JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
488
Reactions
611
https://www.oregonfirearms.org/

9.30.09 Anti-Gun Efforts Begin Long Before "Special Session." Firearms Possession On School Grounds In The Cross Hairs.
In February, the Oregon Legislature will be meeting for a "special session."

Although our legislature is supposed to meet only every two years, it is now a forgone conclusion that they will be in Salem annually.

But they are not waiting until then to begin their assault on your rights, so it's essential that you start responding right away.

Today, at a joint session of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees the attacks began.

As you may know, in the 2009 session OFF passed SB 603. This bill did several things.

One of the things it did was correct a mistake in Oregon law. The old law (still in effect until January 2010) said that a person with a felony conviction could petition the courts to have his rights restored to purchase a firearm. However, that person was still not allowed to OWN a firearm. SB 603 corrected that and allowed a person to ask to both buy and own.

It seemed like a no-brainer. But today the Oregon Department of Justice came to asked that this correction be reversed. It was their position that because of SB 603, a person with multiple felony convictions could walk out of prison and illegally get guns. This is, of course, absurd.

All the bill does is allow a person who could ASK to have his rights restored to actually get them restored. There is no guarantee that the petitioner would be successful. But it was clear that neither the Department of Justice, nor most members of the committee really understood current law or the effects of the bill.

Although this was not a public hearing, we were asked to respond to the DOJ and we made it clear that the language in SB 603 was not a mistake, nor was it unintended. It was a well crafted attempt to fix an existing error. If this language is stripped from the bill, the law may very well return to its previous nonsensical version.

But that was just a down payment on what was next.

As you know, the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation has filed a lawsuit against the Oregon University System for attempting to enforce illegal anti-gun rules.

Just as in the Medford School District, which threatened a teacher there for having a CHL, the Oregon University System has draconian anti-gun regulations that Oregon law does not allow them to adopt.

But, not content to wait until the courts rule on either case, OUS has sent out their hired hack, Neil Bryant, to try to convince the legislature to write new rules to strip license holders of their ability to be on University property.

Bryant was the Chair of the Senate Judiciary in 1999. He was one of the driving forces behind an attempt to ram through legislation to end private transfers at gun shows. This bill was actually supported by a "pro-gun" state group back then, and it was ignored by the NRA. OFF opposed it and it was defeated by one vote.

Now Bryant is back as a lobbyist trying to attack the rights of the most law-abiding people in the state, concealed handgun license holders.

It's interesting to note that while this hearing was a joint session of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the Chair of the House Committee, Jeff Barker, wanted no part of it. So he dismissed his committee when this issue came up. Only ultra-liberal House Rep Jefferson Smith stayed in the room. Smith commented that Oregon might be "better off" with a patchwork of different rules and laws in different places, a nightmare our "preemption" statute was passed to address.

Bryant told the Committee that college students should not be allowed to be on campus with lawfully owned guns because they drink too much. He asked what would happen if a bunch of drunken college students decided to "pass a gun around." He wondered aloud about what armed students would do if they "broke up with their girlfriend" or were "angry at a professor."

At no point did Bryant actually give an example of any problems on any college campuses. At no point did Bryant explain why these same students could be trusted off campus. But he did mention our lawsuits as the reason he was asking for new restrictions. (We can only conclude that the Oregon University System is convinced they will lose.)

Bryant also stated in the hearing that Jeff Maxwell, the Western Oregon University student who was unlawfully arrested for having a handgun on campus, was given a "public hearing." As many of you know, that's untrue. Maxwell was "tried" by a kangaroo court of students in a closed session where even Jeff's family was denied access.

Bryant suggested, and the Senate Committee agreed to the creation of a "work group" to try to come up with new laws to restrict gun rights on college property.

Bryant suggested that the group consist of legislators, school board members, officials from K-12 schools, district attorneys, campus security, police and sheriffs. Almost as an afterthought he said a representative from "gun rights group" should perhaps be invited. At that suggestion, Senator Susanne Bonamici said that if a pro-gun representative was included, she wanted someone from an anti-gun group like Ceasefire Oregon. (As if the deck were not stacked enough.) Neither Bryant nor any member of the committee suggested having any representation from student organizations.

There is no question that the anti-gun establishment is running scared and is working overtime to find a way to disarm license holders. It is essential that we act before this misguided movement can pick up steam.

Both the attempted gutting of SB 603 and the attack on gun rights on college property will likely be considered at the February "special session." Please contact the Senate Judiciary Committee and let them know that you will not stand for any attacks on your rights.

Chair Floyd Prozanski is the person who most needs to hear from you. It was he who agreed to put together the "work group" being assembled to craft these new restrictions.

