Messages
4,764
Reactions
11,361
Does this mean you won't be able to get training for your permit to buy a gun.

It would make HUNTERS SAFETY COURSES illegal
Not at all. It clearly states the trainer must know the trainee will use the knowledge for illegal purposes. It's a stupid piece of legislation to be sure, but some of you should learn to read.

I'm sure Mike Schmidt just wants to stop ANTIFA from launching fireworks at the police.

/Sarc off
 
Messages
4,318
Reactions
10,648
Not at all. It clearly states the trainer must know the trainee will use the knowledge for illegal purposes. It's a stupid piece of legislation to be sure, but some of you should learn to read.

I'm sure Mike Schmidt just wants to stop ANTIFA from launching fireworks at the police.

/Sarc off
We should also be aware of, selective enforcement. The law means what "we" says it means. Not what's written down. A certain section of the population can burn federal buildings, attack seniors, be armed in Portland with loaded guns (without the required chl). It not that big of a reach. All, illegal. Two tiered justice system.

I just ran into a long time Portland resident that recently moved closer to Beaverton. In this housing market? He was a big defender of, what? Nothing wrong here. Everyone will have enough sooner or later.
 
Messages
4,029
Reactions
6,115
Here's a link to the emails and testimony so far: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Measures/Testimony/HB2572

Reading the testimony can give you an idea of why this is so dangerous and how easily it can be abused. People are tackiling different aspects of the bill and how it can affect almost anyone EXCEPT ANTIFA and BLM. It'll give you some ideas of what you want to put into your email to the committee. Remote and in-person testimony start this morning at 8. You have 48 hours to submit your comments to the committee via email.

I've noticed that I pick up a little bit more each time I read the bill and the comments others have submitted. Everyone should consider this disturbing, especially since there are already laws on the books for accountability, if they choose to enforce them.
 
Messages
515
Reactions
715
Interesting they have a carve out exempting this -
"(e) Troops of a foreign government operating under the authorization or consent of the United States government.

Only supporters -
1675795911283.png
 
Last Edited:
Messages
1,077
Reactions
2,832
I have a sinking feeling that if this passes it will be selectively applied by our woke overlords.This is obviously a dangerously bad bill but why is there nothing in there about covering your face while brandishing a weapon Like all the pantifa tards do?
 
Messages
7,688
Reactions
12,883
... and intends or knows that such devices or technique will be unlawfully employed in a civil disorder.
The part quoted above would be hard to prove. Would have to have an undercover person or a rat I would guess to prove that.

Thx for the heads up of what appears to be yet another attempt to make criminals out of people trying to protect themselves. OR lawmakers are the real criminals here it seems unfortunately because they are doing everything they can to hurt lawful gun owners while at the same time enabling more violent criminals (ie less prosecutions, revolving door arrests, and passing laws that protect criminals).

We can look at CA as an example of where these legislators want to go with laws. In some parts (maybe all?) of CA police cannot arrest looters if the looters "need" what they are stealing. Fing ridiculous. They are growing crime exponentially through their policies and blaming that crime on lawful gun owners.

Note that OR legislators are not given traffic tickets because of their position:

 
Last Edited:
Messages
4,029
Reactions
6,115
From OFF: https://www.oregonfirearms.org/this-is-not-a-gun-bill

02.07.2023

"This Is Not A Gun Bill."

Last Sunday we warned you about HB 2572 and the Dash 1 Amendment that "gut and stuffed" it.

In its original form the bill was dangerously vague and a serious threat to Oregonians. The very people who drafted it admitted it could be applied to prosecute private security guards.

An opinion from "Legislative Counsel," the lawyers who write bills, stated:

"In section 2 of HB 2572, the definition of "private paramilitary organization" is quite broad and could in fact apply to a private security company, since a private security company would not fall within the law enforcement exception in subsection (3)."

But the proposed amendment made the bill far worse and any doubts one would have about that evaporated after a hearing was held on the bill yesterday.

One of the sponsors of the bill, House Rep. Dacia Grayber testified : "This is not a gun bill."

