Blue Steel Democrats

Support Republicans if Democrats Don't Support the Right to Bear Arms

2011-10-10T10:07:00.000-07:00

by C. Michael Arnold, Eugene, Oregon Attorney

Our elected officials at the Oregon State Legislature determined some time ago that only they could regulate guns in Oregon. ORS 166.170 clearly states that “the authority to regulate [firearms] in any matter whatsoever…is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.” Even ignoring the constitutional implications, it is quite terrifying that the unelected bureaucrats at the State Board of Higher Education would ignore this Oregon law. The Oregon Court of Appeals recently stated the obvious: This statute leaves the authority to regulate firearms with the Oregon Legislature. (Read the opinion for yourself here).

Now there is talk by many Democrats in the legislature that there is a need to “fix the campus gun loophole,” as if there can be a loophole that allows us to exercise our rights. If any Democratic legislator attempts to overturn this case by amending ORS 166.170, I and others will actively financially support their Republican opponents. That is my promise and the promise of countless others.

Mike Arnold and his wife
and law partner Jacy regularly
financially support Democratic
candidates for office.

Hopefully, Democrats such as my senator Floyd Prozanski will get this message and use their time in the legislature to protect our constitutional rights and not restrict them. This issue is an absolute deal breaker. I support all of our constitutional rights, and I expect our legislators not to pick and choose among them as if there is a salad bar of rights.

It will be a scary time when we have to support Democrats to keep the Republicans from fleecing jobs and support Republicans to keep Democrats from fleecing rights. Let’s keep our party in check now to avoid problems come election time. Ask your legislators now if they support CHL permit holders right to carry on campuses.

* Mike Arnold is a Eugene trial lawyer who gets to talk to juries regularly all over the statute about our constititonal rights. He farms in his spare time and is married to a record-setting Missouri whitetail deer hunter. His views are his own and don't necessarily reflect the views of this "big tent" caucus. Mike last wrote about this topic in 2007 regarding UW's policy of no guns on campus that didn't prevent a gun death on campus.

Sen. Prozanski and the Gun Owners Caucus

2011-09-16T11:15:00.000-07:00

In light of a recent email that was sent out by Sen. Prozanski, we felt compelled to offer a statement:

The Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon is a big-tent Caucus and we do not limit our membership save that our members be registered Democrats and 2nd Amendment supporters. Any pro-2nd Amendment Democrat is welcome to join the GOC and add to our diversity. Some of our membership may agree with Sen. Prozanski's positions and behavior in the Senate Judiciary Committee last session and many do not. While Sen Prozansky does not speak for all of us, his is an example of the diversity of opinions which we cherish and encourage, albeit, do not promulgate as official caucus positions.

Good-bye

2011-08-01T21:02:00.000-07:00

To my friends from the GOC I'd like to say good-bye and thanks. I am ceasing all political activity.

Chuck

2011 Oregon Gun Legislation Tracking Website

2011-03-29T14:08:00.000-07:00

I am doing my best to keep on top of 2011 gun related legislation in Oregon. Visit the legislation tracking website: http://www.bluesteeldemocrats.org/legislation/2011Bills.html. This is no small task.

Notice that HB 2787 (CHL Privacy), 2792 (CHL Reciprocity) & 2797 (guns and atvs) passed the house. On the Legislation Tracking website, you can click to see how your Representative voted and contact them to thank them or educate them. You can listen to the audio archives to see if your legislator said anything good or bad.

Now for the Senate: Nothing is making it thorough the Senate Judiciary Committee and that is where the above bills now sit. The Chair of the Judiciary Committee is Sen Floyd Prozanski (D). If we want to influence whether or not these bills get through committee we need to contact Sen. Prozanski (sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us) and let him know how we feel. This should be a personally written letter that is polite and makes mention on the subject line that it is from a Democrat - in hopes that he will be more likely to read it. O.F.F is saying that Sen. Prozanski's excuse is that the Senate Democratic Caucus is against these bills. If that is true, Democratic constituents are the ones who are in the best position to influence the outcome. There is a link on the above website that makes it easy to contact all of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, too.

If you hadn't heard about his website already, you must not be a member of the Gun Owners Caucus, because we have been sending out email about it. If you would like to join, do so here: http://www.bluesteeldemocrats.org. We'd love to have you.

The Gun Owners Caucus officially takes no position on these bills, we just provide information to help our members make educated decisions on pending legislation. Any bias you see above is my personal opinion slipping through, and I apologize.

Jodi

Pro-Gun Oregon Democratic Candidate Statements

2010-10-18T12:34:00.000-07:00

Pro-gun Democrats in Oregon are increasingly vocal about their records in support of the Second Amendment. Many have answered the Gun Owners Caucus request for statements about their pro-gun records and quite a few are actual members of the gun owners caucus (Representative Jeff Barker [D-HD 28] even came to our very first meeting, back in 2006!)

Online statements by pro-gun Oregon Democrats have been posted and are available for your viewing, along with information on finding your representative. The website will be updated as more candidates respond up through election day. If you can spare even a single afternoon canvassing or phone banking for any of these hard-working people, your investment in liberty will definitely pay off.

End Prohibition to Protect Gun Rights

2010-09-21T08:56:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post recently ran another story on the Mexican government's losing drug war, focusing on the guns used and their sources, including the United States. Related stories of increasing corruption of U.S. law enforcement, especially border agents, by narcotics gangs are also on the rise. As reported in an earlier post (see: The Myth of 90%), reports of guns flowing into Mexico via the U.S. are wildly exaggerated, but focusing on guns and gun trafficking at all misses the real point:

Prohibition is a failed policy it is time to end.

Understanding supply and demand is the soul of capitalism, yet we, the world's largest and most successful capitalist democracy ignore this rule and instead create laws to control the personal habits of consenting adults and promote a modern-day piracy of transnational and interstate drug gangs whose members and methods would blend in with the worst rum runners or slavers of centuries past, not to mention the Prohibition gangs of the 1920s-30s.

The problem is drug prohibition, not gun shows, not gun dealers and not civil rights to own firearms protected under our Constitution.

End prohibition, and you end the on-going corruption of law enforcement, the profit-motive behind a majority of murders in this country as well as in Mexico, and the general erosion of the rule of law and respect for the same that occurs over the long-term when laws don't correspond to civil or substantive rights, much less to common sense. End prohibition and we gut the finances of the gang culture that has gripped American inner-cities for generations; we free up the courts and prisons for violent offenders. We save money. We save lives squandered in prison or snuffed out in pointless feuds.

It's time to stop the insanity of doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. It's time to demand change from our politicians, and give those with the courage to end this "war" our backing.

Anybody who wants to can go out to their car right now, soak a rag in gasoline & get high for a few minutes. Are we going to ban the car? Prohibition of recreational drugs (and no, I don't use them or hang around with people who do) is an historical accident that needs to be corrected. Consenting adults can huff gasoline or hairspray, they ought to be able to kill brain cells with pot, meth, heroine or prescription drugs if they really feel the need. We need to start learning from the mistakes of history instead of repeating them.

Al Capone must surely be laughing somewhere.

Portland Mayor Sam Adams' Proposed Gun Laws

2010-08-26T07:32:00.000-07:00

Portland Mayor Sam Adams has a new pet project. It seems he is going after gun rights in the city of Portland. Of course he is doing so in the name of public safety, but his new proposals would do nothing more than existing laws are already supposed to do, except limit the options of law abiding firearms owners. Plus, it is my understanding that it is illegal for a city to impose its own laws regarding firearms limitations. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Below is a link to Mayor Adams' proposal. He is asking for comments. Please do comment, as it is important for Mayor Adams to hear your/our opinion. Also, I would ask that you keep your comments civil and free from personal attacks. Comments that are awash with personal attacks are hard to take seriously. Thanks.

http://www.portlandonline.com/mayor/index.cfm?c=52750&a=314192

More Media Requests for Concealed Handgun License Records

2010-08-08T12:53:00.000-07:00

Two new media requests for Concealed Handgun License holder's personal information were made in July. The requests were made in writing by a reporter from the Statesman Journal. Oregon Firearms Federation brought this to my attention and provided this link. Within this article there is a link to the original letter received by Sheriff Jason Myers, and it has the business contact information for the reporter making the request. There are three reasons I am bringing this up:

Those in Polk and Marion Counties need to be aware that their information is likely to be released to a newspaper soon. The rest of us need to be aware that this has now officially spread beyond the original court case in Jackson County, and I am sure our time is coming soon.
The calmer and more rational among us should contact the reporter via her business address or email and explain to her why publishing this information puts people at risk and will increase gun theft and thereby increase illegally available guns. Getting angry with her will only prove the point that gun haters try to make about us.
All of us need to contact our legislators and candidates in legislative races to find out what their position is on passing legislation to fix this public safety problem. Then we need to share their responses here and work to elect the ones that are going to keep our names out of the papers.

I contacted the Benton County Sheriff to find out if she has gotten any of these requests yet. I will post her response when I get it. I know what response I will get from my Representative and Senate Candidate (I've already asked them in the past), but I am going to put them on the spot and post their response here. I encourage each of you to do the same.

Chicago City Council Bans Shooting Ranges, Endangers Public

2010-07-06T06:13:00.000-07:00

In last week's historic case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the city lost the right to ban citizens from owning handguns. But the council apparently believes they still have to right to make sure citizens won't know how to safely and accurately use handguns:

Four days after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted Chicago’s longtime handgun ban, the City Council on Friday enacted a whole new set of gun-control measures. . . And the ordinance outright bans gun sales, firing ranges and shooting galleries in the city.

For public officials ostensibly concerned with public safety, banning firing ranges and other venues for legal target practice is the worst possible thing they could have done. Rather than make the streets safer, this vote virtually guarantees that citizens exercising their constitutional right to own a hand-gun will not have sufficient opportunity to become proficient--and therefore safe--in the use of a handgun.

But no one need pretend that this bill has anything to do with gun safety--even some of the councilors who voted for it admitted to the charade:

Alderman [sic] voted 45-0 in favor even as some of them acknowledged how little the restrictions would do to quell violent crime . . . Several aldermen, however, said the ordinance is more likely to affect responsible, law-abiding gun owners than the thugs causing mayhem on hot weekend nights . . .

“You cannot legislate criminals, they are going to be criminals no matter what,” said Ald. Ed Smith, 28th. “And the people who intend to do crime, they are going to do it in whatever manner they can. They are going to get a gun wherever they can. And they are going to use it. And they are not going to register their gun.”

And yet Alderman Smith and the others voted for it 45-to-0! Such is the power of the Daley machine to squelch democratic (small d and big D!) debate that not a single member of the council had the nerve to vote for their convictions or for the safety or civil rights of their constituents. The situation speaks for itself.

In Chicago Gun Case Four Justices Deny Right of Self Defense

2010-06-28T16:15:00.000-07:00

Today the Supreme Court incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, deciding in favor of plaintiff Otis McDonald who argued that the right of individuals to own a handgun in their homes and to keep that gun in an "at the ready" state, that is, unlocked and loaded, is a basic constitutional right. It's a good day for civil rights, the Constitution and the American people.

In the aftermath, Chicago's total ban on hand guns is certain to be overturned. Also certain is that Chicago Mayor Daley and other politicians will move quickly to defeat the spirit of the McDonald v. Chicago ruling by drafting laws and regulations designed to thwart the efforts of citizens to keep firearms for self defense. As Independent Firearm Owners Association (IFOA) founder Richard Feldman quipped "Will this be known in history as the firearm lawyers full employment decision of 2010?" No doubt it will for some time.

Hopefully Mayor Daley will focus his energies on working with the Liberal Gun Club, IFOA, Democrats for Gun Ownership and other groups to develop credible, easily-accessible gun training and safety programs for the many new gun owners his city is soon going to have. Rather than buck the trend, instigating the energetic creation of gun safety and handling courses would do more to protect honest citizens in Chicago than their mayor's posturing and efforts to deflect blame for his city's appalling murder rate.

But celebrate--the right to bear arms is secure, for now. But what about the right of self defense?

Four justices dissented from the McDonald v. Chicago decision: Justice STEVENS, who wrote his own dissent, and Justices BREYER, GINSBURG and SOTOMAYOR, who signed on to the McDonald dissent written by Breyer. Justice SCALIA's concurring opinion in McDonald takes Stevens' odd logic to task, but doesn't address the dangerous implications of the Breyer dissent. What Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor did in their dissenting opinion was to challenge not just the validity of the right of individuals to bear arms, but the very right of self-defense itself.

