Republican Senator Bruce Strarr

[dlurvey]

I received this email yesterday regarding Senator Bruce Starr from the NAGR.

Recently, I warned you that Salem lawmakers are just one vote shy from passing key parts of billionaire-playboy ex-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun agenda, and that gun-grabbers are desperate to find a weak-kneed Republican to cave.

Bad news: They may have found one.

Right now, all eyes are focused on Republican State Senator Bruce Starr (R-15), who may be preparing to betray gun owners by backing Bloomberg's anti-gun agenda.

That's because Senator Starr told constituents at a recent town hall meetings that he's looking at expanding background checks, so that you can't sell your gun without the government's permission.

Give him a call at 503-986-1715.

Urge him not to cave to Bloomberg's anti-gun agenda, and insist he publicly promise to vote against all anti-gun bills, including the expanded or universal background checks and gun registration scheme.

Thank you!

-- Dudley

Is Starr a friend or foe to the gun rights community and does he need to be reminded that we're watching?
I recently had a email from him asking for money to support his re-election campaign in which he stated that he was a supporter of the 2A. But most times politicians will promise or say one thing to get the votes and do the complete opposite once elected.
Anyone have any insight as to what way he truly leans on gun control and if he should be supported?

Read More

 

[simon99]

Great, another sell out traitor.

 

[Caveman Jim]

well didn't you know that that is the way politicians are, they will sell you down the road so fast it ain't funny and all for your vote that's all they want and once they get in there they'll do what the hell they want to do and nothing you can do will stop them. look at Owebama classic case of political broken promises run a muck!!!

 

[BAMCIS]

by In the news Thursday, January 9. 2014


Sen. Bruce Starr standing firm on gun rights


The story is here:

Sen. Bruce Starr standing firm on gun rights | The Oregon Catalyst

It essentially says:

Sen. Bruce Starr standing firm on gun rights


by NW Spotlight

Sen. Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene) is reintroducing the flawed background check bill, SB 700-A (2013), as a Senate Judiciary Committee bill for the February Oregon legislative session, with some anticipated minor modifications.

It is a disappointing departure from last session’s bipartisan work to enhance mental health treatment as the best way to prevent gun-related tragedies. Additionally, the bill unnecessarily burdens law abiding citizens, law enforcement, and active military.

Sen. Bruce Starr (R-Hillsboro) told the Oregonian today that Sen. Ginny Burdick (D-Portland) and Sen. Floyd Prozanski “haven’t shared the revived gun control bill with Republicans,” but that Starr will oppose them in February. “I’m not supporting any of the bills that Burdick and Prozanski are working on or are planning to send to the Senate floor,” Starr said.

I added the bold for emphasis.

Amazing what one can find with a few google clicks........

 

[Dunerunner]

Doesn't represent me, I didn't vote for him.

Sent this email....

Honorable Senator Bruce Star,

I am writing you today because I have heard a disturbing rumor that you are considering caving into the anti-gun agenda. If this is untrue, you need to publicly respond as many are getting the message that you have sold out your constituents and the State of Oregon on the Second Amendment. If MAIG has contacted you I strongly recommend you reject their position.

Responsible gun owners and the citizens of Oregon do not need deep pocket out of State money influencing our representatives at the Capitol.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Mr. Dunerunner

 

[PiratePast40]

last year, Ceasefire Oregon was pushing the idea that Jackie Winters would vote with Prozanski. Not sure how true their assertion was then, or is now, but something to look in to.

 

[dlurvey]

I wrote this short email to Senator Bruce Starr asking for an explanation. If I get a reply I'll post it here. This might get interesting.

Dear Senator Starr,

I received this email from the NAGR and it has me very concerned. You’ve reach out to me in the past by email asking for contributions to your reelection campaign. You’ve stated in that email that you were a staunch defender of the 2A, yet the accusations by the NAGR seem to dispute your position. The NAGR is suggesting that you are caving in to anti-gun special interests and getting in bed with Bloomberg.

I would like to know what exactly is your position on gun control and expanded back-ground checks for Oregon citizens that you are alleged to support. I will be sharing your answer with my fellow oregonians who are extremely interested in hearing your position on these matters.