Grayber is a vocal proponent of gun control, so when she says "This is not a gun bill" you can rest assured… it's a gun bill.

She went on to say:

"This bill is not tied to any one political or partisan ideology. The policy applies to all incidences that meet the definition of paramilitary activity EQUALLY. Any claims to the contrary are at best misguided rhetoric and at worst attempting to play and feed people's fears with misinformation."

As is always the case, Grayber did not quote a single "claim to the contrary" that she falsely labeled as "misguided rhetoric" and "misinformation."

OFF's testimony is published and available online. We invite Grayber to cite a single word of it that is "misinformation."

But Grayber's claims that the proposed policy applies equally are plainly absurd.

As we have pointed out numerous times (including to the Republicans who sat on the committee that heard this) the bill and the amendment repeatedly refer to organizations "under a command structure". In fact, over and over during the hearing the proponents of the bill emphasized that element.

And as we all know, the most dangerous and violent political actors in Oregon today are described regularly by the leftists in power as a mere "idea" with no command structure.

Who was named as a potential target of this legislation? Not antifa, which was never mentioned one time in the hearing. Instead the proponents mentioned… "Three Percenters".

While we challenge anyone to show us examples of "Three Percenters" burning buildings or looting, they certainly could be guilty of "publicly patrolling" while armed. An activity that has become necessary in many places due to the unprecedented violence by left wing rioters at a time when police cannot or will not respond. And it's that very act of protecting private property this legislation seeks to criminalize.

Here is what the legislation outlaws:

Section 1:A person commits the crime of unlawful paramilitary activity if the person knowingly, while acting as part of a private paramilitary organization or on behalf of or in furtherance of any objective of a private paramilitary organization, and while armed with a firearm, explosive or other dangerous weapon: "(a) Publicly patrols, drills or engages in techniques capable of causing physical injury or death

Here is what they define as a "paramilitary organization:"

'Private paramilitary organization' means any group of three or more persons associating under a command structure for the purpose of functioning in public or training to function in public as a combat, combat support, law enforcement or security services unit.

Maybe Grayber and the other sponsors would like to explain how that differs from the average small church security team.

But if Grayber and her cohorts want to continue to hide behind the nonsensical pretense that this bill applies equally to all political ideologies let's take a look at who the supporters of the legislation are.

The Alliance for Gun Responsibility

The anti-gun League of Women Voters

The Multnomah County DA, and friend of left wing rioters, Mike Schmidt.

And their star witness, Mary McCord of the "Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection"

Much as we are fans of the protection of the Constitution, a brief trip around their website will make it immediately clear that they have little interest in the protection of the Constitution.

For example, they are vocal supporters of crushing the Second Amendment having filed briefs in support of banning modern firearms and magazines.

Mary McCord, who was the main mouthpiece for this legislation, has written about dangers of "right wing" militias while never mentioning the actual violence caused by left wing radicals.

The "right wingers" she condemns "… have endangered public safety — with fatal results — by self-deploying to "protect" property from what have been largely false rumors of antifa violence during racial justice demonstrations."

She also writes : "Private militia organizations routinely urge their members to acquire semi-automatic assault rifles and military gear."

She claims : "Six men involved with a private militia have been charged with plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and try her for treason." Conveniently neglecting to mention that the "kidnapping" was almost totally the product of Federal informants.

She attacks constitutional sheriffs saying : "But another likely reason is that local law enforcement officials are usually elected, and in jurisdictions where the local community is largely supportive of both Trump and private militias — often rural communities where strong anti-government and pro-gun-rights views predominate — there's little incentive, and a lot of disincentive, to use the tools they have available."

Her ridiculous claims that the legislation she is pushing will be applied equally is at odds with her complete refusal to even acknowledge that the violence our country and state have been rocked by is coming from the very groups this legislation exempts from prosecution.

(On a chilling side note, the legislation also carves out an exception for "Troops of a foreign government operating under the authorization or consent of the United States government.")

Make no mistake. The people pushing this legislation are determined to create tools to entrap and prosecute anyone who is prepared to defend people and property against attack. They can dress it down any way they like but if one simply reads the language they have created it cannot be doubted what their intentions are.