Quoting from Breyer's McDonald dissent:

"[E]xamination of the Framers' motivation tells us they did not think the private armed self-defense right was of paramount importance...Further, there is no popular consensus that the private self-defense right described in Heller is fundamental."
- Justice Breyer (Ginburg & Sotomayor)

Breyer & friends continue with similar attacks on Heller v. D.C. and the right of self-defense throughout the dissent, concluding with the following thoughts:

"In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, 'fundamental.' No broader constitutional interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental. To the contrary, broader constitutional concerns of an institutional nature argue strongly against that treatment."

Make no mistake, denying the substantive right to self defense is as underhanded an attack on people's security and independence as is possible. Humans are the tool makers; culture and firearms--especially hand guns--are the primary tools used in protecting our our persons. Denying the right of self defense as these justices have, is akin to denying our humanity. But given Breyer's appalling lack of historical knowledge, his poor grasp of anthropology isn't surprising.

Regarding history and the "Founders" and whether They thought the right to self-defense was "fundamental," there are many examples that easily prove Breyer is uninformed. I'll leave you with two, one from Thomas Jefferson (lately written out of history by the right-wing in Texas) and another from the "Founder's Founder," Roger Sherman, the only person to sign the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution:

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made."
- Roger Sherman

'Nuf said--Breyer, stop making stuff up.

Despite the McDonald victory, given what is at stake, a five-to-four margin seems a very slim. Given the lengths to which different justices of both right- and left-wing persuasion are willing to go to subvert our foundational document to their personal views, Congress needs--right now--to live up to its duty to demand frank responses to direct questions in the Kagan Supreme Court confirmation, and in all other cases where they advise and consent to whom is seated on the Supreme Court.

BATFE Revises Policies Regarding Firearms Transfers

2010-06-06T12:55:00.000-07:00

I know that we often aren't so keen on the NRA, but I must admit that I do retain a membership. The NRA has done very important work in the past, and they continue to send informative "alerts" to current members regarding firearms-related legislation and rules. I recently received one of these "alerts" regarding the BATFE revising policies regarding firearms transfers. I have copy and pasted it below for your perusal. While this new policy seems like it will only affect people such as gun writers, my fear is two fold:

One, it may be open to interpretation and therefore start to effect other private citizens such as you and I.

Two, it is likely to reflect poorly upon the Democratic Party.

Read through the "alert" below (taken from the NRA's website) and let us know how you feel about about it.

BATFE Revises Policies on Firearms "Transfers"

Thursday, June 03, 2010

In a recent ruling regarding the “transfer” of firearms, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATFE) has reversed policies that have been in place for more than 40 years.

In the ruling, BATFE declared that a temporary shipment of a firearm by a federal firearms licensee to a non-employee for business reasons (such as a manufacturer's shipment to a gun writer or engineering consultant for a technical evaluation), will now be considered a “transfer” and require completion of a Form 4473 and background check.

This reverses a ruling issued in 1969, right after the passage of the Gun Control Act, although BATFE provided no explanation of the need for the change. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, BATFE hasn’t been able to name a single case in which a gun temporarily shipped under the old rule has been used in crime.

The short-term impact may be limited, because many major manufacturers already require firearms sent to non-employees to go through the transfer process. But manufacturers who didn’t follow that practice will now have to ship guns to licensed dealers to complete these “transfers.”

Furthermore, the ruling only applies to temporary shipments by federal firearms licensees to carry out those licensees' business operations. Given that limitation, the new ruling won't affect private individuals who ship guns to themselves when traveling to shoot or hunt, or who ship firearms to a manufacturer or gunsmith for repair or customization.

However, this new ruling may have broader implications for future issues. For example, some have suggested that although the ruling doesn’t relate directly to rental of guns for use on commercial shooting ranges, its reasoning might require rentals to be treated as “transfers” subject to recordkeeping and background check requirements.

Please rest assured that NRA-ILA is seeking clarification of the scope of this new ruling. If necessary, we will consider appropriate action to reverse any adverse impact on law-abiding gun owners.

We need to increase our membership!

2010-05-27T07:18:00.000-07:00

I recently received an email from the DPO about the Castillo / Maurer race for Superintendent of Public Education. The email stated that the election is close and that anyone who is notified that the signature on their ballot was rejected should get it taken care of immediately, so that every vote is counted. That part of the email was fine, but this statement really frustrated me:

"And this election counts … keep in mind that Ron Maurer, Susan Castillo's opponent, supports handguns in public schools & opposed the Healthy Kids Plan. If he wins, it will turn back the clock on public education in the State of Oregon."

I am not taking a public position on this race, but I am taking issue with the use of the "gun issue" as a scare tactic by a representative of the DPO. I, and several others, sent a reply to that email pointing out that alienating gun owners by statements like this will not benefit the Party.

I am frustrated, but not ready to leave the DPO. It took a lot of thought, though, after seeing that email message. This is my solution: WE NEED TO GROW THE GOC! We currently have 118 GOC members in 28 counties. We need to be in all 37 counties and we need a membership that demonstrates to the DPO that gun owners and Second Amendment supporters are active voting members of this Party and that they need to respect us. We know we exist in large numbers, but the DPO doesn't. We need to come together so we can flex our muscles in the Party.

I am sure you have friends that are either Independents because of the "gun issue" or Democrats who support gun rights, but don't necessarily own a gun. We need to each actively contact our friends and discuss the Second Amendment with them. If they say they support it, encourage them to join the GOC. If they are Independents point out to them that the general election ballot will give them the same choices if they are a Democrat as it does as an Independent, and by becoming a Democrat and a member of the GOC they will help us change the landscape of Oregon politics with respect to guns.

We also need volunteers to be Local Chapter Representatives, so we can organize events locally and grow our membership. If you are interested in becoming a County LCR for the GOC, please let us know here.

Here are some tools to help you recruit friends:

Here is the Democratic Party of Oregon's official position on the Second Amendment: 2005-008.
Voter Registration changes or new registrations can be done online.
Here is information about the GOC.
New members can join here.
Order a GOC hat and wear it to the range to help us advertise.

We are the second largest DPO Caucus, and I can tell you that the largest Caucus gets more respect than we do. The difference in our numbers is significant (118 v. 3,500), but there were 37,126 Democrats in Oregon with hunting licenses in 2008 (the last numbers I have access to). Hunters are only a portion of the gun owners and Second Amendment supporting Democrats in this state. We just need to get the word out.

The best and easiest place to start recruiting members is in your home. Does your wife or husband support the Second Amendment? How about your other relatives? How about the guys you hunt or shoot with? Get them to sign up and check the box "I'm interested in joining this caucus". They can choose if they want to receive the newsletter or not.

Please join me in growing our Caucus, so we will have the impact that I think all of us would really like to see.

New Gun Owners Caucus Hats Available

2010-05-07T10:57:00.000-07:00

An email will be going out today to all GOC Members, with information on how to order a GOC hat. For now, you can see what they look like here. I am not posting the information on how to order in the blog, because it will include Jay's contact information.

The hats will cost $10 + $5 shipping. This is not a Democratic Party Fundraiser. This will just cover the cost of the hat and shipping. If Jay has any money left over after covering costs, he will make a donation in that amount to the DPO.

If you want to receive information about how to order your own GOC shooting hat, be sure you are an official member of the Democratic Party of Oregon's Gun Owners Caucus: Join Here.

Thanks to Jay Sexton for taking the initiative to have these hats made!

A Great Change in the Executive Committee

2010-04-29T10:18:00.000-07:00

I just want to inform everyone that we (the Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon) have a new Treasurer. This is great news as I was formerly the Treasurer, and have been trying bestow that title onto someone else for quite some time now.

Our new Treasurer is Jay Sexton. Jay is one of the more active members of the GOC, and is an excellent fit in the Treasurer role. He is also a very welcome addition to the Executive Committee of the GOC. He has a vast knowledge regarding the political process (which I do not), and is highly motivated.

Besides graciously accepting the position of Treasurer, Jay also took on the responsibility of arranging for new GOC hats to be made. All of the arrangements regarding the hats are in order, and we will let you all know how to order them as soon as we work out all of the details.

With the addition of Jay, I feel like we have an even stronger team in the GOC. This addition is very exciting.

Hypervigilant law enforcement want the public disarmed: Man cited for open carry even though it's legal

2010-03-23T07:29:00.000-07:00

A Vancouver man was cited recently for openly carrying a handgun in a grocery store even though it's legal to do so. [Click here to read full article.] Many in the public, including many gun owners who carry concealed firearms every day, do not support our centuries old open carry laws. Portland Democratic Senator Ginny Burdick is particularly hostile to our gun rights and has recently spoken out against the right to open carry.

Remind your friends and representatives that the Second Amendment is not our "right to keep and bear sporting goods." It's our right to keep and bear arms. This is based on our inherent and natural right to be free from oppression and our natural right of self defense. A gun is worthless in self defense when it's not easily accessible. Some people find a firearm more accessible when it's not concealed. That's their business and their choice -- a choice that free men are permitted to make in a free society without government intervention.

Which brings us to the primary reason for the Second Amendment: to be free from oppression. It is often said that the Second Amendment is there to protect the other nine. Governments in modern times have enslaved people and committed acts of genocide AFTER DISARMING THE PUBLIC. This can't happen to us, right? "This is America," you might say. You are correct. It can't happen to us, because James Madison and the gang contitutionally guaranteed that our government can't do what others have done.

It is amazing how quickly we forget the gun control laws of the Soviet Union, Nationalist China, Nazi Germany, Communist China and the Khmer Rouge that preceded their killing of more than 60 million people. And that still leaves us to ponder the gun control legislation that preceded the death of the one million Armenians at the hands of Ottoman Turkey, or the indigenous peoples and other political enemies killed at the hands of Guatemala or genocide at the hands of government in Rwanda and Uganda. Our Founding Fathers knew the threat of a government to its people, hence the Second Amendment. History has unfortunately reaffirmed this lesson again and again.

History proves that a government's oppression of its people always begins with disarming the public and hypervigilant law enforcement enforcing those laws. Educate your friends and neighbors of this or we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of others.

C. Michael Arnold,
Attorney at Law
Arnold Law Office, LLC
Family Law, Personal Injury, & Criminal Defense Attorneys
Eugene, Oregon, USA

News from the Quarterly GOC Meeting

2010-03-11T15:03:00.000-08:00

The first GOC quarterly meeting for 2010 was recently held at the SCC meeting in Hood River. Overall it was a very productive meeting. I would just like to share a few key points that were discussed/decided at the meeting.

First off, we had a quick election for both Chair and Vice Chair positions. This is because I was temporarily filling in as Chair because our former Chair resigned his position. I was previously the Vice Chair, which left a vacancy in that position. I temporarily appointed Ed Ebbs to be Vice Chair until we could have an election for both positions. After the election, I (Brian Reichhoff) am still the Chair, and Ed is still the Vice Chair. With those little details out of the way, it was time to move on to the real business.

Once again, the topic of local chapters of the GOC was discussed. We talked about changing the language of our bylaws to allow for local chapters. There was previously mention of the posibility of future local chapters in the bylaws, but we all decided on new language since it was unanimously agreed that local chapters would be beneficial to the caucus. The executive committee is currently in the proccess of making these changes. Local chapters will be based on a county level. A local chapter will consist of two or more members, and a representitive will be appointed by each chapter. That representative will report all activity of their chapter to the Executive Comittee of the GOC one week before each quarterly GOC meeting. Each local chapter representative will then have a seat on the Executive Comittee.

We also discussed GOC hats, and formulated a plan to make them happen. We decided on logo, font, color, material, etc., and have a place lined up to do the work. Along with the hats, we are also looking in to bumber stickers, and business cards. We will keep you all posted about the progress of these projects.

I put the bug in everyone's ear to start thinking about the next GOC group shooting event. A few ideas were thrown out there, but nothing has been solidified. If anyone has any ideas, please comment. The group shoots are a great way to build comradery, and also introduce new shooters to our hobby. It is also always fun to get a few politicians out there shooting with us. Please give the shoot some thought and let me know if there are any ideas.

As I stated earlier, the meeting was quite productive, and there was a decent turn out. Thank you to all of those who attended. Everyone had great insight and all were very helpful guiding me through my many fumbles while leading my first GOC meeting as Chair. We have a great group and I am very excited about the future of the GOC!

