Oregon OFF Strategy to stop SB 978

[arakboss]

Arnie Roblan was my HS principal..... solid clown

If you are familiar with current district make up, do you think he will get booted out next election or is that area filling up with his type of voters?

 

[arakboss]

The gal who wrote this article in Newport Times singing the praises of SB 978-5, sent me this email.
No reasonable person should oppose SB 978

NOW forwarded your comment about SB 978-1. Good question, and I am sure many have the same concern: Will be legal to possess pre-1968 firearms if SB 978 passes?

The phrase "in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 923(i)" found in SB 978-5 is intended to mean that SB 978 applies only to guns manufactured after 1968 because they are already required to have a serial number. It was not intended to mean that guns manufactured before 1968 were illegal if they were not serialized. Everyone agreed, however, that this is a significant issue worth clarifying for the public.

The Judiciary Committee's legal counsel will amend the Bill to clarify that unserialized guns that were legal due to manufacture date, etc., are grandfathered in. The Committee wants no ambiguity.


Best regards,
Monica Kirk, Steering Committee
Central Coast Ceasefire Oregon


I am not sure what she was replying to, but I may have emailed CCCO through their website. I have so many emails lately it's difficult to keep track. She is clearly missing the full impact of Section 17 (2) as it will also prohibit possession of home built firearms made at any time with untraceable receivers/frames as defined by Sec. 17 (1) (b). These home built firearms would not have legally been required to have a serial number simply to possess. And from the amendment she described that won't address the issue. I think her info is all screwed up anyways regarding amendment because the Judiciary Committee should be out of the picture at this point since SB 978-5 left their committee in -5 form. Trying to identify when a firearm was made will be difficult to do in the field and an amendment that tries to address pre vs post 1968 firearms would be difficult to implement.

Here is my reply to Monica Kirk:

Monica, thank you for the letter.

I thought that the Senate Judiciary Committee was done with SB 978-5 as they passed it through their committee in the -5 form? It was expected that any further amendments would happen in the Rules Committee where the bill currently sits. Regardless, it will be very difficult to amend this bill in a way that will prevent possession of many Oregonian's firearms from being criminalized.

I will take your word for it, that the bill's authors did not intend for possession of firearms manufactured in the US prior to 1968 and firearms imported in to the US prior to 1968 to be criminalized. But this leads me to wonder if other impacts that will result from passage of this bill are unintended.

Section 17 (2) will also criminalize possession of home built firearms that are not serialized in accordance to the federal regulations required by Section 17 (1) (b). These home built firearms are currently legal to build and possess. They do not require any serialization unless they are transferred. In that case the feds offer a method for the builder of the firearm to add a serial number so the firearm may transferred legally. SB 978-5 offers no grandfathering of these firearms or method for serializing them to comply with SB 978-5.

There are many thousands of these firearms in this State. Law abiding Oregonian's have invested a lot of time, labor and money in to these custom built firearms. It should not be acceptable to any honest and fair minded Oregonian that we criminalize the possession of these firearms they worked hard to create. Washington State just passed a similar "untraceable" ban law (SHB1739) but they grandfathered in all untraceable firearms manufactured before July 1, 2019. While I also disagree with that ban, this was a more appropiate method to prevent criminalizing previously lawfully owned firearms.

I would like to see proponents of this bill have a much better understanding of the negative impacts SB 978-5 will have on Oregonian's across this State. There has been a lot of misinformation shared by proponents and legislators in attempts to promote this bill. That is not acceptable to me and shouldn't be to CCCO members either. I would encourage your group to review the information you put out about SB 978-5 and make sure it is accurate and not misleading. Misrepresentation is not a healthy way to promote legislation.

 

[arakboss]

Another installment of setting the record straight by Ceasefire Oregon your true anti-friend to the end:

• Yes, concealed carry license holders still can responsibly carry their guns in the parking lots of public schools and airports.
  • "Excludes parking lots or drop off areas of airports, schools, and other public buildings from area subject to public ordinances restricting ability to carry a concealed weapon." Staff Summary

This was sent in a Ceasefire email and was provided to me by a member here (thank you). The "Staff Summary" at the end of the statement appeared to be a non-functioning link, to what I have no idea. While the -5 amended version of SB 978 does offer an exemption for parking areas it does not offer an exemption for drop off areas at public buildings. This makes their statement a lie. This was a huge issue among those who provided testimony. It is another area where Ceasefire is taking notice and trying to ease Oregonian's concerns with misinformation. This obviously won't impact people adamantly opposed to the bill but it could dampen opposition among more neutral (less informed) firearm owners. Media does not appear to be interested in accurate reporting of these topics. I would like to be able to counter this information among this crowd but how?