If you are a student, or will be in the future, or if you have a child or grandchild who is a student, it is critical that Prozanski hear your voice. Remember, this is NOT just about colleges. If these efforts are successful, a parent with a CHL will not be allowed to pick up a child at school while in possession of a self defense firearm. Tell Prozanski that you want to be represented at this "work group." (You may even want to serve on it yourself.) This group will be forming immediately. You MUST act right away. A sample e-mail and contact info for Senator Prozanski follows:

Capitol Address:
900 Court St. NE, S-417
Salem, OR 97301
Capitol Phone:
503-986-1704
District Address:
PO Box 11511
Eugene, OR 97440
District Phone:
541-342-2447

[email protected]


___________________________________________________________________

Dear Senator Prozanski,

I am very concerned that the improvements made to Oregon law under SB 603 will evaporate if the Department of Justice has its way. It's clear that they have misunderstood current law and the changes that SB 603 makes. 603 does NOT allow felons to get guns. It only allows them to petition the court to review their status. Please don't fall for the scare tactics the DOJ is using.

I am also very concerned about the formation of a "work group" to explore new ways to erode the rights of concealed handgun license holders. The Oregon University System's position that license holders cannot be trusted on their property makes no sense. If the system is so concerned about "drunken college students" behaving irresponsibly, they should consider banning cars from campus. Cars kill far more college students than firearms do. If you do go ahead with the formation of this group, I urge you to not stack the deck with countless anti-gun bureaucrats and only token representation for gun owners.

Yours,

___________________________________
 
You have all probably heard about the Fire-Ants in South America. When they go on the move they attack every living thing - animal or vegetable - until there is no living thing left. No matter how many you kill, there are always more. They destroy every thing in their path. They just keep on coming.
Gun haters are the same way. they keep on coming, destroying everything in their path that they don't like. Like cockroaches that get established in your house, these people keep showing up. If you ever had cockroaches in your home, you know that you can swat them, spray them or whatever, but you flick on a light and you will see a swarm of these filthy bugs running for cover. Anti-gun people are like that - looking for ways to destroy the Rights of those they don't agree with. They just keep coming.
Anything you want in the line of shooting, you better get while you can. It will be easier to keep it if these anti-gun termites finally succeed in banning guns, than to obtain it at such a time.
 
Carl Rowan was a liberal political writer a few years back. He was a fervent gun hater. He constanly wrote anti gun articles. He hated the NRA. He lived in Washington, D.C., a bastion of anti-freedom. One night, he saw someone messing around in his yard. And guess what? HE HAD A GUN!! He confronted the invader with his (would you believe it?) handgun and somehow I think he did shoot the "villain".This is the typical hipocrisy that many "elitists" practice. Although he broke the D.C. anti-gun rules and should have gone to jail, as a leading hater of conservatives he was allowed to go free.
Now please don't take this as a attack on all liberals. Some of them are fervently pro gun and we should count them among our friends.
 
I am gonna have to say I agree with OFF on the second issue (concealed carry on campus or anywhere else). However, I think they are off base on the first issue. There are many non-sensical laws out there (Washington's suppressor law) that are worthy of attention. Whether a convicted felon (aka one of the reasons I carry gun) can buy but not possess/own a gun after making a petition to the state does not seem like an issue worth addressing. Why not change the law so that no petition can be made period? One consequence of committing a felony is that you lose the right to own guns. I'm ok with that. OFF is getting in a tizzy over Oregon DOJ's nonsensical argument against OFF's nonsensical position.
 
I live near Medford but in the county. The story about the teacher with the gun was all over the news.

She was afraid of an estranged husband who had made numerous threats against her. She had a restraining order which he had already violated. She was legally carrying in her purse and with a CCW. There is no law in Oregon which prohibits that. The school district of course had a big fit and unlawfully ordered her to stop carrying. She sued. She didn't have to win, because the legislature clarified her right with new law before the case was settled.

I support her right to carry to the max. I wish every teacher carried. Maybe then we wouldn't have a Columbine incident.

$.02
 
I live near Medford but in the county. The story about the teacher with the gun was all over the news.

She was afraid of an estranged husband who had made numerous threats against her. She had a restraining order which he had already violated. She was legally carrying in her purse and with a CCW. There is no law in Oregon which prohibits that. The school district of course had a big fit and unlawfully ordered her to stop carrying. She sued. She didn't have to win, because the legislature clarified her right with new law before the case was settled.

I support her right to carry to the max. I wish every teacher carried. Maybe then we wouldn't have a Columbine incident.