Some Gun Owners Caucus business

2010-02-28T19:12:00.000-08:00

I have a brief bit of GOC business I want to share:

First Quarter 2010 Gun Owner’s Caucus Meeting

On Sunday March 7^th 10:30am -12:00pm
At the Columbia Gorge Hotel in Hood River Oregon
This is the site of the State Central Committee Meeting this quarter. More info can be found here: http://www.oregondemocrats.org/scc
Please join us. An agenda was just sent out in email.
You must be a registered Democrat and a GOC Member to vote at the meeting, but everyone is welcome.

The GOC online signup form is fixed. If you had trouble accessing the form previously, please try again: http://www.oregondemocrats.org/node/1529. The form was coming up blank for Internet Explorer 7.0 users, but that has been corrected.

The deadline to file to become a PCP is March 9^th.

In order to have any influence in the Democratic Party of Oregon a person needs to become a PCP and get active locally.
What is a PCP? http://www.oregondemocrats.org/PCPs
Contact your local party first to let them know you are interested in being a PCP. They may even appoint you immediately, but you need to file to be on the ballot, too. It is especially important to contact the party first if you live in or around Portland, because more people run for these positions there. Here's the contact information for the County Parties: http://www.oregondemocrats.org/local_democrats
PCP Candidate Form: http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/publications/pdf/forms/SEL105.pdf
Mail form to your county elections office: http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/other.info/clerk.htm

Now back to regular Blog posts!

Gratuitous Paraphernalia - Share Your Gun Bling

2010-02-12T07:22:00.001-08:00

I don't hoard of lot of gun culture "bling" but now and then I find something that I like too much to pass up:

This hat button is from Bob Zimmer; Blue Steel Democrat, caucus member, former Multnomah Co. sheriff, one-time gunshot victim (no permanent damage, thankfully), and ardent 2nd Amendment supporter. Bob believes these buttons were promos given out in the early 70s.

Be assured, Bob, it's worn with pride.

Anybody else got some favorite bling to share? Post it in the comments.

-Z.

Vast Left Wing Conspiracy to promote the Second Amendment

2010-02-08T06:36:00.000-08:00

Guest Column by "KVoimakas," founder of RKBA on Daily Kos:
--------------------------

There is a new pro-2A group on DKos. We're dedicated to informing and educating any liberals on the political hazards of gun control and the history of the Second Amendment. We cover serious discussion, ranging from the Heller court case and the intent of the founding fathers to lighter conversation about what each individual members owns.

For those who don't know, DailyKos.com is a Democratic, partisan blog. The founder of Daily Kos (kos himself) is Markos Moulitsas. He had this to say in early 2010 about his website:

"Daily Kos will be what Daily Kos is, and that oftentimes evolves. I know everyone wants their clearly defined rules, but nothing is that simple. This site is CERTAINLY NOT for all Democrats. Joe Lieberman learned that. Blanche Lincoln is about to learn it. This site is about more and better Democrats, not necessarily in that order."

Gun rights are not a right wing issue. Gun rights are an American citizen's issue. More gun control equals lost elections for the Democrats. Look back at '94 after the "assault weapons ban" (what a joke for the name, by the way) was passed. Clinton himself said that the NRA could be given credit for the Republican takeover of Congress. (What good could Clinton have done with a liberal/progressive Congress? I would think it'd be a lot better than what the Republican Congress ended up doing.)

Our mission statement is as follows:

"RKBA is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who also have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our Second Amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing in some instances) Moderate or extreme, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections. We don't want a repeat of 1994.

We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you.

RKBA stands for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms."

Daily Kos RKBA look forward to greeting any newcomers. If you'd like to join the RKBA mailing list, please email us at dkos.rkba at gmail.com with your DKos username and if you'd like to be added to the private email list (BCC) or the public (TO) email list.

Welcome to the conversation!

-KVoimakas

Tell Oregon GOP To Keep Violence Out of Political Ads

2010-01-29T06:11:00.000-08:00

I don't really care what the intent of the Washington County GOP was when they posted the image below showing a red figure shooting a blue figure in the head. Whatever they meant to say, they said it the wrong way.

Violent imagery has real-life consequences and if political parties want to work within our legal and Constitutional framework, they need to behave like responsible and LOYAL opposition, not wild-eyed maniacs. In the past year, a state Democratic party leader has been murdered by an assassin, ranting partisans have come to presidential rallies carrying loaded firearms, doctors have been murdered, and so on, all of it partially driven by overheated partisan rhetoric. Images matter. Rhetoric matters. Stop yelling "fire" in a crowded senate chamber!

Civility is the basis of civilization, guys, not stuff like this:

Tone....it....down. Way down.

Read the whole story, You stay classy, WaCoGop, at Blue Oregon.

Cato Institute Accuses NRA of Endangering Chicago Gun Rights Case

2010-01-27T06:46:00.000-08:00

In a move that may actually end up compromising this landmark gun rights case, the NRA has succeeded in taking away 1/3 of the argument time in McDonald v. Chicago from Alan Gura, the lawyer who successfully argued Heller v. D.C* and who is the primary lawyer for McDonald v. Chicago, a case that could potentially extend the Heller decision to cover all local governments.

Ilya Shapiro of The Cato Institute, certainly no liberal outpost, takes the NRA to task for this reckless, unprofessional move:

NRA Cares More about NRA Than Gun Rights, Liberty, Professional Courtesy

"If the NRA were concerned about the final outcome of the case, it would be unlikely to attack Alan’s [primary lawyer in Heller] strategy or question his preparation (an odd way to be “helpful” to one’s side). It is not a stretch to predict that this case will be favorably decided at least in part on due process grounds, however, so what we are seeing here is likely an attempt by the NRA to position itself as responsible for such a victory – and that Alan isn’t. Utimately, then, the NRA is engaging here in fundraising, not liberty-promotion or ethical lawyering."

Shapiro makes a good argument that the NRA needs to sit down and shut up. Let's hope the NRA's grandstanding isn't fatal to Gura's arguments.

Read the whole article, here.

-----
Footnote:
* The 2008 Heller decision marked the first time the Supreme Court ruled that states and other local juridictions may not ban ownership of firearms, including pistols, by private citizens for use in their homes. Many places, such as Chicago, still do this and the McDonald v. Chicago case, to be argued in the Supreme Court in March, has the potential to force cities to stop abridging 2nd Amendment rights, most likely by invoking 14th Amendment protections.

Changes in the Gun Owners Caucus

2010-01-13T10:40:00.000-08:00

Hello all. I just wanted to keep you all informed about the changes that are occurring within the Gun Owners Caucus. Recently our Chair, Chuck Butcher stepped down which some of you may or may not know. Chuck and our previous Chair, Zak Johnson are the co founders of the Gun Owners Caucus. After recently being elected Vice Chair (and still treasurer), I (Brian Reichhoff) stepped into the role of Chair when Chuck stepped down. This left us in a bit of a conundrum as we no longer had a Vice Chair.

As acting Chair of the GOC it falls within my power to appoint a Vice Chair. I spoke with our Secretary (Jodi Russell) and asked for her invaluable input as to who might make an effective Vice Chair. In the process I offered her the position which she graciously declined. Jodi offered a couple of names and lo and behold, one of them was someone that I too had in mind. The name that we both came up with is Ed Ebbs. Ed has a good background in politics (unlike myself) and would be a valuable asset.

To make a long story short, I contacted Ed to get his thoughts on the matter. Ed's response was that he "would be happy to help out wherever needed." I offered Ed the position of Vice Chair and he graciously accepted. So the current Executive officers of the Gun Owners Caucus are as follows:

Chair: Brian Reichhoff
Vice Chair: Ed Ebbs
Secretary: Jodi Russell
Treasurer: Brian Reichhoff

Keep in mind that these positions may be temporary as we will need to hold an election at the next GOC meeting. The meeting date is currently unknown, but GOC members will be notified of time date and location via email.

Slaves, Guns and Mind Control in Colonial America

2010-01-09T12:53:00.000-08:00

Archaeology is challenging the belief that American slaves were controlled by denying them weapons, including guns. Recent work by historical archaeologists like Ywone Edward-Ingram and Marley Brown reveals that not only were slaves armed, their owners armed them intentionally:

Says Brown:

"Providing guns to slaves was also, quite literally, against the law of the day. But it turns out that the practice of giving firearms to slaves so that they could hunt was widespread."

This makes sense: picking cotton, cutting indigo or planting rice is hard work that requires a lot of calories. Even if you don't have to pay your laborers, you still have to feed them. This is easier and cheaper if you let them feed themselves.

But why on earth would armed slaves allow themselves and their loved ones to be degraded and abused, sold and separated? Brown provides the answer:

"The risk of an armed resistance had already been substantially reduced by a complex set of emotional and psychological relationships as well as by the threat of actual physical restraint and punishment. Thus, the recovery of gun parts at slave quarters in the 1970s, surprising as it seemed then, made sense in terms of the larger complex of slave-master relations, and particularly the well-established techniques used by slaveholders to maintain control over their slaves."

This should make clear to contemporary 2nd Amendment advocates that the means to keep your freedoms are useless without the will to keep them. Look at the typical gun owner talking about defending freedom and compare that with the cowering acquiesce with which Americans have accepted warrantless wiretaps and evasion of court oversight, suspension of habeas corpus, secret detentions, torture and the pervasive lie that challenging the executive's decisions during war time is somehow treasonous. If daily updated terror-level color charts and pointless "security theater" by airport TSA drones aren't part of a "complex set of emotional and psychological relationships" designed to subdue the population, I don't know what to call them. I can't help but shake my head at the disconnect between rhetoric and action in our "home of the brave."

As Bob Marley said, "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds."

Obama's the most pro-gun presidency in recent history

2010-01-07T14:12:00.001-08:00

Examining the record instead of the rhetoric, outdoor writer "Wild" Bill Schneider recommends the NRA erect a monument to Barack Obama on their front lawn:

"Obama, with help from his fellow Dems throughout the country, has done more for firearm owners than any President in recent history, including vocally pro-gun Republicans."

Check the record:

Applying state concealed carry laws to National Parks? Done.
Allow guns on Amtrak? Done.
Support state law for carrying openly at political rallies? Done as well.

Will the NRA's anti-Obama hyperbole and fear-mongering (which is fund-raising in disguise) subside? Probably not. But hopefully if Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor joins the majority in favor of incorporating the 2nd Amendment to the states in McDonald v. Chicago when that is argued March 2, 2010, the NRA will at least start rethinking its current strategy of acting as a surrogate for the GOP.

NBA and Random Metal Detectors

2010-01-06T05:36:00.000-08:00

On the news last night and this morning it was briefly mentioned that the NBA has decided to institute walk-through metal detectors at random times during basketball games. This means that the Rose Garden will have these walk-through detectors during occasional Trail Blazer games. This very well may prove to be a hassle for CHL holders like myself (although I attend very few Blazer games). One will not know if the detectors are in place until one reaches the door. Therefore, a CHL holder must decide to either leave the gun at home (not a good choice in my eyes), leave the gun in the vehicle (which could result in theft), or chance it and walk up to the doors with the gun on one's person. The NBA says this is a measure to keep players, and spectators safe. I think it sucks. What do you all think?

Would ending prohibition protect gun rights?

2010-01-05T10:36:00.000-08:00

Please vote (at the right) and comment on our member poll:

"Would ending prohibition protect gun rights?"

What's your opinion? Please explain your reasoning.

More Lies from Mayors Against Illegal Guns

2009-12-31T07:28:00.000-08:00

A recent Freedom of Information Act request by a California attorney (Eric Flagel, with Michel & Associates; Long Beach ) has obtained the Mayors Against Illegal Guns "Blueprint for Federal Action" via the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. In reading the document (forwarded by our good friends at Amendment II Democrats), I don't think there's any illusion left, if there ever was, that the MAIG agenda has any intention other than to completely disenfranchise Americans from their 2nd Amendment rights.

Politically, the most ominous & disturbing recommendation in the report is "Recommendation #38" (pg 34) that calls for an executive order to create a ban on the import of all "non-sporting purposes" firearms. Throughout the document, MAIG pretends such an order would merely enforce existing law, though clearly that is not the case. Hopefully President Obama will live up to his campaign promises not to take away firearms as MAIG brings increasing pressure to bear on him. (Letters from pro-2nd Amendment Democrats would be especially helpful now!)

