time will tell if our state will remain in preemptive status now that the socialists have complete control of the legislature.
 
For the time being, Oregon is a preemptive state, so they can't bar CHL holders. Only time will tell if our state will remain in preemptive status now that the socialists have complete control of the legislature.

Until the Democrats strike that from our State Constitution and/or make Metro its own sovereign nation allowing CC to be banned on buses and MAX. Oh yes, then we will all be much safer :rolleyes:
 
OK, I was thinking of this:

Oregon Constitution on the right to keep and bear arms

Article I, Bill of Rights

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power.

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence (sic) of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]
 
OK, I was thinking of this:

Oregon Constitution on the right to keep and bear arms

Article I, Bill of Rights

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power.

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence (sic) of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

Source: <broken link removed>
Yup, where does it say that the state is preemptive?
 

Upcoming Events

Redmond Gun Show
Redmond, OR
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top