Yours,
Dan Lurvey

 

[dlurvey]

I read that also. Still, although he's not supporting Burdick or Prozanski, there is the matter of him saying that he is looking at expanding background checks. Just throwing this out there for discussion.

by In the news Thursday, January 9. 2014


Sen. Bruce Starr standing firm on gun rights


The story is here:

Sen. Bruce Starr standing firm on gun rights | The Oregon Catalyst

It essentially says:



I added the bold for emphasis.

Amazing what one can find with a few google clicks........

 

[dlurvey]

Got a answer back pretty quickly. Pretty short and terse. And I feel it didn't answer my questions or state his position clearly.

Dan,

Dudley is sending bad information. He didn't call me to check. I'm not voting for any new gun laws.

Thanks,

Bruce Starr
[email protected]
503-310-7500 direct

 

[DieselScout]

Got a answer back pretty quickly. Pretty short and terse. And I feel it didn't answer my questions or state his position clearly.

Dan,

Dudley is sending bad information. He didn't call me to check. I'm not voting for any new gun laws.

Thanks,

Bruce Starr
[email protected]
503-310-7500 direct

At least it is short and terse in the right way!

 

[3MTA3]

short is usually one of the signs of an honest answer. No place for a non-answer or twisted phrase to hide.

 

[dlurvey]

I didn't ask him how he was going to vote. I was asking him to clarify his position on expanding background checks and answer the allegations made by the NAGR. I was hoping for a little more detail. I almost feel that he is trying to evade the questions.

 

[dlurvey]

Found this video on the OFF website.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWYWaFPCb-0

Seems like OFF is starting to scratch their heads over Bruce Starr.

 

[dlurvey]

Got a answer back pretty quickly. Pretty short and terse. And I feel it didn't answer my questions or state his position clearly.

Dan,

Dudley is sending bad information. He didn't call me to check. I'm not voting for any new gun laws.

Thanks,

Bruce Starr
[email protected]
503-310-7500 direct

Sent off another email to Senator Starr in response to his reply to my email.

Dear Senator Starr,

Thanks for responding so quickly. Your reply though is pretty terse and fails to answer my questions to you. Are you in fact looking to expand background checks in Oregon and do you have any ties to Bloomberg and local or national anti-gun sigs?

Took him awhile to respond back with this:

No connection to Bloomberg. No voting to expand background checks. Dudley is lying about me without calling or checking with me.

You should aim your sights on democrat legislators who want to restrict your gun rights.

Thanks.

Not trying to hound him but he seems to be put out that as a constituent I would ask for his position on these issues. Before I contribute money I want to hear a little more detail on his stance then what he has provided in his emails.

 

[NWGlockgal]

At least it is short and terse in the right way!

It also sounds like he answered it himself rather than sending out a form letter or having a staff member answer it.That's good news, I think. It's probably short and terse because he is getting bombarded with emails.

 

[DieselScout]

It also sounds like he answered it himself rather than sending out a form letter or having a staff member answer it.That's good news, I think. It's probably shory and terse because he is getting bombarded with emails.

That was my feeling as well.

 

[The Heretic]

 

[simon99]

That was my feeling as well.

I agree with you guys and it gave me another thought......

seeing the speed at which he replied it makes me think that these politicians are really nervous about holding on to their positions.....like they're scared. That's a great position for us to be in unless we screw it up somehow. If these individuals are feeling the heat, I say its time to stand on their throats for a while....

 

[Grunwald]

I didn't ask him how he was going to vote. I was asking him to clarify his position on expanding background checks and answer the allegations made by the NAGR. I was hoping for a little more detail. I almost feel that he is trying to evade the questions.

It seems to me that if he said he is not voting for any new gun laws that he did indeed answer your question in a very direct way. I don't see where you get evasion.

 

[Steve M]

Here is the reply he sent me earlier this evening:

Thanks for taking time to write. I will oppose any new laws expanding background check for gun sales. Or any other legislation that is anti gun.

Thanks for writing.

Bruce

Sent from my iPhone