I don't know where the fanaticism and extremism of MAIG's position stems from, but it's worth reviewing the document, which makes it clear MAIG does not act in good faith and deserves no cooperation or consideration as a legitimate source of information or policy recommendations. Hopefully, pro-gun activists and others who support laws and policies based on both the Constitution and on facts will contact their senators and representatives to ensure they get accurate information. (Hint, hint.)

Some excerpts:
"The Blueprint for For Federal Action on Illegal Guns" (Dated August, 2009)

pg 9. "...The events at Virginia Tech demonstrated the potential for catastrophe when mentally ill people gain access to guns..."

Fact: The events at VT happened in part because a psychiatrist illegally took the young man's records HOME where they were not available for years to other mental health experts. Nothing proposed or in current law would have prevented the purchase of firearms that took place. Prosecution of the doctor is, of course, not included in the MAIG manifesto.

pg 13. Proposes keeping records for 20 years for proceed sales to anyone on the "terror watch list."

Fact: The terror watch list violates 5th amendment protections of due process and further is rife with sloppiness and errors that include putting children on the list. Other sections in the manifesto would require prosecution for anyone banned from a firearm purchase who tries to buy a firearm, which seems to include simply being on a list.

This is downright Orwellian or Kafkaesque: you don't know you're on a list you shouldn't be on and no one will tell you if you're on and then you get prosecuted for violating a law that prohibits you from doing something you had no way of knowing you were prohibited from doing. WTF?

pg 19. MAIG data repeats the demonstrably false statement that "90%" of illegal firearms in Mexico come from the U.S.

This claim more than anything shows the willingness of MAIG to use data they cannot but know is wrong & in this case, an outright lie. Claims like this make it impossible to accept ANY of MAIG's data without reviewing the original sources. In short, they have no credibility.

To expose the lie behind the "Myth of 90%" please see the excellent LA Times article from March 15, 2009: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,229992.story

From the LA Times: "Traffickers have escalated their arms race, acquiring military-grade weapons, including hand grenades, grenade launchers, armor-piercing munitions and antitank rockets with firepower far beyond the assault rifles and pistols that have dominated their arsenals...Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semiauto- matic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California."

Enough said on that?

pg 23. One of the problems that comes out in the MAIG manifesto is a lack of proper focus.

MAIG is going after dealers when even in their own report they cite that one of the largest sources of guns used in crime is theft from private homes. Their proposal to require FFLs to report thefts of firearms is ludicrous, since an FFL would always report a theft of property, especially guns unless they were engaged in subterfuge that the ATF is already well equipped to look for and catch. Such language makes one wonder what the true aim is.

Data directly following pg 23 implies dealer resistance and subterfuge in avoiding ATF requests is common among FFLs, again, without citing any data showing that to be the case. In this section, the insidiousness of the tone is hostile to gun owners & gun dealers without even realizing it--clearly this manifesto is intended for a presumed "friendly audience." Similar attempts throughout the report to link gun dealers with child pornography rings also show MAIG's actual contempt for gun owners & the general public.

pg 33. MAIG calls for research into the sources of guns used in crime.

This is a telling section that shows their complete ignorance on this subject. In short, this exposes that they are proposing solutions without having any knowledge of the problem & that they have not even availed themselves to the available data, probably because it is at odds with their proposals. There is already a good deal of information on the true sources of illegal guns in both the U.S. and Mexcio, but reading it or referencing it would require MAIG to expose the worthlessness of most of their proposals.

pg 34. BAN ON THE IMPORTATION OF NON-SPORTING PURPOSES FIREARMS

MAIG's Recommendation #38: "The federal government should resume enforcement of federal law that bans importing "non-sporting purpose" firearms and ammunition."

First off, there currently is no such law. MAIG is calling for an executive order from the president to get this ban re-enacted.

Secondly, this call for a ban comes after the section admitting they don't have information on the sources or types of guns used in crimes.

Third, the MAIG report claims that crime in Mexico justifies a new ban, which is based on the myth of 90%.

Fourth, and most misleading, the MAIG report at this point claims that many firearms are illegally imported into the U.S. by dealers who then sell them into Mexico. As evidence of the illegal imports, MAIG claims to reference a GOA report (citation 104), but the actual citation is to a "Violence Policy Center" publication that misquotes the GOA report: http://www.vpc.org/studies/indicted.pdf

In fact, even this hand-picked VPC report includes NO INFORMATION on illegal imports of firearms into the U.S. The same report does, however, include odd references to "armor piercing pistols" that show the authors are either ignorant or intentionally misleading their presumed audience. It also erroneously claims that the "assault weapons ban" is still in effect but simply not enforced, which is inaccurate (putting it generously), and then repeats the call to "enforce the existing ban." This bit of sophistry pretty much condemns the whole report to the dust bin for me.

pg 34. At the risk of undermining their own exaggerated claims about semi-automatic pistols and rifles, MAIG on this page vilifies 12 gauge shotguns as their next target.

So, if you were looking for some fiction reading for the long weekend, this report is it. If you're looking to start a conversation in good faith about building safe communities in America, look elsewhere.

Viva la Revolution!

2009-12-27T12:45:00.000-08:00

As the world sits on the sidelines, Iranians take to the streets to demand the freedoms so many take for granted:

"Iranian security forces fired on stone-throwing protesters in the center of the capital Sunday in one of the bloodiest confrontations in months, opposition Web sites and witnesses said. At least five people were killed.
Some accounts of the violence in Tehran were vivid and detailed, but they could not be independently confirmed because of government restrictions on media coverage . . . "

Stay tuned. And remember the real purpose behind our own 2nd Amendment.

#iranelection

U.S. Senator Inhofe, Uganda, Gay Genocide and the Second Amendment

2009-12-14T08:01:00.000-08:00

“Close your eyes, it can’t happen here…” (California Uber Alles, Dead Kennedys)

Genocide is the boomerang crime: as hard as we try to throw it away, it just keeps coming back.

Anyone who thinks the Second Amendment is a frontier anachronism best swept under the rug or apologized for at smart cocktail parties need look no further than recent actions by elected U.S. senators and congressmen to see why the Second Amendment is now and always will remain relevant for the defense of life and liberty:

In his recent book “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power," journalist Jeff Sharlet exposed ties between “The Family,” a lobbying organization disguised as a prayer support group, and currently elected members of Congress. He went further and also showed links between The Family and new legislation in Uganda that would make homosexual behavior a crime punishable by death.

In short, the Ugandan law is nothing short of genocide, a genocide backed and enabled by The Family and those members of Congress who belong to it.

According to The Raw Story:

“Sharlet reveals that David Bahati, the Uganda legislator backing the bill, reportedly first floated the idea of executing gays during The Family's Uganda National Prayer Breakfast in 2008.”

Worse, U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) appears to have been there in person when the plans for genocide were hatched—at a "prayer breakfast," no less.

Rachel Maddow’s December 9th interview (embedded below) with James Sharlet details the strong ties between the U.S.-based Family, the Ugandan branch of The Family, and the kill-the-gays legislation. As Maddow implies, even for members of The Family (and Congress!) not actively supporting this, silence implies more than consent:

“We have talked to the offices of a number of elected officials, conservative politicians here in the U.S. associated with The Family, and while a number of them have told us they’re against this bill none has said they will do anything publicly to stop it,” says Maddow.

In addition to Inhofe’s involvement, some members of Congress apparently live at reduced rent rates or free in The Family’s compound in D.C. It's impossible to see how you could live rent-free with an organization and then claim not to be supporting its goals, or to claim you aren't in any way responsible for its actions. Members of The Family are NOT restricted to far right Republicans—Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) has lived in the shadowy group’s house for seven years.

Despite the The Family’s links to genocide in Uganda, at this writing President Obama himself is scheduled to speak before The Family’s National Prayer Breakfast in February 2010. Such is the influence of money and power in Washington that the president himself—an alleged friend of gays and gay rights—will be speaking before a group actively engaged in rounding them up and murdering them in plain view of the world.

Which brings us to the Second Amendment. If you think Senator Inhofe and other elected American leaders working for genocide in African wouldn’t do the same thing in America if they could, you are deluded. If you think Americans couldn’t be cowed into going along, or turning a blind eye, the lessons of history—even in our own country—strongly indicate otherwise.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting; it’s not really even about protecting yourself from burglars or assault. The Second Amendment is about never having to worry about the midnight knock at the door when they come for you, your loved ones or your neighbors. It’s best we remember that, especially when we see our elected officials working to create death camps right before our eyes.

Molon Labe.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

P.S. Uganda established gun control in 1970, one year before the reign of terror began under Idi Amin.

Cheap Shots for 2009

2009-12-09T13:42:00.000-08:00

Daniel Barnett over at Amendment II Democrats offers his "Cheap Shots for 2009," the best & worst (mostly worst) in gun rights and gun grabbing efforts for this nearly over Year of Our Lord, two thousand and nine.

A sample:

The "Things That Could Have Been Brought To My Attention YESTERDAY" Award
Dr. Robert C. Miller, Former Director of Cook Counseling Center at Virginia Tech

Seung-hui Cho's deadly 2007 rampage at Virginia Tech could have been prevented - not by new and restrictive gun laws, but by consulting Cho's mental health records when he sought to purchase his guns. But the records that could have prevented a massacre remained in the home of Dr. Miller and were never shared with the proper authorities, so they never came up in Cho's background check. And even after the shootings, it took more than two years for those records to see the light of day. The system broke down, and the students at Virginia Tech paid dearly for what appears to be Dr. Miller's pallid incompetence.

Enjoy!

America's Pointless Gun Fight

2009-12-08T19:02:00.000-08:00

Long-time gun rights activist Richard Feldman tells it like it is in today's LA Times. The former NRA regional director and author of "Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist" blames both the anti-gun rhetoric of the extreme left and the anti-government rhetoric of the extreme right for hiding the reality of a broad consensus on gun rights in America.

Polls show the majority of Americans favor gun policy that is pro-civil rights, pro-security, and pro-keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, kids and the insane. It's the two screaming fringes that make it hard to hear ourselves think.

Says Feldman:

The "crazy" thing about the gun debate in America is how misguided and off-base both sides of the issue are. An example from one side is The Times' Dec. 1 editorial on the Washington state police officer shootings, "Crazy about guns"; from the other side, we have almost any fundraising appeal over the last year from the National Rifle Assn. Both sides offer little compromise on this issue, making the gun debate one of extremes. Our leaders ignore the important truths needed to formulate and articulate policy proposals that address the reality of life in America in a constructive and collaborative way.

Hard to disagree. Read the rest of the article, here: America's Pointless Gun Fight.

GUN LOBBY MOBILIZES AGAINST HEALTH REFORM

2009-11-29T00:32:00.000-08:00

RADICAL RIGHT -- GUN LOBBY MOBILIZES AGAINST HEALTH REFORM BY CLAIMING OBAMA WILL ISSUE A 'NO GUNS' DECREE:

On Friday, Gun Owners of America sent out an action alert to its 300,000 members warning that the Senate health care bill "would mandate that doctors provide 'gun-related health data' to 'a government database,' including information on mental-health issues detected in patients, which could jeopardize their ability to obtain a firearms license." The alert also claimed that the "wellness and prevention" provisions in the health care bill would allow the Obama administration to issue a "no guns" decree.

The so-called "gun-related health data" is actually anonymous statistical information to help researchers develop health programs and initiatives that serve specific population groups or further the study of various conditions and medical needs. Section 2705 of the Senate health bill permits employers to vary insurance premiums by as much as 30 percent for employee participation in certain health promotion and disease prevention programs, but stipulates that the employer wellness program must be "based on an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health status factor." Gun ownership does not fall into this category.

This fear-mongering should be seen not only as a threat to health insurance reform, but as the continuation of a multimillion dollar effort launched by the gun lobby to portray Obama as "a threat to the Second Amendment rights." Prior to the election, the National Rifle Association (NRA) claimed of Obama, "[N]ever in NRA's history have we faced a presidential candidate...with such a deep-rooted hatred of firearm freedoms." Since the election, the NRA and other gun groups have continued to misinform voters about Obama's gun policy proposals, claiming that unrelated policies -- like the economic stimulus -- are part of a broader campaign to strip gun rights.

"I'm not going to take away your guns," Obama has repeatedly said. Nevertheless, sensing an opportunity to gain more members and fuel gun sales, the gun lobby insists on preying on people's fears by making up false claims.