While we have made several attempts to get the attention of the Republicans who sit on the House Judiciary Committee which heard this bill, they seem committed to ignoring the very real dangers it creates. Not one of them made even the slightest attempt to question the most obvious and egregious elements of the bill and amendment.

The Democrats have made no secret of their agenda to disarm law abiding civilians while emboldening and protecting criminals. The Republicans are asleep at the wheel.

If yesterday's hearing is any indication of what we can expect from Republicans as the Democrats ram through more restrictions on our rights, we are in serious trouble.

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee:

Representative Charlie Conrad

District 12
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1412
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, H-483, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/conrad





Representative Rick Lewis
District 18 – Silverton
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1418
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, H-385, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]
Website:http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/lewis

Representative Lily Morgan

District 3 – Grants Pass

Capitol Phone: 503-986-1403
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, H-390, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/morgan



Representative Kim Wallan

District 6 – Medford

Capitol Phone: 503-986-1406
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, H-388, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]
Website:http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/wallan
 
Messages
4,764
Reactions
11,361
Holy cow. These amendments ARE bad. I'm not a tinfoil hat wearer but I can see the handwriting on the wall:

"(a) Publicly patrols, drills or engages in techniques capable of causing physical injury or death;

"(c) Asserts authority or purports to assert authority over another
person without legal authority;

"(d) Interferes with or intimidates another person and thereby:
"(A) Prevents the other person, or attempts to prevent the other person, from engaging in conduct in which the other person has a legal right to engage;

Above would be used to prosecute people who banded together to protect their neighborhoods during disasters or other such SHTF situations such as when folks in Clackamas County prevented ANTIFA "journalists" from entering their neighborhoods during the wildfires a couple summers ago.

UN "peacekeeping" troops training globalist revolutionaries to "restore order" during times of crisis - No problemo:

"(e) Troops of a foreign government operating under the authorization or consent of the United States government"
 
Messages
7,688
Reactions
12,883
Holy cow. These amendments ARE bad. I'm not a tinfoil hat wearer but I can see the handwriting on the wall:

"(a) Publicly patrols, drills or engages in techniques capable of causing physical injury or death;

"(c) Asserts authority or purports to assert authority over another
person without legal authority;

"(d) Interferes with or intimidates another person and thereby:
"(A) Prevents the other person, or attempts to prevent the other person, from engaging in conduct in which the other person has a legal right to engage;

Above would be used to prosecute people who banded together to protect their neighborhoods during disasters or other such SHTF situations such as when folks in Clackamas County prevented ANTIFA "journalists" from entering their neighborhoods during the wildfires a couple summers ago.

UN "peacekeeping" troops training globalist revolutionaries to "restore order" during times of crisis - No problemo:

"(e) Troops of a foreign government operating under the authorization or consent of the United States government"
Agree, that's some extremely scary language.
 
Messages
916
Reactions
861
From OFF: https://www.oregonfirearms.org/this-is-not-a-gun-bill

02.07.2023

"This Is Not A Gun Bill."

Last Sunday we warned you about HB 2572 and the Dash 1 Amendment that "gut and stuffed" it.

In its original form the bill was dangerously vague and a serious threat to Oregonians. The very people who drafted it admitted it could be applied to prosecute private security guards.

An opinion from "Legislative Counsel," the lawyers who write bills, stated:

"In section 2 of HB 2572, the definition of "private paramilitary organization" is quite broad and could in fact apply to a private security company, since a private security company would not fall within the law enforcement exception in subsection (3)."

But the proposed amendment made the bill far worse and any doubts one would have about that evaporated after a hearing was held on the bill yesterday.

One of the sponsors of the bill, House Rep. Dacia Grayber testified : "This is not a gun bill."

Grayber is a vocal proponent of gun control, so when she says "This is not a gun bill" you can rest assured… it's a gun bill.

She went on to say:

"This bill is not tied to any one political or partisan ideology. The policy applies to all incidences that meet the definition of paramilitary activity EQUALLY. Any claims to the contrary are at best misguided rhetoric and at worst attempting to play and feed people's fears with misinformation."

