Town Hall (Corvallis/Albany/Philomath)

Member 5605 · Apr 30, 2015

Saturday May 2nd there is a town hall meeting scheduled at the Corvallis Public Library from 10:00-12:00

<broken link removed>

Looks like All 4 Legislators will participate: Gelser, Rayfield, Nearman, and Olson

@Qaolin I know you are on the Democrat side, maybe you want to attend as well.
I believe @bnsaibum and a few of his buddies may be there.
Possibly @acp as well (you better be there man)
I'll be there, I have some others as well who should be arriving who aren't on this board.

We need to step up the pressure.

Here is the propaganda Dan Rayfield is spewing forth as the Gospel:
http://everytown.org/documents/2015/04/or-no-questions-asked.pdf

Omission of information is just as bad as lying about the information. The truth when not the whole truth is still a lie.

Spread the word if you can.

Side note:
This is put on by the "League of Women Voters" so if you have an outspoken wife, she should attend as well. You know they will spin it as a man vs woman issue if guys show up in droves without the fembots as well.

rick · Apr 30, 2015

One bit of good news for this meeting: According to the web site, Former Oregon Senator Frank Morse will be the moderator. Morse is Republican and has an A+ rating from the NRA.

tiggers97 · Apr 30, 2015

Dyjital said:
Here is the propaganda Dan Rayfield is spewing forth as the Gospel:
http://everytown.org/documents/2015/04/or-no-questions-asked.pdf

I'm on break now, but here are some high-points you might be able to get out of this:

In Oregon, there are 49% fewer officers killed by guns than in states with background states. This is per <broken link removed> Look at the "states with background checks" on page 1 (35.4), and then Oregon's on the 2nd page (17.9). In fact, there are about 9 states safer without background checks.

Or this chart here you can use showing the Brady Campaign score (more gun laws=higher score. NOT if they are effective). How come so many states that are 'failing' gun-control are so much safer?
https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/sb-941-now-in-house-committee.195259/page-14#post-1263005

Or this post here about the report above in question (Just getting warmed up on this one

).
https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/last-chance-light-them-up.196381/page-2#post-1263523

Also in the report, on page 5(?) they mention "77% of ways criminals get their guns without a background check", as if this study closes that. I'm familiar with the justice report they are talking about. That 77% represent straw purchase, stealing, black market, loans between gang members, etc. Things that will REMAIN untouched after SB941. The other 23% about evenly divided between... wait for it... PASSING A BACKGROUND CHECK and the last catch-all bucket in the survey of "Other/Don'tKnow/Won't Say".
Link to results: Table 14 on page 13.

A question you could ask her is "how DO criminals get their guns in Oregon? Did anyone ask the convicts in prison? They are not going anyplace, so lets make an informed decision!"
And to add to it, remind them a gun-store in Vermont is suing Everytown for libel after they ran a similar report there. It's why you do not see ANY direct examples of the gun-ads they placed online in the Oregon report.

And if they ask "would you knowingly sell a gun to a felon?", give them back something like "I'm just as likely as you would be to hire a pedophilia to babysit your kids". When they looked shocked that you could ask them something like that, "well, now you know how I feel about you asking me that question".

Member 5605 · May 1, 2015

Tomorrow is the day!!!!

(Well today in 32 minutes)

Member 5605 · May 2, 2015

The divide and disconnect was sickening.

I'm uploading the video. It's taking forever. Apparently 1080P and 19 minutes worth of video is a little much for my slow bandwidth to go from iPhone to Dropbox so I can then download to computer and drop on YouTube.

Fellow NWFA'er asking the question. He nailed the question and the responses they gave did not warrant follow ups.

Representative Rayfield was long winded and cited a biased report while the closest person to an actual expert on criminal behavior (Rep Olson- 29 years Law Enforcement) gave it a 10 on stupidity (my words not his).

The disconnect between the political elite and us Peons was evident.

Jim Colvill · May 3, 2015

I'm looking forward to the video. Sorry I couldn't make it down.

Member 5605 · May 3, 2015

Note: I was behind the camera. If the person who asked the questions wants to identify the self they can do so.

Jim Colvill · May 3, 2015

Thanks for posting, Dyjital. Great questions.

If Rayfield thinks an exception for CHL is a "good idea" and something "...(he) will continue to work on." then why did he shoot down the amendment in committee because "...it would gut the bill"?

GUNARCHER · May 3, 2015

Because it;'s easier to lie to a small town hall meeting than to go on official record and buck Prozanski/Burdick/ Bloomberg bosses

Sstrand · May 3, 2015

Can you people spell democrat?? . . . L---I---A---R!!!!

Sheldon

Member 5605 · May 3, 2015

Qaolin said:
Thanks for posting, Dyjital. Great questions.

If Rayfield thinks an exception for CHL is a "good idea" and something "...(he) will continue to work on." then why did he shoot down the amendment in committee because "...it would gut the bill"?

Exactly.

Two faced. The "appease the individual" is different than appeasing your party.

tiggers97 · May 3, 2015

From the video: at 5:50 time mark: If you 'wheel and deal' in the parking lot of a gun-show without a background check in Oregon, you will be arrested by the OSP for breaking the law!

Member 5605 · May 3, 2015

Yeah I was shaking my head about that one too....

Stickjockey · May 3, 2015

Dyjital said:
Note: I was behind the camera. If the person who asked the questions wants to identify the self they can do so.

The gentleman who asked the question is our own bnsaibum; he'll probably be along to give a report presently. That was one of a list of questions we discussed the previous night.

BanjoGeek · May 4, 2015

rick said:
One bit of good news for this meeting: According to the web site, Former Oregon Senator Frank Morse will be the moderator. Morse is Republican and has an A+ rating from the NRA.

frank morse was one of the first to circumvent the voters when he was in the senate. A plus schmay plus, he is a commie POS.

bnsaibum · May 5, 2015

Senator Gelser did follow up and sent this:

Hi (name withheld),

It was nice to see you on Saturday. Thank you for the good question and for giving me time to track down an answer.

I spoke briefly with Senator Prozanski at lunch today. The request to change the "shall" to "may" came from the State Police. Apparently, in some cases the State Police is able to immediately address the issue without the involvement of local law enforcement. They did not want to be mandated to always contact local law enforcement if local law enforcement in that case would not be the responder. The may allowed the flexibility needed to ensure that appropriate agencies would be involved with the response. If you'd like, I can try to track down some more information for you about this.

I am woefully behind in replying to email on SB 941--- both to those writing in support of the bill and in opposition to the bill. I know I have at least 3 (probably more) notes from you awaiting a reply. I just wanted you to know I've received them, and I've read each of the thousands of emails I've received on the day I get them. I have prioritized reading over replying, and at this point I'm afraid that my responses will be less than satisfactory both in timeliness and personalization. I'm really sorry about that!

Thanks again for the question, and for allowing me the time to try to track down the answer.

Sincerely,

Sara

Hmmm...

Whatever could it mean that the OSP can "immediately address" denials in "some cases" without involving local agencies? ~

I have requested more info on this.