Medford Teacher Loses Appeal to Have Firearm in Classroom

2009-11-19T07:30:00.000-08:00

The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the Medford School District has the right to have a policy preventing teachers from possessing firearms on campus. The central issue was the state law which gives the state legislature exclusive authority to restrict the right to carry firearms. In particular the state law prohibits local governments from passing civil or criminal ordinances regulating firearms. The Court of Appeals held that the school district's policy was not an ordinance and thus not subject to the state preemption. It is a detailed opinion based on the meaning of the state statute and the legislature's intent. Read it for yourself here and beware of media summaries.

Mike Arnold,
Attorney at Law
Eugene, Oregon
Visit Arnold Law Office on Facebook

Beretta 92fs I like it!!!!!!

2009-11-04T12:33:00.000-08:00

The Beretta 92fs is a handgun that people seem to feel passionately about. Many love it, and many loath it. This model is a traditional double action pistol that is meant to be carried uncocked with the first shot being double action, and the remaining shots being single action. It is a rather large gun with a 4.9" barrel, steel slide, and large aluminum frame. If one does an online search (google, yahoo, etc.) on the Beretta 92fs, one will find many, many reviews, both positive and negative regarding this now classic platform. I have always been intrigued by this gun based on its gorgeous lines, but always found that my wants and/or needs took me in another direction. Well, I finally decided to purchase a used one a few months ago. I will share my thoughts about this popular handgun.

As I mentioned above, much info can be found online regarding Beretta's model 92fs. When one is reading reviews of this weapon, one will no doubt encounter horror stories regarding failing locking blocks in this particular model of pistol. Most of these reports seem to revolve around military use of this pistol (the 92fs replaced the model 1911 as the standard military sidearm around 1984 I think), and many are second hand stories about someone who knows someone who experienced a locking block failure. I'm not saying that these failures have not happened, but I'm almost certain that they do not happen nearly as often as some of the reviews would lead one to believe.

Another common complaint is that the 92fs (or M9 as it is called in the military) has reliability issues in the sandy desert environment of the Middle East. It seems that many of these issues are caused by poor quality after-market magazines that were purchased by the military (someone please correct me if I'm way off here). From what I have read, it seems that if one is using original Beretta magazines, or high quality magazines such as those made by Mec-gar, the problems tend to disappear (please realize that this info is based solely on info that I have read and not experienced for myself).

More often than not when researching this pistol, one will find that it is regarded as an extremely reliable and adequately accurate sidearm. It was these many reviews coupled with the elegant lines of the pistol that finally solidified my decision to purchase one after wanting to for years. After finding one that appeared in good condition for an excellent price on gunbroker.com, I submitted my bid and won the Beretta. After it arrived at my favorite FFL, I went to pick it up, and after BSing with my FFL holder for a bit, I took my new acquisition home.

The example that I bought is an older model that features a straight dustcover and all metal (steel I think) small parts. On most of the newer models the dust cover is now slightly angled, and many of the small parts such as the guide rod, trigger, hammer, etc. are now made of plastic (or at least coated in plastic). It seems from my internet research that most users/owners prefer the all steel small parts, and most people (myself included) prefer the look of the straight dust cover. My gun came with two 15 round magazines. It turned out that one was an original Beretta mag, and the other is a cheap after market unit.

The 92fs is a very large pistol for a somewhat small caliber such as 9mm. This is a common complaint about this model, and is a valid one as there really isn't any reason that a 9mm needs to be so bulky. At its widest point, this gun is over 1.5" wide. The frame is also very wide making the grip quite thick, which makes it somewhat difficult for those with small hands to get a good grip on it. I myself have pretty small hands, but I find the grip to be very comfortable indeed. The grip is big enough to make the trigger reach in double action a bit of a reach, but in single action it is very ergonomic for me. As such a large gun, there is considerable heft. The gun weighs in at 33.3oz. (specs can be found here: http://www.beretta.com/Pistols-Carbines/Defence/Full/92FS/index.aspx?m=82&f=2&id=795). For a gun this size, it is actually reasonably light weight considering how much more it would weigh if it had a steel frame instead of aluminum.

One of the things that enjoy most about the 92fs (besides the look of the gun) is the fit of the parts. For a gun in this price range, the parts seem to fit together and interface with each other very well. Racking the slide is joyous indeed. It is glass smooth and feels excellent. This gun points quite naturally for me, however, the sights could stand to be a bit bigger. My example came with the now almost standard 3 dot set up. The dots on mine are white, but on the stainless models I think they are usually red. I should mention that on the 92fs the front sight is integral with the slide, so it would definitely take some gunsmithing to change it. The rear sight is dovetailed in place. I have seen examples of these guns fitted with adjustable rear target sights. Another feature that I love about this gun is the ease of take down and the ease of cleaning.

The double action trigger pull on my example is very smooth. I don't own a trigger pull guage, but I would guess it to be right around 10lbs, but it is smoother than any other DA/SA pistol that I have owned. The single action pull is acceptable, but not as light as I would prefer. I would guess it to be around 6lbs. I am currently entertaining the idea of switching out my mainspring with what is commonly referred to as the Beretta "D" spring. This is the mainspring that is used in the double action only version of the Beretta 92. I have ready many accounts that switching this spring greatly reduces and smooths both the double action, and single action pulls when installed in the DA/SA version of the 92fs.

For being such a large gun, the 15+1 round capacity is not very impressive considering that many smaller, lighter guns hold more rounds. However, Mec-gar makes 18 round mags that fit flush like the original mags, and 20 rounders that have a slightly extended base pad. Mec-gar makes excellent mags, and supplies many manufacturers with OEM magazines. I will be purchasing at least one 18 rounder in the near future. Regarding the magazines; the original one that came with my gun works flawlessly, but the after market one often will not lock the slide to the rear after the last round has been fired. It does however seem to feed fine.

I have only put around 500 rounds through my 92fs thus far, but they have been very enjoyable rounds. This gun is really a pleasure to shoot. The small 9mm caliber, along with the guns heft and wide back strap really negates recoil. The gun returns to be on-target almost instantaneously. It is certainly not my most accurate handgun, but it is plenty accurate and has been 100% reliable so far (besides the crappy after market mag not locking the slide to the rear). I trust the reliability of this gun enough to use it at times as a concealed carry piece. It is a bit big for being ideal for concealed carry, but I pull it off pretty well in an IWB holster.

I am thinking about getting the gun refinished in the future. There are some wear marks since I purchased used, but it is in good condition especially for the $399 that I paid for it. If or when I do decide to get it refinished, I'm not sure if I will send it to Beretta for a factory finish or go a different route. I have always loved the look of the Inox models (Inox is Beretta speak for stainless steel), and therefore have thought about getting mine hard chromed. Hard chrome is an excellent and very attractive finish. It is one of the most wear-resistant finishes available. However, I'm not sure if the aluminum frame cam be hard chromed. Does anyone out there know if it can be done?

In conclusion, I HIGHLY recommend the Beretta 92fs to anyone looking for an excellent defensive/duty style 9mm. There are certainly other options out their that are better suited to concealed carry, but in a duty/range/home protection role the Beretta really shines. It would make an excellent addition to anyone's collection. It is up amongst my favorite handguns that I have owned. I often find myself admiring its classic, gorgeous lines every time I pull it out of the safe.

Fun neck wear for gun lovers!

2009-10-25T21:28:00.000-07:00

Hello all. I attended a wedding this weekend and as I was getting dressed up in my finest duds (something that I rarely do), I decided to wear a tie that my lovely wife got for me for our last anniversary. The black silk tie features an almost life-sized, silver image of a Colt 1873 SAA also known as the "Peacemaker." It occurred to me as I received the many "cool tie" comments, that some of you may be interested in something similar. I was just browsing the website, and saw that they now offer an AK47 tie as well. Here are some links to the two that I have mentioned:

http://cyberoptix.com/shoot.php

http://cyberoptix.com/ak47.php

Now I doubt that these ties were actually meant for gun enthusiasts such as ourselves, but hey, they sure do tickle my fancy. Just to be clear, I have no idea about this company's views on second amendment politics (or even if they have any), but I thought some of you may be interested in these ties for fun. They do seem to be very well made. I hope you all wear your firearms and fashion accessories in good health!

P.S. I also have a pair of "Pistol Pete" Adidas shoes that feature crossed Peacemakers on them.

GOC Chair Greeting

2009-10-02T19:57:00.000-07:00

My name is Chuck Butcher and I am the new DPO/Gun Owners Caucus Chair. Zak Johnson had been the GOC Chair from the formation of our organization which was an outgrowth of the DPO Resolution 2005-008 which I authored. I was a DPO sponsor and charter member of GOC though I have tried to stay in the background of the Caucus. I already have quite a few Party functions, I am a PCP, Baker County Chair, and Baker County SCC Delegate so I preferred to be helpful from a low profile. That's not how this went so I now will share my ideas regarding GOC.

The DPO/Gun Owners Caucus is one of the larger Party Caucuses but it is not nearly large enough. This is not about a competition with any other Party Caucus, it is about the process of convincing people that the Democratic Party is not a party of gun grabbers, it is in fact a Party which respects the 2nd Amendment. There are some politicians who wear "D" after their name and there are those who claim to be linked to the Party who are not. The GOC is an official part of the Democratic Party of Oregon which is an official part of DNC and Resolution 2005-008 is the official stance of the DPO. Number are politically impressive, and they are impressive to the media. I believe our first mission is to increase our numbers while making it clear that we are not the NRA or any other professional fundraising scare machine arm of the Republican Party.

It is extraordinarily easy to become a member of the GOC,the link is right here. While the GOC might occasionally do some fundraising or help with events, the most likely thing to be asked of a member is to recruit more members. In fact I am asking that now.

The rules around political fundraising within an organization like DPO are somewhat arcane and create difficulties in compliance. It is seldom in the interest of something like the GOC to try to raise funds for itself. While it is quite easy to comply while asking for contributions to DPO it also is not in our interest to pester our members. Many of us have at one time or the other been members of organizations like NRA and been endlessly pestered for money, we shouldn't go there.

Events like shoots whether for competition or fun are useful for our own bonding and as earned media tools. This is particularly true when politically visible people are involved in the activity. Visibility is a real goal and best achieved with a large number of members, that makes us interesting to media and to politicians. We have tools to reach voters and that is valuable to any politician.

I now have a pretty steep learning curve to utilize the tools and maintain communication with our membership. I'll do that and I'll ask you to reach out to your friends and acquaintances to join. You can reach me at cbutcherATbakervalleyDOTnet.

Thanks,
Chuck

News From the SCC Meeting

2009-09-22T08:31:00.000-07:00

Hello all. There is big news from Sunday's SCC meeting that was held in Salem on 9/2o/09. As you all know, Zak Johnson (our former Chair) moved to the East Coast recently. In Zak's absence, Chuck Butcher (our former Vice Chair) was acting as our Chair. Well, after an election held at the SCC meeting, I am pleased to announce that Chuck is now officially the Chair of the Gun Owners' Caucus of the DPO. This created one problem (perhaps more if you are Chuck :)). With our former Vice Chair moving in to the Chair position, we needed to elect a new Vice Chair.

After Chuck announced the fact that we indeed needed to elect a Vice Chair he graciously asked for nominations. After an uncomfortable silence, I slowly spoke up an asked a few questions about the responsibilities of the Vice Chair position. A few seconds later, I found myself being nominated. I am somewhat pleased, though terrified to announce that I, Brian Reichhoff (former Treasurer) am the new Vice Chair (and still Treasurer......I think). I hope that I am able to perform my duties, whatever they may be, and help keep the GOC going strong.

Another Awesome member of the GOC, Jodi Russell, has been acting as the caucus Secretary for the last couple of months. Even though there was not an official election held at the SCC meeting for this position, Jodi will continue to perform these duties. I am very thankful, and excited for this as Jodi has some great ideas and is willing to take on the big responsibility of this position.

After talking with Chuck and Jodi, we decided that organization should be a top priority of the caucus at this time. We are looking at creating some small focus groups, and/or committees to focus on certain aspects of gun ownership and responsibilities such as fund raising, making connections for events, recruiting new members and such. We have no idea what this will look like as of yet, and I am probably prematurely mentioning it as we have not discussed it in much length or detail, but if any of you are intersted in helping, please let us (Chuck, Jodi, or I) know.

In closing, I would like to thank Chuck Butcher for agreeing to be our fearless leader, and Jodi Russell for continuing at the Secretary position. I believe that with strong people like them, we will continue to grow and thrive as a caucus.