As is always the case, Grayber did not quote a single "claim to the contrary" that she falsely labeled as "misguided rhetoric" and "misinformation."

OFF's testimony is published and available online. We invite Grayber to cite a single word of it that is "misinformation."

But Grayber's claims that the proposed policy applies equally are plainly absurd.

As we have pointed out numerous times (including to the Republicans who sat on the committee that heard this) the bill and the amendment repeatedly refer to organizations "under a command structure". In fact, over and over during the hearing the proponents of the bill emphasized that element.

And as we all know, the most dangerous and violent political actors in Oregon today are described regularly by the leftists in power as a mere "idea" with no command structure.

Who was named as a potential target of this legislation? Not antifa, which was never mentioned one time in the hearing. Instead the proponents mentioned… "Three Percenters".

While we challenge anyone to show us examples of "Three Percenters" burning buildings or looting, they certainly could be guilty of "publicly patrolling" while armed. An activity that has become necessary in many places due to the unprecedented violence by left wing rioters at a time when police cannot or will not respond. And it's that very act of protecting private property this legislation seeks to criminalize.

Here is what the legislation outlaws:

Section 1:A person commits the crime of unlawful paramilitary activity if the person knowingly, while acting as part of a private paramilitary organization or on behalf of or in furtherance of any objective of a private paramilitary organization, and while armed with a firearm, explosive or other dangerous weapon: "(a) Publicly patrols, drills or engages in techniques capable of causing physical injury or death

Here is what they define as a "paramilitary organization:"

'Private paramilitary organization' means any group of three or more persons associating under a command structure for the purpose of functioning in public or training to function in public as a combat, combat support, law enforcement or security services unit.

Maybe Grayber and the other sponsors would like to explain how that differs from the average small church security team.

But if Grayber and her cohorts want to continue to hide behind the nonsensical pretense that this bill applies equally to all political ideologies let's take a look at who the supporters of the legislation are.

The Alliance for Gun Responsibility

The anti-gun League of Women Voters

The Multnomah County DA, and friend of left wing rioters, Mike Schmidt.

And their star witness, Mary McCord of the "Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection"

Much as we are fans of the protection of the Constitution, a brief trip around their website will make it immediately clear that they have little interest in the protection of the Constitution.

For example, they are vocal supporters of crushing the Second Amendment having filed briefs in support of banning modern firearms and magazines.

Mary McCord, who was the main mouthpiece for this legislation, has written about dangers of "right wing" militias while never mentioning the actual violence caused by left wing radicals.

The "right wingers" she condemns "… have endangered public safety — with fatal results — by self-deploying to "protect" property from what have been largely false rumors of antifa violence during racial justice demonstrations."

She also writes : "Private militia organizations routinely urge their members to acquire semi-automatic assault rifles and military gear."

She claims : "Six men involved with a private militia have been charged with plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and try her for treason." Conveniently neglecting to mention that the "kidnapping" was almost totally the product of Federal informants.

She attacks constitutional sheriffs saying : "But another likely reason is that local law enforcement officials are usually elected, and in jurisdictions where the local community is largely supportive of both Trump and private militias — often rural communities where strong anti-government and pro-gun-rights views predominate — there's little incentive, and a lot of disincentive, to use the tools they have available."

Her ridiculous claims that the legislation she is pushing will be applied equally is at odds with her complete refusal to even acknowledge that the violence our country and state have been rocked by is coming from the very groups this legislation exempts from prosecution.

(On a chilling side note, the legislation also carves out an exception for "Troops of a foreign government operating under the authorization or consent of the United States government.")

Make no mistake. The people pushing this legislation are determined to create tools to entrap and prosecute anyone who is prepared to defend people and property against attack. They can dress it down any way they like but if one simply reads the language they have created it cannot be doubted what their intentions are.

While we have made several attempts to get the attention of the Republicans who sit on the House Judiciary Committee which heard this bill, they seem committed to ignoring the very real dangers it creates. Not one of them made even the slightest attempt to question the most obvious and egregious elements of the bill and amendment.