$.02

I agree 100%. I would like to see at least half of ALL teachers armed. I think that the children would be a lot safer.
I have walked into schools that had signs saying that guns were not allowed. But, no one checked me for them. I could easily have been carrying. All these signs do is tell these wackos that they will have a field day with NO interference if they choose to shoot up the children in that school. And, isn't that what usually happens? A few well trained and armed teachers or other employees would make a school a lot safer in my opinion.
 
Something else bugs me. Government agencies often say you can't do something "because it's public property."

If my constitutional rights to free speech or to practice religion or to carry or whatever aren't valid on government property, then just where the hill are they any good? Only at home in my closet?

We already know that others may restrict our rights on their private property, and rightfully so. If I say you can't do something on my private property then you can't.

Public property is MY property - it's OUR property, imho. It's where our constitutional rights should kick in the most. The politicians don't own the public property. WE do.

$.02
 
I agree 100%. I would like to see at least half of ALL teachers armed. I think that the children would be a lot safer.
I have walked into schools that had signs saying that guns were not allowed. But, no one checked me for them. I could easily have been carrying. All these signs do is tell these wackos that they will have a field day with NO interference if they choose to shoot up the children in that school. And, isn't that what usually happens? A few well trained and armed teachers or other employees would make a school a lot safer in my opinion.

+1 :s0155:
 
I am gonna have to say I agree with OFF on the second issue (concealed carry on campus or anywhere else). However, I think they are off base on the first issue. There are many non-sensical laws out there (Washington's suppressor law) that are worthy of attention. Whether a convicted felon (aka one of the reasons I carry gun) can buy but not possess/own a gun after making a petition to the state does not seem like an issue worth addressing. Why not change the law so that no petition can be made period? One consequence of committing a felony is that you lose the right to own guns. I'm ok with that. OFF is getting in a tizzy over Oregon DOJ's nonsensical argument against OFF's nonsensical position.

You come home from work one day. You find out that a well known drug dealer was trying to push drugs on your kid. He was giving him a hard time, and ended up roughing him up. You have talked to the cops about this before, with no results. You jump in your car and drive down to the dealers house. He is out front. You tell him to stay the **** away from your kid. He walks towards you and shoves you backwards off of the sidewalk and pursues you. He tries to grab you and you punch the guy a couple of times in the face. You end up breaking a bone in the attackers face. The police get there, and file charges on both of you. When you go to court, you are charged under measure 11 and find yourself in prison for 5 years and a felon, when you should have never had charges filed to begin with. I have a friend who had that exact thing happen to him.

You can feel in the blanks any way you want. Things like this happen every day. Self defense is a hard thing to show these days. If you are in a fight, you are considered guilty in a lot of cases, not to mention the fact that laws can be changed to include anything as a felony.

Barring all people considered felons from owning guns is a slippery slope in my opinion. I have seen way too many people charged with ridiculous crimes to feel that way. One local guy bought a couple of quads off of a well known site. He ended up charged with receiving stolen property even though he had a bill of sale and a paper trail as required by DMV. He got out of it, but only on appeal after spending 100k or better. Most people would have been hung not having the money to fight it.
 
You come home from work one day. You find out that a well known drug dealer was trying to push drugs on your kid. He was giving him a hard time, and ended up roughing him up. You have talked to the cops about this before, with no results. You jump in your car and drive down to the dealers house. He is out front. You tell him to stay the **** away from your kid. He walks towards you and shoves you backwards off of the sidewalk and pursues you. He tries to grab you and you punch the guy a couple of times in the face. You end up breaking a bone in the attackers face. The police get there, and file charges on both of you. When you go to court, you are charged under measure 11 and find yourself in prison for 5 years and a felon, when you should have never had charges filed to begin with. I have a friend who had that exact thing happen to him.

You can feel in the blanks any way you want. Things like this happen every day. Self defense is a hard thing to show these days. If you are in a fight, you are considered guilty in a lot of cases, not to mention the fact that laws can be changed to include anything as a felony.

Barring all people considered felons from owning guns is a slippery slope in my opinion. I have seen way too many people charged with ridiculous crimes to feel that way. One local guy bought a couple of quads off of a well known site. He ended up charged with receiving stolen property even though he had a bill of sale and a paper trail as required by DMV. He got out of it, but only on appeal after spending 100k or better. Most people would have been hung not having the money to fight it.

Sorry, but I don't buy the sob stories anymore. Every once in a while I hear a compelling story about how Mr. Innocent was done wrong by the system. I start to feel sympathetic and then-wham-it goes all Paul Harvey and then I know the rest of the story. There may be one or two sad cases of people done wrong by the law, but I believe it to be EXTREMELY rare. Poor impulse control or bad luck, too bad felons----NO GUNS FOR YOU!