Here is the link to a staff summary in pdf form that the ceasefire propaganda linked to:
http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?key=-1&url_num=17&url=https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureAnalysisDocument/49264

The part they thought excluded drop off and pick up areas doesn't necessarily do that. It states this in summary:
"Parking lot exclusions included to allow for pick up and drop offs at public buildings and airports without violating potential future ordinances."

My interpretation of that would mean you could carry your firearm in to parking area to drop off or pick up somebody. But for instance at airport the drop off and pick up areas are separated from parking areas. I am guessing if this law passed and you were open carrying with permit in drop off area of airport you will be in for a ration of you know what. I think the phrases drop off and pick up areas would need to be included in the amended language to make it clear.

 

[arakboss]

Emailer from Sen. Linthicum:

Poison Fruit...
Super majorities and the poison fruit of statism can grow in orchards on both the left and right sides of the road. We know this because history informs us and dictates what we will see tomorrow. Patrick Henry told us, "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way to judge the future but by the past."

In today's newsletter, I am going to bypass several thousand bills that are in the Legislature. I'm going to skip-over the gross receipts sales tax, the carbon tax, the recent ban on plastic straws, as well as, the "mandatory requirement for vaccinations in exchange for education benefits" rigamarole.

Instead, I want to focus attention on the Oregon disarmament bill: SB 978. It is still alive and like a zombie is shuffling through the hallways of the marble palace. This bill continues to exist by the force of this administration's empty rhetoric and faulty logic.

SB 978 represents a purposeful and energetic effort for disarming Oregoniansand infringing on their liberties. The sheer animosity leveled against law abiding citizens is inscrutable and illustrates a complete disrespect for our 2nd Amendment rights. The magical facade of "needed reform" is all that is necessary to mask the demolition of our constitutional liberties. It appears that the real goal is total disarmament of law-abiding Oregonians.


The pretense of the bill is that crime is pervasive; guns are unsafe; children are being killed and something needs to be done. Perfectly fine sentiment, yet, where are the statistics for Oregon's problems? Remember, the original SB 978 was a proposal for a reporting and fact finding effort to determine which policy changes would effectively impact gun violence. Apparently, no one cares about the real data.

There are more firearms in Oregon than people. In the presence of millions of firearms and billions of rounds of ammunition how many unlocked, or unserialized firearms have been used in crimes? Additionally, there are more firearms in Oregon than vehicles, but there are more vehicle deaths than firearm injuries, where is the balance?

Unfortunately, the bill, as it stands, focuses on creating more arbitrary, capricious and unnecessary crimes that can't be universally enforced because of the sheer scope of probable violations. This means selective enforcement opportunities will likely be used against political opponents while the issues associated with enforcement among racial or other protected classes will be pervasive. Actually, selective enforcement will certainly entrap any number of law-abiding citizens who might experience outlandishly improbable circumstances.

Among the 44 pages of over-reaching legalese, if a firearm is used to injure a person, or property, within two years of a gun transfer through sale, gift, or theft where a safety device was defeated by the crook, the owner of the firearm is held "strictly liable" for injuries.

The devious thrust of this language is aimed at discouraging and reducing firearm ownership through fear and financial intimidation. The "strict liability" language purposefully supports unjust and unfair treatment of gun owners because, as defendants, they will be held liable for some future event that is totally unrelated to their actions or intentions for a period of up to two years. Additionally, once the gun is stolen and the owner no longer has control, crimes committed by the criminal impact the level and severity of criminal charges brought against the legal owner of the weapon.

Please follow that logic with care…

Let me illustrate using a vehicle equivalent: if someone steals your car for a joy-ride to the burger joint, your criminal charges would be minor. However, if they used your rig as the get-away car for a bank robbery your criminal charges would be more serious. Lastly, if the car-thieves get into a fatal accident, your criminal charges would pile up like roadside wreckage. So, if an individual follows best practices and locks their car in a well-lighted area, why would the state want to hold them liable for someone else's criminal activities? Clearly, fewer people would want to own cars under these circumstances.