Hiking with a Concealed Firearm in Oregon: Legal or Not?

2009-09-09T19:44:00.000-07:00

Many Oregonians mistakenly believe that there is an exception for hiking on public lands with a concealed weapon. If you are hiking with a concealed firearm without a concealed handgun license, you'd better have current hunting tags, a shooting club card, or a fishing pole and be prepared to prove such at a jury trial.

The safer bet is to get a CHL, even if you never plan to carry on a day-to-day basis. Many Oregonians get a CHL just for transporting firearms or to be safe on a hiking trail.

ORS 166.250 is the statute that prohibits carrying a concealed firearm on your person or readily accessible within a vehicle. ORS 166.260 sets forth the exceptions:

(1) ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:
* * *
(h) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.
* * *
(2) [Except for convicted felons], ORS 166.250 does not apply to or affect:
(a) Members of any club or organization, for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets upon the established target ranges, whether public or private, while such members are using any of the firearms referred to in ORS 166.250 upon such target ranges, or while going to and from such ranges.
(b) Licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from a hunting or fishing expedition.

Mike Arnold,
Attorney at Law
Arnold Law Office, LLC
Eugene, Oregon

Portland Gun Club - New Shooter Day Photos

2009-08-15T20:04:00.000-07:00

The Portland Gun Club played host today to a joint "New Shooter Day" put on by the Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon and the African American Hunting Association (AAHA). Portland Gun Club board member Rick Policar led a new shooter safety orientation and helped seven brand new shooters fire off their first shots:

Here Sunshine Dixon gets ready to fire her first round.

Beth Reichhoff gets a feel for steel.

Dreyvon Stevens shows he knows how to hold a long gun, though this was his first time with a shotgun--which he noted kicks a bit more. But he fired a good 20 to 25 rounds with the youth model 20 gauge and hit more than one.

Adults from left to right: Gun Owners Caucus treasurer, Brian Reichhoff, State House Representative Jules Bailey (D - Portland), and Sonia Doolittle on the line. Sonia proved to be the surprise of the day--nailing about 25% of her shots even though it was her first time ever firing a gun:

Sonia celebrating after turning another clay into dust. (Seriously, Sonia, keep with this--you're a natural!)

Stuart Johnson gets ready to fire his first round. The .410, even with the youth stock, was still a little long but he kept with it, too, showing off his bruised arm later. ; )

Amy Bailey firing at skeet for the first time: nailed it! (Naturally! Never bet against a beginner at the range!)

Donny Adair (picture, above), founder of the African American Hunting Association, brought along his "little brother" in the Big Brothers Big Sisters program to give him some fun and instruction. Donny and I are both strongly of the opinion that shielding youth from firearms is the absolute worst thing you can do to their education into adulthood.

Face it, guns are fun, attractive (especially to young men) and are part of American life. Our children need to know how to handle a gun safely, how to recognize safe (and unsafe) handling when others are holding the gun, and that we need to treat guns with respect. Days like today are perfect opportunities for shooters young and old to learn gun handling, safety and "gun culture," which is more than just competent usage. Gun culture includes many levels of respect, an asset in life best learned from adults but which can also be found in youngsters such as were with us today.

If you're concerned about the future of gun rights and gun culture in America, it's good to be involved politically. But politics follows culture, not the other way around. Vote, lobby, agitate, but most of all: take someone shooting!

Left to Right...
Front Row: Brian Reichhoff, Sonia "Dead Eye" Doolittle
Back Row: Sunshine Dixon, Stuart Johnson (held), Jodi Russell, Donny Adair, Rick Policar, Amy Bailey, Jules Bailey.

Donny Adair nails a few clays with the youth model 20 gauge.

---------------------------------
PERSONAL NOTE:
Though the blog of course continues, this will be my last post to Blue Steel Democrats. I am moving within the week to New Hampshire and will no longer be an Oregonian. I will of course still be a gun owner - "Live Free or Die," as they say in NH. It's bitter sweet to go, but today I saw that the caucus we founded three years ago is in good and capable hands and continues to grow. Protecting the Second Amendment by expanding the pool of hunters, shooters and gun owners is the best investment in democracy you can make.
"Yep..........."
"..........Yep."

Oregon man gets 19 months for killing intruder

2009-08-09T16:46:00.000-07:00

This outrages me. A man is sent to prison for 19 years for killing a man who broke into his house in the middle of the night. In Oregon, if someone breaks into your house, they must DO YOU HARM before you may defend yourself. Otherwise, you'll be on the wrong side of the law.

This strikes me as something in need of fixing next session if not before. Maybe the initiative system - this is the stuff of plain ole common sense. The legislature thinks we should have a violent felony perpetrated on us before we can defend ourselves? I think they need to hear from us on this one.

I'm going to attend Rep. Wu's town hall for health care next week and will bring this issue up at that time.

Anyone have a different perspective on this subject? I'd be interested to hear it.

Hallie

PS: Here's the link, in case it didn't come through: http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_080909_news_intruder_prison.c2ede6b4.html?npc

Oregon University firearms ban challenged in court of appeals

2009-08-09T11:06:00.000-07:00

A Western Oregon University student who had a valid concealed handgun license was suspended for possessing a gun on campus. There was and is an administrative rule in place that prohibits firearms on campus. However, there's an Oregon statute that says that only the legislature can regulate firearms. The Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation is challenging the university rule as inconsistent with state law. Their lawsuit can be found here.

This is not so much a Second Amendment issue as it is a statutory construction issue. Oregon law gives the state legislature exclusive authority to regulate firearms in the state. ORS 166.170(1) (emphasis added) states:

...[T]he authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

C. Michael Arnold,
Attorney at Law
Eugene, Oregon
http://www.arnoldlawfirm.com/

I Know An Old Lady Who Swallowed A Fly: The domino effect of the Prohibition mentality

2009-07-28T10:23:00.000-07:00

New Post on the American Hunters and Shooters Association website:

"We remember the Saint Valentine's Day massacre and the gangsters of Prohibition, but this is history we refuse to learn from. Prohibition of drugs leads to violent crime and a burgeoning class of unemployable felons. The murder rates among drug gangs in the US and abroad have led some to call for additional prohibitions on guns. It would be more effective to spit out the original "fly" and do away with prohibition altogether."

What do you think? Is it time to get rid of prohibition in order to protect our civil liberties, including gun rights?

Read the rest and give your feedback there.

-Z.

Gun Problem or Drug Gang Problem?

2009-07-27T08:50:00.000-07:00

It's not a good day in Baltimore:

"A feud between rival drug gangs led to a shooting at a backyard cookout that left 12 people wounded, including a pregnant woman and a 2-year-old girl, Baltimore's police commissioner said Monday.
In all, 16 people were shot, two of them fatally, in four incidents in poverty-stricken east Baltimore over a period of about three hours Sunday night and early Monday morning, police said. At least one of the subsequent shootings was related to the attack at the cookout, Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III said."

The anti-gun hysteria this will undoubtedly generate is predictable, but the true causes of violence--poverty, disparity in education, and the mammoth profits made possible for gangsters by our continuing drug prohibition--will remain unaddressed.

Certainly if I lived in this neighborhood I would never leave the house unarmed; and law-abiding people shouldn't have to.

However, the commissioner seems to understand the problem is people, not weapons:

"Bealefeld's strategy is to target 'bad guys with guns' — the relatively small number of armed, repeat offenders who are responsible for the majority of the city's violent crime.

Police need more cooperation from the community for that strategy to bear fruit, the commissioner said.

'We need people to get involved. The families surely will grieve at funerals. The families certainly will be upset at going to the hospital to visit wounded and maimed loved ones,' Bealefeld said. 'We need them to get on the telephone and help us put an end to this stuff.' "

Perhaps there is hope we can learn about effective crime policy after all?

Sonia Sotomayor Explicitly Supports the Heller Decision

2009-07-15T08:30:00.000-07:00

The news is in: Sonia Sotomayor explicitly endorses and supports the individual right to bear arms as decided in the Supreme Court case DC v. Heller. The following are direct quotes from her testimony this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

SOTOMAYOR EXCHANGE WITH SENATOR PAT LEAHY ON GUNS

LEAHY: I've owned firearms since my early teen years. I suspect a large majority of Vermonters do. I enjoy target shooting on a very regular basis at our home in Vermont. So I watched that decision rather carefully and found it interesting.

Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court's decision as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?

SOTOMAYOR: Yes, sir.

LEAHY: Thank you.

And in the Second Circuit decision, Maloney v. Cuomo, you, in fact, recognized the Supreme Court decided in Heller that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution against federal law restrictions. Is that correct?

SOTOMAYOR: It is.

LEAHY: And you accept and applied the Heller decision when you decided Maloney?

SOTOMAYOR: Completely, sir. I accepted and applied established Supreme Court precedent that the Supreme Court in its own opinion in Heller acknowledged, answered the -- a different question.

LEAHY: Well, that -- let me -- let me refer to that, because Justice Scalia's opinion in the Heller case expressly left unresolved and explicitly reserved as a separate question whether the Second Amendment guarantee applies to the states and laws adopted by the -- by the states.

Earlier this year, you were on a Second Circuit panel in a case posing that specific question, analyzing a New York state law restriction on so-called chuka sticks (ph), a martial arts device.

Now, the unanimous decision of your court cited Supreme Court precedent as binding on your decision, and that Supreme Court -- longstanding Supreme Court cases have held that the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government and not to the states.

And I noticed that the panel of the Seventh Circuit, including people like Judge Posner, one of the best-known very conservative judges, cited the same Supreme Court authority, agreed with the Second Circuit decision. We all know that not every constitutional right has been applied to the states by the Supreme Court. I know one of my very first cases as a prosecutor was a question of whether the Fifth Amendment guaranteed a grand jury indictment has been made applicable to the states. The Supreme Court has not held that applicable to the states.

Seventh Amendment right to jury trial, Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines, these have not been made applicable to the states. And I understand that petitions asking -- seeking to have the Supreme Court revisit the question applied to the Second Amendment to the states are pending (inaudible) that case appears before the Supreme Court and you're there how you're going to rule, but would you have an open mind, as -- on the Supreme Court, in evaluating that, the legal proposition of whether the Second Amendment right should be considered fundamental rights and thus applicable to the states?

SOTOMAYOR: Like you, I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller."

'Nuf said.

Oregon State Administrator Believes that she's above the law

2009-07-14T09:15:00.001-07:00

Hello all,

I have been invited to guest blog here by Zak Johnson for this one blog post, and I appreciate his faith and invitation enormously.

As many of you know, Jeff Maxwell is a veteran Marine who was recently arrested at Western for legally carrying a firearm on campus. While the charges were dropped, his campus punishment was not. To boot, it seems that Jeff has since lost his GI Benefits for not breaking the law. Jeff then applied to Oregon State University where he was accepted. Oregon State later rescinded his acceptance.

Now I found out about this from the following press release made by the Oregon War Veterans Assoication here. At the time, I was unable to confirm anywhere else that this press release was true.

However, I'm both an alumni and a former administrator/employee at Oregon State and the Oregon University System. So I know a little about navigating the administration on campus. Because of that, I called and tried to speak to Michelle Sandlin, the Director of Admissions. At the time, she was not in, so I was connected to the Assistant Director of Admissions (whose name is Alicia Ortega). Sidenote: OSU's directory has her listed as Associate Director, while various other publications and reports have her listed as Assistant Director or Senior Assistant Director. So I'm not sure which is truly the correct title. I will use OSU's from this point forward.

I'll finally get to my point: The Associate Director told me two important things. First, she claimed that the acceptance was rescinded due to the fact that Maxwell had made a mistake on his application in that he had not listed Western as a previous place of schooling. While this sounds like political air-cover to me, it is certainly plausible, and OSU is certainly within the letter of its policy on that issue.

The other far more interesting thing that the Associate Director told me is that she personally believes that it is O.K. for university administrators to violate a students' civil liberties in order to ensure their safety. I have to admit, it didn't surprise me that she believed that, but it almost knocked me over that she was willing to actually say it to an Alumni and former employee of the university system.

So there you go! A senior administrator partially responsible for deciding who is allowed to attend a major public university personally believes that she should be above the Constitution (state or federal) in order to ensure students' safety. I don't know what the readers of this blog think, but in my mind that is exactly the logic that lead to the imprisonment of some 110,000 Japanese-American citizens in World War II. I can't say I'm a fan of the idea.