From a karma perspective, my opinions might bite me in the rear. However, some actions have lasting consequences. I'd even advocate that a repeated pattern of misdemeanors would warrant barring someone from guns. Guns require good decision making and a great deal of maturity. I recognize that the people you mention are friends and, as such, you are able to see them in a better light. But, I believe there is much more to their stories/history.
 
You are welcome to your opinion. The guy that was in the fight with the local drug dealer had absolutely no record of any kind. I don't even think that he ever even had a speeding ticket! The other guy that I spoke of wasn't a personal friend of mine, he is a local business owner that has a very good reputation.

I believe that people who have been found guilty of serious crimes that would show violent tendencies should be banned from owning a gun. The fact is though that it doesn't really matter. A felon who is bent on committing a crime with a gun, is going to have one no matter what law is made. If they are going to commit murder, or armed robbery, a weapons charge isn't that huge of a deal is it? My thought is that a person who is trying to follow the law would petition to have their right to self defense restored.

I would say that a very large percentage of people could be a felon if a cop would have been there at the wrong time. Most guys have been in a fistfight at some time in their life. Although it isn't my thing, I would venture a guess that many people on here have been in possession of marijuana in their life. Has everyone on this site been COMPLETELY honest in filing all of their taxes? I bet nobody has ever copied a vhs tape or a dvd either! The point is that there are many things that a person can get in trouble for that a high percentage of people have done.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a pro-criminal kind of guy. I had a bunch of stuff stolen recently and would have loved to catch the guys who did it! I have been the victim of crime plenty! I had a guy try to mug me and my two year old little girl on Christmas Eve Day when leaving the hospital from visiting my sister who was in a near fatal wreck that same day! I just realize that I could have ended up a felon from protecting myself that day too.

Just my thoughts. I just am very careful about how many people I say can't have the right to own a gun. It just makes it easier for others to say the same thing about us!
 
I start to feel sympathetic and then-wham-it goes all Paul Harvey and then I know the rest of the story. There may be one or two sad cases of people done wrong by the law, but I believe it to be EXTREMELY rare. Poor impulse control or bad luck, too bad felons----NO GUNS FOR YOU!

QUOTE]


So in these EXTREMELY rare situations you dont think its ok for someone to review there status to see if they should be able to get the right to own a firearm back? We all no the "system" is not correct all the time.
 
So in these EXTREMELY rare situations you dont think its ok for someone to review there status to see if they should be able to get the right to own a firearm back? We all no the "system" is not correct all the time.

I will concede that in a handful of cases, an appeals process might be warranted. However, I see it as a very minor issue in the grand scheme of gun legislation. The fact is that I believe that a convicted felon has shown poor decision making (at best) and a lack of trustworthiness. Occasionally, in a rare case, is the punishment, perhaps, too harsh for the crime? Maybe. But, I do not believe that the label of criminal is often applied inappropriately. I guess I just think OFF has bigger battles to fight. Nothing pleases anti-gun folks more than to see the gun lobby hop into bed with convicted criminals. Take care of the issues that affect 99.9% of the people that should have guns first. Then help the one or two people in the state of Oregon with a felony conviction that have demonstrated that they are worthy of gun ownership.

would say that a very large percentage of people could be a felon if a cop would have been there at the wrong time. Most guys have been in a fistfight at some time in their life. Although it isn't my thing, I would venture a guess that many people on here have been in possession of marijuana in their life. Has everyone on this site been COMPLETELY honest in filing all of their taxes? I bet nobody has ever copied a vhs tape or a dvd either! The point is that there are many things that a person can get in trouble for that a high percentage of people have done.


NOTE: Possession of less than 1 oz of weed (a lot of marijuana to those who don't know) = a violation (fine, no jail) in Oregon.

Perhaps there are a few laws that are felonies that should be classified as misdemeanors. We can take that issue up with our elected officials. But, I would argue that most folks do a quick COST/BENEFIT analysis before engaging in any of the activities that you listed. They rolled the dice, knowing that there was a chance, however small, that they would lose and have to suffer the consequences.
 
Sorry, but I don't buy the sob stories anymore. Every once in a while I hear a compelling story about how Mr. Innocent was done wrong by the system.

If you don't think the system screws people over then I would suggest you take some time to study what it's like to be in Family Court as a male in a divorce where children are involved.
 
If you don't think the system screws people over then I would suggest you take some time to study what it's like to be in Family Court as a male in a divorce where children are involved.

Family Court and Criminal court are two different animals. Different rules. Different standards of evidence. Nothing in family court has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no advocate for the people (prosecutor) and, generally, no jury. Likening family court and criminal court is like saying a Porsche and a skateboard are the same thing because they both have four wheels and are used for transportation.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top