The Democrats have made no secret of their agenda to disarm law abiding civilians while emboldening and protecting criminals. The Republicans are asleep at the wheel.

If yesterday's hearing is any indication of what we can expect from Republicans as the Democrats ram through more restrictions on our rights, we are in serious trouble.

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee:

Representative Charlie Conrad

District 12
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1412
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, H-483, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/conrad





Representative Rick Lewis
District 18 – Silverton
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1418
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, H-385, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]
Website:http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/lewis
Representative Lily Morgan

District 3 – Grants Pass

Capitol Phone: 503-986-1403
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, H-390, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/morgan



Representative Kim Wallan

District 6 – Medford

Capitol Phone: 503-986-1406
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, H-388, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]
Website:http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/wallan
Well, I do think that there is some concern about armed people staging a coup now….
Some people worry that’s worse than vandalism or arson. At the same I don’t think “pile on” crimes are necessary and this bill is one.



 
Last Edited:
Messages
4,029
Reactions
6,115
House Bill 2772 is being heard today. https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Measures/Overview/HB2772 . This is a horrible bill waiting for the gut and stuff treatment. If you don't think the democrats hate you and consider you vile scum, just look at what they're proposing. It flew under the radar because there were no firearms in the text or title.

Your emails in opposition are critical.

Remember several months ago when people were warned this was coming? Well, it's here now so people need to get off their a$$es and do something.
 
Messages
4,029
Reactions
6,115
Well, I do think that there is some concern about armed people staging a coup now….
Some people worry that’s worse than vandalism or arson. At the same I don’t think “pile on” crimes are necessary and this bill is one.



If you think this there is even a slight possibility that this is aimed at ANTIFA or BLM, I've got some oceanfront property in Arrizona to sell you. If you watched the testimony Monday, you can tell it's a bunch of lies written by and supported by east coast lawyers. We are the ones being attacked. Measure 114 and the brace rules are just the beginning. I don't think any of us have ever seen anything as severe as what we're seeing right now. The president of the United States, again called for an assault weapons ban. They are in the midst of it right now in Washington and are fighting it in Illinois as well. If we roll over or don't put up a fight, they will be able to steamroll over us without any trouble at all. People had the chance to send testimony on 2572 and most threw away their chance to have their voice be heard.

ETA: Sorry that I'm coming across so harsh and my comments weren't directed at you. I'm frustrated by the lack of participation from the firearms community to these horrible assaults from the left. All people really need to do is show up and there are very few doing anything.

I'm also beginning to understand why some people that are great organizers and activists during one session are missing the following year. It is much more work and stress than I imagined, and it's almost always the same people showing up. Very few new people lifting any weight.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
515
Reactions
715
House Bill 2772 is being heard today. https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Measures/Overview/HB2772 . This is a horrible bill waiting for the gut and stuff treatment. If you don't think the democrats hate you and consider you vile scum, just look at what they're proposing. It flew under the radar because there were no firearms in the text or title.

Your emails in opposition are critical.

Remember several months ago when people were warned this was coming? Well, it's here now so people need to get off their a$$es and do something.
What is the timing of the 'gut and stuff' ? Does it have to happen today while testimony can be submitted?
 
Messages
4,029
Reactions
6,115
Here's the current testimony for HB2772: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Measures/Testimony/HB2772.
Click on the "submit testimony" link to submit testimony. I recommend reading comments from others to get the format down. Some are more polished than others but that doesn't mean they aren't well intentioned. I would get it typed out and then review it several times. Then convert to .pdf and submit. Notice that you don't need to be long winded. Remember, once a bill has a hearing, it then goes to a worksession for re-write. That's where the gut and stuff occurs. In the case of 2572, they did the gut and stuff in the ammendment while the original text of the bill was still posted. The workgroup can put anything they want into it and them have it sent to the floor for a vote. That's why it's critical that we show up to comment.

2772 testimony page.jpg
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
ONRI Rally at the Capitol
Salem, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top