On the 21st of April, I met with Larry Roper (Vice Provost for Student Affairs). While he told me that he certainly disagreed with that view, I have still not heard what has actually been done to address the situation at Oregon State. You may, of course, make your own judgements.

I'm not usually a politically partisan person. I like to keep a low profile. But in this case, I seem to have stepped in something unpleasant. I know that I will be making former colleagues at OSU unhappy, and may even be making powerful enemies. I certainly hope that not to be the case, but I felt it important to air this issue, because I don't believe that administrators should be able to enforce their own views on students or faculty to a degree where they believe that can act outside of the law, even when they feel the cause is just (where have we heard that recently?).

It is truly shocking that OSU is so blatantly willing to circumvent civil liberties in search of illusory safety. I hope that readers here will express themselves to congress critters and OSU administrators alike.

Gun Rights Join Communism, Atheism and Free Love at Reed College

2009-07-14T08:51:00.000-07:00

The following is a guest column by Ty Marbut, a student activist at Reed College in Portland and Oregon state director for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC). SCCC seeks to get rid of the "gun free zones" which make students and faculty sitting ducks, and even magnets, for acts of pointless mass violence.

For more info on SCCC, contact Marbut at tyrel.marbut [at] reed [dot] edu.
----------------------------

I have two items to report: the national organization Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC, www.sccc.org) and a new and very exciting shooting organization at Reed College.

SCCC is a national student-run organization that promotes self-defense on America’s college campuses by addressing both state laws and campus policies, and by working to dispel commonly held falsehoods about the feasibility and importance of self-defense on college campuses. I was recently appointed Oregon State Director of SCCC (although I’m not speaking on behalf of the organization here), and in Oregon we have chapters at Linfield College, Oregon Institute of Technology, University of Oregon, Portland Community College, and my school, Reed College. Also, I’ve been in contact with campus groups across the state independently working towards the same goals.

A general description of SCCC can be found on our website, www.sccc.org – click on “About Us”. Summarized, we are about 40,000 college students, faculty, staff, and others who form the organization as a non-partisan, grass-roots endeavor for the purposes I mentioned.

SCCC organizes a (roughly) annual event called the Empty Holster Protest in which thousands of American college students participate. There have been two so far, one in the fall of 2007 and another in the spring of 2009. The protest consists of students wearing empty holsters to their classes for a week, and culminates with letter writing, a money bomb, and get-togethers on Friday.

The most recent incident involving SCCC’s political domain (which I report to give you a taste of the campus concealed carry political world) was the arrest of marine veteran Jeffrey Maxwell, a WOU student, on Jan. 28, 2009 for legally carrying a concealed handgun on the WOU campus. A decent writeup of the story (though not a neutral one) can be found at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89280.

In Oregon, there is no law that prohibits concealed carry on college campuses. However, there is also no law to prohibit public universities from barring legal carry. The Polk County DA (rightly) dropped all charges against Maxwell in this case, but he was expelled by WOU (as the result of a public mock trial at which Maxwell wasn’t allowed to speak) and he would be allowed to return to school on the condition that he pass a psychological examination and that he author a 10-page paper about “the importance of following the law, accepting responsibility for his actions, and recognizing the impact of possessing weapons on a college campus” (Schilling - WND).

In general, this attitude towards concealed carry is typical of American universities, and Oregon colleges are (unfortunately) no exception: “if they want to carry guns, they must be crazy – send them to the shrink”. Perhaps this will help to sketch for you the political landscape that SCCC inhabits.

On a much more positive note, I’m also very excited to report on our new group at Reed College. For your readers who aren’t familiar with Reed College, we’re a small (~1300 students), private liberal arts college in Portland (more info on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_college). Depending on who you ask (Princeton Review, etc.), Reed is between the 2nd and 8th “most politically and socially liberal” college in the country, comparable to UC Berkely. Our school’s unofficial seal (which is found on t-shirts, coffee mugs, Christmas ornaments, and dozens of other items in our school’s bookstore) proudly sports the hallowed trinity “Communism, Atheism, Free Love.”

Every year before the start of the spring semester in the last week of January, Reed College sets aside one week which we call Paideia, a time when anyone at all, including students, faculty, staff, alumni, and “friends” of the college may teach any type of class they like. A class has to be approved by the Paideia Czars and can be funded by the school. The week’s course offerings include classes like “Underwater Basket Weaving” (a perennial favorite), bread making, board game tournaments, joint rolling for beginners, henna art for beginners, lock picking, etc.

This year, I decided to put a challenge to the college (i.e. see how many people I could piss off) by teaching a 3-step handgunning course. First I’d have a 2-hour lecture on everything having to do with handguns and shooting that wasn’t really politically charged, which would essentially bring someone up to speed to engage in range shooting/target practice (gun safety rules, the history and function of handguns and ammo, more gun safety talk, good shooting principles, information about ranges). Next, I’d take the students to the range to burn some real powder and have the opportunity to try a couple different models of handguns. Finally, I’d offer a 2-3 hour lecture about self-defense with firearms, including the relevant laws, concealed carry, self defense shooting, verbal and physical tactics, non-lethal options, etc.

I had arranged for funding for 40 students to go on the shooting range field trip, partially from the Oregon Firearms Federation and partly from the college – students would have to pay $10 each for 2 hours of coaching, 200 rounds of ammo, a good place to shoot, and transportation. However, just before the start of the first lecture, the thought crossed my mind that, in the freakish event that more than 40 people showed up, I might have to figure out some sort of makeshift lottery system. In fact, over 120 students, staff, and campus security officers attended the first class, and the crowd spilled out into the hallway where some students sat on the floor for more than 2 hours to hear the lecture.

Some quick calculations revealed that between 10 and 15% of the students who were in town for Paideia wanted to shoot guns, and therefore, theoretically, 10-15% of the student body would want to shoot guns. Our range trips went very well with the help and hospitality of the Clackamas County Sheriff Office’s Public Safety Training Center, and the result was a new student group, the Reed Shooting Sports Kollectiv (named in honor of our campus “kommunist” organization, the “Reed Kommunist Shit Kollektiv” – they’re RKSK, we’re RSSK). RSSK grew in the first half of Spring Semester to be, most likely, the largest membership organization on campus (and if not the largest, we’re not far behind the “kommunists”). At the end of the semester we’d taken a number of funded trips to the shooting range, to the gun show, and held a number of gun safety seminars (which were coincidentally ice cream socials). Our members made up over 10% of the student body (136 as of May) and have expended about 10,000 rounds of ammo.

As members of the Blue Steel Democrats, specifically, might imagine, it’s been a very interesting journey bringing a gun organization to fruition in one of the most politically “liberal” environments you can find in the U.S. However, so far it’s been a testament to the spirit of Reed’s liberalism (this time without quotation marks) that such a group can thrive here. Most of our new shooters have heard exactly one political message about guns (a very negative one, of course) before contact with me and RSSK, and are often intrigued rather than appalled that I talk about gun rights in the context of other civil rights. The whole experience has seemed very promising to me, in that these young “liberals” who by-and-large have a solid grasp of the political world and who, by-and-large, think intelligently and independently about politics, are not only drawn to the novel political message I’m sending them but can, in many cases, accept it easily when it’s couched not in the context of the good ol’ boys of the Republican Party but in the realm of civil, individual rights.

In short, real liberals, like the students at Reed College, get it.

This coming fall, RSSK will be featured in the new student orientation days and will put on a number of gun safety workshops and perhaps visit the range once or twice. We’ll be a prominent fixture in the student handbook, the campus newspaper, and in general we have made a name for ourselves in the student social landscape.

Towards the beginning of the coming semester, we’ll also form a specific political committee. It’s been important to keep political talk separate from RSSK news and agenda in general because I promised everyone who signed up for our e-mail list that it wouldn’t be a political propaganda forum. However, most RSSK members are interested in the political stuff (i.e. SCCC), and once the committee is established, we can and will launch a fairly aggressive campaign to alter our school’s disarmament policy – what I call the “fish-in-a-barrel” policy. We’re hoping to get permission for and perhaps finance a gun safe in our campus security building where on-campus students can store guns and check them out to go to the range. We’re also working to make available “scholarships” to subsidize concealed weapons permit classes and other external (more official) shooting classes for Reed students and faculty. Then, come next Paideia (mid-January), we’ll host another series of classes, hopefully even more extensive than last year’s.

Any questions about RSSK (or, of course, info or offers to help us put on or fund shooting events!) should be directed to Ty Marbut at tyrel.marbut [at] reed [dot] edu.

John R. Lott Interview: More Guns = Less Crime

2009-07-06T09:23:00.000-07:00

Below is an interview with John R. Lott, University of Maryland research professor, formerly a senior research scholar at Yale Law School and previous John M. Olin Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago. Dr. Lott is the author of More Guns, Less Crime and Straight Shooting.

Dr. Lott has looked at statistics around gun control and come to the simple conclusion that guns lower crime rates. He discourses at length on that topic and how it relates to Washington D.C.'s horrific murder rates in this interview on CSPAN:

Says Lott, ". . . if you look at the types of multiple-victim public shootings . . . one thing that you continually find is that they take place where guns are banned in the United States . . . all the attacks in the United States involving more than three people killed have all taken place in gun free zones where civilians are not allowed to take guns . . . rather than creating safe zones for victims, what you unintentionally do [with gun free zones] is create a safe zone for those intent on carrying out the attacks . . . " This isn't news to those who've been paying attention, but Lott brings the research to back up his claims.

Oregon Hunting Fees Raised by a Third

2009-06-29T13:38:00.000-07:00

The Oregon legislature has passed HB 2223, which raises hunting and fishing license fees each by roughly 30% (or 20%, depending on how you do math.) The bill passed the House 34-to-22 on June 12 and passed the Senate today 19-to-11. It now heads to the governor for his signature.

Read the Oregonian synopsis here.

HB 2223 is being described as a bill to allow ODFW to impose a "20%" fee hike, but it the numbers listed by the Oregonian for the final bill are as follows:

Annual fishing license: rises from $24.75 to $32.50 for anglers age 14 and older.
A resident hunting permit will go up from $22.50 to $29.
Annual combination license -- fishing and hunting -- will rise from $43.75 to $57.50.

I'm not sure what math is used to arrive to claim any of these figures as being 20%, but I've never taken "legislative math." 20% of $22.50 is $4.50; 20% of $29 is $5.80. The rate increase for hunting is $6.50. That's about 29% of 22.50, so I would call it a 1/3 increase. The closest method I see is to divide the rate increase by the final amount: $6.50/$29 = 22%. Not how I would have done it, but I guess a 20% hike is easier to sell than a 30% one. Clearly, I have no future as an accountant. If your math skills are better, please explain.

The reasoning behind the bill was to avoid a $17 million dollar shortfall in the 2009-2011 ODFW budget, and well as to avoid even higher price hikes in 2011-2013. New game & fishing officers are also proposed. Read the ODFW reasoning on HB 2223.

The Oregon Hunting Association has their legislative summary here.

Oregon House Rep Judy Stiegler on HB 2727, a bill to protect CHL holder privacy

2009-06-22T09:46:00.000-07:00

The following post is authored by Oregon House Representative Judy Stiegler (D-Bend). Representative Stiegler worked with House and Senate members to help shepherd HB 2727, a bill to protect the privacy records of Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders from unfettered public disclosure, through the Oregon legislature. The bill is currently in the Senate Rules Committee.

Representative Stiegler's comments are posted in their entirety without editing. The text of HB 2727 can be read here.
---------------------------------------------------------------

House Bill 2727 came to the House Committee on Judiciary in early March and eventually passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 54-4. I am not the Chief Sponsor of this piece of legislation, but I saw an opportunity to work this bill to bridge two very opposing sides of the issue. My purpose in writing this explanation is to respond to the venomous criticism which has been directed to me as a result of working on this bill. I have no problem with folks leveling criticism at me, but I do become irritated when that criticism is based on misinformation. If one is going to be the recipient of criticism for an effort, at the very least it should be factually based and the result of an honest disagreement on the issue at hand. I wholeheartedly endorse the idea that we all will not agree on many issues, and in fact welcome honest discussion of differing views. However, the criticism leveled at me on the issue of concealed handgun license records has been unfairly characterized in light of the facts set out below.