While it appears that criminal violations are built upon solid circumstances (Sec. 5 - 9), the keystone is actually missing. Namely, the rules and minimum specifications required for trigger locks, cable locks, and tamper-resistant locks on all containers, buildings, rooms and doors which aren't yet defined. This means that legislators who vote for this bill will have no idea what they are voting for in the way of future requirements. What if the rules require an absurd 1" Stainless Wire Rope EIPS IWRC - 6x37 Class cable? What would gun-owners do?

These rules won't come from mechanical engineers but they will come from the governor's chosen one within the Oregon Health Authority, in consultation with State Police.

Keeping history as our guide, let's roll through some historic episodes and ask ourselves, "Who was in charge, the individual or the state?"

Consider Lenin's Bolshevik revolution, Stalin's Siberian Gulags, Mao's Great Leap Forward, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, Pasha's Armenian Genocide, or Maduro's Venezuela?

Far in excess of 100 million people lost their lives and are still suffering intense persecutions. What was the first liberty these regimes took from their targeted populations? Their guns! What did they lose next? Free speech; free association; eventually, their lives.

Did these regimes operate on the consent of the governed? No. Were these citizens able to resist the tyrannies that befell them? No. Could they protect their lives, liberty and property? No.

The blow-back that I typically receive is that these episodes of genocide are so horrific they couldn't possibly happen here. Well, then, why the effort to disarm law-abiding citizens?

Thousands of Oregonians, from across all party lines – Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Greens and Non-Affiliated Voters – and across all backgrounds have written to me and are outraged at this anti-gun-owner bill.

In closing, President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They'll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government."

Remember, if we don't stand for rural-Oregon values and common sense – No one Will!


Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Capitol Phone: 503-986-1728
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-305, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/linthicum

 

[partsed]

The gal who wrote this article in Newport Times singing the praises of SB 978-5, sent me this email.
No reasonable person should oppose SB 978

NOW forwarded your comment about SB 978-1. Good question, and I am sure many have the same concern: Will be legal to possess pre-1968 firearms if SB 978 passes?

The phrase "in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 923(i)" found in SB 978-5 is intended to mean that SB 978 applies only to guns manufactured after 1968 because they are already required to have a serial number. It was not intended to mean that guns manufactured before 1968 were illegal if they were not serialized. Everyone agreed, however, that this is a significant issue worth clarifying for the public.

The Judiciary Committee's legal counsel will amend the Bill to clarify that unserialized guns that were legal due to manufacture date, etc., are grandfathered in. The Committee wants no ambiguity.


Best regards,
Monica Kirk, Steering Committee
Central Coast Ceasefire Oregon


I am not sure what she was replying to, but I may have emailed CCCO through their website. I have so many emails lately it's difficult to keep track. She is clearly missing the full impact of Section 17 (2) as it will also prohibit possession of home built firearms made at any time with untraceable receivers/frames as defined by Sec. 17 (1) (b). These home built firearms would not have legally been required to have a serial number simply to possess. And from the amendment she described that won't address the issue. I think her info is all screwed up anyways regarding amendment because the Judiciary Committee should be out of the picture at this point since SB 978-5 left their committee in -5 form. Trying to identify when a firearm was made will be difficult to do in the field and an amendment that tries to address pre vs post 1968 firearms would be difficult to implement.

I'm pretty sure that she doesn't know her a$$ from a hole in the ground when it comes to firearms.

 

[WoodsPlinker]

Trying to identify when a firearm was made will be difficult to do in the field and an amendment that tries to address pre vs post 1968 firearms would be difficult to implement.

Forgive my ignorance and maybe I interpreted the amendment wrong but wasn't it all about an "unfinished" frame? In which case all the guns mentioned are "finished". Or is it not considered finished without a serial number and transfer at a gun dealership? The definition didn't seem to include that it just said it would need more machining to make it a functional part of a firearm. Which means a block of aluminum needs serialization and transfer at a gun dealership now.

I interpreted it as they won't be able to allowed to sell 80% lowers anymore without serialization and background check. and possibly chunks of aluminum.

But all guns functionally a firearm already do not meet the definition of unfinished frame.

What'd I miss?

 

[arakboss]

Forgive my ignorance and maybe I interpreted the amendment wrong but wasn't it all about an "unfinished" frame? In which case all the guns mentioned are "finished". Or is it not considered finished without a serial number and transfer at a gun dealership? The definition didn't seem to include that it just said it would need more machining to make it a functional part of a firearm. Which means a block of aluminum needs serialization and transfer at a gun dealership now.

I interpreted it as they won't be able to allowed to sell 80% lowers anymore without serialization and background check. and possibly chunks of aluminum.

But all guns functionally a firearm already do not meet the definition of unfinished frame.

What'd I miss?

That is a different part of the law that deals with unfinished receivers/frames. I was referring to section 17 (1) (b) & section 17 (2) which will criminalize possession of firearms that were built on receivers/frames that were not serialized in accordance with the federal regs laid out in section 17 (1) (b) of SB 978-5.

 

[arakboss]

I'm pretty sure that she doesn't know her a$$ from a hole in the ground when it comes to firearms.

100% agree on that assumption. She gets a D- for trying though.

 

[partsed]

It's no wonder that legislators don't read what is in the bills, considering all the "paragraph, sub-section a, blah, blah, blah"

"We need to pass it so we can see what is in it"......

 

[nammac]

I figured that was what he meant, the point I was trying to make was that CA has gone way past the infringement we have suffered and there has been no accountability reset movement that has succeeded down there yet. Has there been a recent sucessful reset model that has happened in a US State in recent decades. I have seen a lot of "throw the bums out" type remarks lately and they are usaully accompanied by remarks about how all other efforts are useless. I may be too optimistic but I think our efforts are making some progress. I've said this before recently but look at all the bills that could have been shoved through Salem if we had all just sat on our hands. We may or may not be successful in defeating SB 978-5 but it could have been much worse, like SB 501 worse if nobody had resisted and proponents were left alone.

I would like to see a reset at the ballot box before we give up on current efforts. We have to remember that our opponents are not only sitting in Salem. They are a majority of the electorate that voted the bums in.

^^^Agreed, 100%. It's taken a monumental effort to move the needle even just a little bit, but it is moving. We need to keep the momentum up, we're past the halfway point of the Legislative season. And you my friend, have done an awesome job of keeping the troops rallied. We all, every single gun owner in Oregon, owe you a debt of gratitude for your relentless and tireless work.

My hats off to you sir!

 

[WoodsPlinker]

That is a different part of the law that deals with unfinished receivers/frames. I was referring to section 17 (1) (b) & section 17 (2) which will criminalize possession of firearms that were built on receivers/frames that were not serialized in accordance with the federal regs laid out in section 17 (1) (b) of SB 978-5.

Well crap, didn't see that part. Now I have to tell my brother they are trying to make his antique shotgun illegal to possess.

 

[arakboss]

Well crap, didn't see that part. Now I have to tell my brother they are trying to make his antique shotgun illegal to possess.

There are antique exemptions in the law but they will cover very few firearms.

 

[JJF123]

Are any attorneys working on recalls? I would sure donate my time to gathering signatures for a Roblan Recall, among other vulnerable carpetbaggers. I know they seldom work but he seems vulnerable and happens to have a large coastal/ rural district with a lot of gun owners and only won by a couple hundred votes. His district is Coos Bay to Tillamook. Even wind of a recall effort would make him think hard.

 

[nammac]

SB-978-5 simply needs to be defeated. If it can't be defeated in committee then it'll need to be held from a senate floor vote. I may plagiarize Dennis' newsletter in my next communications to Courtney, later today...

 

[JJF123]

I agree 100%. While I get trying to smooth out a couple of the problem spots, a little lubricant does not make it less invasive.

 

[arakboss]

Are any attorneys working on recalls? I would sure donate my time to gathering signatures for a Roblan Recall, among other vulnerable carpetbaggers. I know they seldom work but he seems vulnerable and happens to have a large coastal/ rural district with a lot of gun owners and only won by a couple hundred votes. His district is Coos Bay to Tillamook. Even wind of a recall effort would make him think hard.

This would be great if we could start one for Sen. Roblan. I agree that even the hint of it could make him change his mind. I have no idea whats involved to get one started

 

[arakboss]

Are any attorneys working on recalls? I would sure donate my time to gathering signatures for a Roblan Recall, among other vulnerable carpetbaggers. I know they seldom work but he seems vulnerable and happens to have a large coastal/ rural district with a lot of gun owners and only won by a couple hundred votes. His district is Coos Bay to Tillamook. Even wind of a recall effort would make him think hard.

Oregon Secretary of State

How do we find this number for Senate District 5: The required number of valid signatures is 15% of the votes cast for governor in the public officer's district during the last gubernatorial election at which a candidate for Governor was elected to a full term. Votes cast includes miscellaneous write-in votes, but not over votes or under votes.

 

[NW Backpacker]

Oregon Secretary of State

How do we find this number for Senate District 5: The required number of valid signatures is 15% of the votes cast for governor in the public officer's district during the last gubernatorial election at which a candidate for Governor was elected to a full term. Votes cast includes miscellaneous write-in votes, but not over votes or under votes.

I have not found the vote count "by district" yet. Those in power have made it difficult to remove them (see recall manual), and our side would need to be ready for the next step in the process when the recall is successful.

https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/RecallManual.pdf

From page 13 of the recall manual:

Recall Election


If the public officer does not resign within five days, the election must be held no later than the 35th day after the last day for the public officer to resign. The elections official completes the recall process by coordinating with the county elections official to schedule and conduct the election. Each recall ballot will include all of the following:

 the chief petitioner's reasons for demanding the recall exactly as submitted by the chief petitioner on form SEL 350;

 an exact reprint of the public officer's statement of justification from form SEL 352, if submitted;

 the question – Do you vote to recall from the office of ?

With the elected official's name printed in the first blank space and the public office held by the elected official printed in the second blank space;

and

 area to record yes or no vote.

The elections official will provide a copy of the results to the public officer.

If the recall election is successful the position becomes vacant and is filled in accordance with state statute or local charter or ordinance

If the recall election is unsuccessful, the public official remains in office and any additional recall petitions that are filed against the same person during the same term must be accompanied by a deposit that is equal to the cost to conduct the first recall election.
________________________________________________


Per page 4 of the recall manual we can also go after other officials: Know of any vulnerable anti judges?

Public offices that are subject to recall


State Public Offices:

 Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Attorney General, State Senator, State Representative, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (Labor Commissioner), Judge (Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Tax Court, Circuit Court and a County Judge who exercises judicial functions), and District Attorney are subject to recall. The State Elections Division is the filing officer for the Recall Petition for these offices.

Local Public Offices:

 County Commissioner, Justice of the Peace, County Clerk, County Assessor, County Treasurer, Sheriff, elective city positions, and elective special district positions are subject to recall. The County, City or District is the filing officer for the Recall Petition for these offices.

 

[JJF123]

Interesting info from you guys. I think close races on a district level is way more doable than a state wide official such as K.B. at least to start with. Most recalls are a monumental fail but I would be very happy to collect signatures if there is no restrictions on residence as I don't live in his district. I've attended the recent rallies, submitted testimony to the senate committee and individuals, made phone calls to the bendable Democrats highlighted here..time is very short. I don't know what else to do short of winding up in the jailhouse and losing the rights I'm fighting to keep.

 

[arakboss]

Interesting info from you guys. I think close races on a district level is way more doable than a state wide official such as K.B. at least to start with. Most recalls are a monumental fail but I would be very happy to collect signatures if there is no restrictions on residence as I don't live in his district. I've attended the recent rallies, submitted testimony to the senate committee and individuals, made phone calls to the bendable Democrats highlighted here..time is very short. I don't know what else to do short of winding up in the jailhouse and losing the rights I'm fighting to keep.

Thanks for being engaged. I attended the meeting with Rep. Nearman today after dropping off some thank you cards to various Senate offices. @LethalLovebird chased me down after I dropped off thank you card for Taylor and Rosie at Sen. Roblan's office. I guess he had been meeting with Sen. Roblan He said the card was well received by the ladies. Anyways back to meeting. It was sort of a bust as Rep. Nearman was not prepared to do history of guns presentation so he took some questions and did a presentation on budget stuff. I am thinking we need a better attempt at weekday rally. The hallways on the house side were crawling with some union group in green. They were everywhere in big numbers.

Jeff Kropf and Rep. Post each spoke after Rep. Nearman left. The one thing I learned is that we need to make our letters connect with the legislators on an emotional level. Like the school kids do but with substance. Womens stories will get more sympathy so if you know any women that can offer up a good heart tugging story that relates to laws proposed in SB 978-5, ask them to share their story with legislators.

Stories about how vulnerable they well feel since their public building were they work will prohibit guns if this law passes. Ladies in janatorial business who clean public businesses at night and will no longer be able to carry.