Let me be clear, I am not a gun opponent. My husband and son are hunters and guns have been part of our family’s culture. My goal was to strike a balance between the very legitimate privacy interests of law abiding citizens, concealed handgun license (CHL) holders, and Oregon’s nearly four decade history of public records laws (known as Oregon’s Sunshine Law).

As the bill was originally written, CHL records would be completely exempt from public records laws. That concept is completely antithetical to Oregon’s history of openness in government. I consulted with citizens, legislators, and interest groups to craft the strongest exemption for allowing release of CHL records, ultimately giving CHL holders the most protection possible. Under this version of the bill, when a release would be requested, there would be a very heavy burden on the requesting party to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the release was in the public interest. Usually, if a requesting party such as a newspaper did not like the denial of this request by the Sheriff (a likely result); it would then be up to the District Attorney and/or Circuit Court Judge to make the decision about the release of the records. Making the required showing would indeed be difficult to do. This is why many newspapers in Oregon blasted this protection for CHL holders. This bill provides CHL holders the ability to protect their privacy and have security in knowing, that except in rare circumstances, their information is not going to be released.

Unfortunately, in the Senate, the bill became a battleground for those on both sides of the issue-- those adamantly in favor of looser standards allowing greater access to the records, and those who tried to completely exclude them as a public record. Instead of gun owners having common sense privacy protections from passing HB 2727 this session, they will likely end up with nothing. The bill will probably remain held up in the Senate Rules Committee until the session ends. Rather than solving a problem, the legitimate concerns of the vast majority of CHL holders have been sacrificed to moving political agendas. Oregon’s Sunshine Law as it currently exists, allows unfettered access to these records with no protections.

-Judy Stiegler, Oregon House of Representative (D-Bend)
House Distritct 54

Murdering Citizens to Preserve the Regime

2009-06-20T16:24:00.000-07:00

Today in Iran they are murdering their children. The regime, faced with outrage and peaceful protests against a blatantly stolen election, allowed a few days to pass then cynically declared war on their people via sermons in the Friday Mosques.

Without trying to take political advantage of the ravages suffered today by Iran and its civil society, let me just say that the images below always have and always will be the end result when any government has a monopoly on violence and the instruments of resistance. Rocks will only get you so far, though we can hope to be wrong in this case.

About 3:30 minutes in, this is what state-sponsored murder looks like:

This is a photo mantage of the developing events:

Peace.

Posting senators' home addresses is a bad idea!

2009-06-19T09:01:00.001-07:00

I’ve been hearing many comments about folks wanting to retaliate against what they consider the cowardly state senators who could not stand up to party leadership to protect our privacy rights and our Second Amendment rights. The most popular idea submitted seems to be to publish the personal home addresses of Senate Democrats (those in the senate leadership and the Judiciary Committee in particular) and newspaper editors.

While this on its face may sound like fitting retribution for those with no regard for our personal privacy and safety, I strongly caution against this approach. We should be taking the high road here and not personalizing this fight. Exposing their personal contact information is a bad idea and puts those that supported House Bill 2727 on the same level of those that post home addresses of abortion doctors. Don’t do it!

C. Michael Arnold,
Attorney at Law
Eugene, Oregon
http://www.arnoldlawfirm.com/

Second Hand Private Gun Sales - How to do it right

2009-06-17T22:43:00.000-07:00

A lot of hullabaloo is made about the so-called "gun show loophole." This is a law in some states that allows non-dealers who sell at gun shows to sell firearms without conducting a background check on the buyer. Licensed dealers always have to perform the check. In Oregon a "gun show" is legally defined as any place where 25 or more guns are available for purchase. But in this state, there is no "gun show loophole." If you sell at a gun show you must do a background check. Here's the statute that says so:

166.433 Findings regarding transfers of firearms. The people of this state find that:

(1) The laws of Oregon regulating the sale of firearms contain a loophole that allows people other than gun dealers to sell firearms at gun shows without first conducting criminal background checks;

(2) It is necessary for the safety of the people of Oregon that any person who transfers a firearm at a gun show be required to request a criminal background check before completing the transfer of the firearm; and

(3) It is in the best interests of the people of Oregon that any person who transfers a firearm at any location other than a gun show be allowed to voluntarily request a criminal background check before completing the transfer of the firearm.

I happen to agree with this law for the simple reason that people at shows are generally selling to strangers. You should not sell a gun to a stranger without doing a background check on who they are. Sorry, but that's just common sense. There are no rights without responsibilities; and showing responsibility is the first step in preserving a right. Gun owners have the right to possess and to transfer firearms, but they should also exercise some judgment and use the resources available to try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals as much as that is possible. I don't pretend background checks are going to stop gun crime or gun buys on the street from burglaries or illegal unlicensed dealers. But it might stop some purchases, and that makes it okay with me to spend a little extra time and money that might save a life.

I've sold guns in the past. I've bought guns from non-dealers and accepted presents from non-dealers. I've bought guns I later gave as gifts. In all these transactions the common thread was that the person giving the gun and the person getting the gun knew each other well. No background check was necessary or would have served any purpose.

WHAT ABOUT SELLING TO STRANGERS?
In Oregon there is no requirement that you conduct a background check when a non-dealer sells to a non-dealer. To me that makes sense--it's stupid for me to have to run a background check on my dad or he on me if we exchange guns as gifts. The state and public have no compelling interest in this. If I were a felon or if my dad were, then we shouldn't be selling guns. But the point is I'm already 100% sure he's not, and vice versa. (Even Sarah Brady bought her son a rifle without doing a background check, so there!)

Some gun rights advocates also believe that requiring state approval for all gun transfers is the first step to a registration list, which in turn is seen as the first step to confiscation. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The events of the New Orleans police in 2005 are still shocking enough for me to know rights aren't always as secure as we think. So no, I don't support tracking all secondary sales. Philosophically, I think gun owners should--and have a duty--to take care in the distribution of firearms on their own. Owning a gun is partially about self-reliance and self-responsibility. So let's see some: know who you're selling to or don't make the sale.

PROCESS FOR NON-DEALER GUN SALES IN OREGON
If you do want to sell a firearm in Oregon to a stranger, and you want to do the right thing by finding out if they are eligible to own a firearm; here's what you need to do:

Have the buyer with you.
Be sure the buyer has government issued ID with a picture.
Call the Oregon state police firearms unit at 1 800 432 5059.
Read off the information on the government ID.
Provide the buyer's date of birth, race, sex and address.
Pay a $10 fee, Visa or Master Card accepted. : )

That's it. These rules are laid out in Oregon statute 166.436 Firearm transfers by persons other than gun dealers; criminal background checks authorized; liability.

I doubt this is as simple as it sounds for a couple of reasons. First, it was very difficult to find this information. The information is not listed on the state police website or on my local law enforcement websites. This leads me to believe that in spite of the available service, nobody or at least darn few people are conducting background checks. (Let me know if I'm wrong, please. I hope I am.)

Second, when I got a call back from the state police in answer to my questions about this, the officer noted that the buyer should be present with me at the time I make the call. Okay . . . but what if they are turned down? What if the policeman on the phone mentions there are outstanding warrants for the person standing next to me in my kitchen? Talk about awkward.

For these reasons, I think it would be prudent in any discussion on the phone or internet prior to a meeting to let potential buyers know you are going to make the background check on them before they ever come by to see the firearms. That ought to take care of most felons. Also don't meet them alone. Again, common sense.

In addition to being socially responsible, another very good reason for taking the time to do this background check is to absolve yourself of liability. In 166.436, Sec 7 (a), the law reads:

Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection, a transferor who receives notification under this section that the recipient is qualified to complete the transfer of a firearm is immune from civil liability for any use of the firearm from the time of the transfer unless the transferor knows, or reasonably should know, that the recipient is likely to commit an unlawful act involving the firearm.

If protecting the public isn't good enough reason for you, then protecting yourself ought to be. The fact is, the more responsible gun owners are about controlling the transfer of weapons through such measures as conducting voluntary background checks and keeping guns locked in secure locations when they are not under our immediate control, the less ammunition we give to those seeking to abridge our rights or to saddle us with absurd regulations such as requiring background checks on our parents or childhood friends.

Register-Guard attempts to violate your privacy.

2009-06-12T14:22:00.000-07:00

I recently recieved word from the Lane County Sheriff that the Eugene-Springfield area daily newspaper, The Register-Guard, requested each and every name of the 10,000-plus CHL holders in his jurisdiction. Here is the full text of the letter I recieved from Sheriff Russel Burger:

Lane County Sheriff’s Office

Russel E. Burger, Sheriff

June 12, 2009

Jack Moran

3500 Chad Drive Eugene OR 97408

RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST OF MAY 28, 2009

Dear Mr. Moran: I am in receipt of your email requesting public records, specifically a list of all concealed handgun license holders in Lane County. We have the records you are requesting.

Earlier this year I sent a letter to all concealed handgun license holders in Lane County, asking if they wanted their personal information released to the public. A copy of that letter has been provided to the Register Guard.

A few individuals responded stating that they did not want their information to be confidential; and, I will provide copies of those responses. The vast majority of concealed handgun license holders responded that they obtained a concealed handgun license as a personal security measure and they do not want their personal information disclosed.

Regarding those responses, I am denying your request pursuant to ORS 192.501(23). The names and addresses of license holders that stated they obtained a concealed handgun license as a security measure are exempt from disclosure. I am also denying the request under ORS 192.502(2) since the release of that information would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy; and, ORS 192.502(4) as a confidential submission that is not otherwise required to be submitted.

If you are interested in obtaining a redacted copy of those responses, with the names and addresses removed, we are able to provide that to you. Those responses asking for confidentiality, numbering approximately 8,923, were sent to this office both electronically and by mail. In order to provide that redacted information, we estimate it will take approximately 80 hours of staff time, in addition to photocopying charges; and approximately 5 hours of time for our information services department to redact and provide the electronic information.

I do not believe that the public interest would be served by redacting and providing this information, since the remaining information is a simple yes or no response to two questions posed in our letter. Because of that, we will not waive the fees associated with providing a redacted copy of these records.

If you wish to obtain a redacted copy of these records, please send a written request and I will provide you an estimated cost. Upon receipt and approval by you of that estimated amount, we will provide the redacted records.

Sincerely,

Russel E. Burger Sheriff

cc: T. Turner - Undersheriff

Lane County Counsel

125 E. 8th Avenue ∙ Eugene, OR 97401 ∙ Phone: (541) 682-4150 ∙ Fax: (541) 682-3309 ∙ www.lanesheriff.org

I think the Register-Guard's actions really speak for themselves to the necessity of a comprehensive and uncompromising CHL privacy bill. There WAS such a bill, HR 2727 which passed the Oregon House by a huge bipartisan margin. Unfortunately, this bill has been held up in the Oregon Senate by those opposed to gun rights on principle. Thankfully my Sheriff has been incredibly proactive in ascertaining the privacy desires of CHL holders and honoring the nearly 9,000 responses in favor of complete privacy.

But the fact remains that under the current laws in Oregon, he didn't have to. He could as easily have justified selling Lane County's responsible gun owners down the river.

I don't have much else to add, and would love to hear comments and ideas about making them pay. They had no reason to take such actions against the responsible citizens of their community. I'd like to give them some reasons not to. Maybe financial. It's no secret that readership of newspapers across the nation is at an all-time low, and I hardly think the Register-Guard can afford to alienate 10,000 plus current and potential subscribers.

EDIT: Here's a link to the Oregon Firearms Federation's take on this and how it relates to the recent blockade and weakening of our CHL privacy bill.

PLEASE contact your Oregon state senators and demand that they follow the Oregon House in protecting us from these fishing expeditions and intrusions which, while doing nothing to prevent crime, punish those who seek to comply with the law.

Safe Guns, Scarce Ammo

2009-06-11T10:43:00.000-07:00

New blog post on American Hunters and Shooters Association, "Safe Guns, Scarce Ammo."

SUMMARY:

Hysteria creates scarcity. Unfounded hysteria creates politics. Do the actions of President Obama and the Democratic Congress justify the continued hoarding ammunition for a coming ATF Armageddon? The record to date would indicate not.

Read the rest & comment on AHSA's website.

-Z.

Range Review: Johnson Creek Gun Club, PDX

2009-06-10T10:24:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I was able to shoot at The Johnson Creek Gun Club as the guest of a member. The Johnson Creek Gun Club is a member-run, wheelchair accessible private pistol range in S.E. Portland. The range is clean, reasonably well ventilated, and well stocked with targets and other necessities visitors can buy on the honor system.

The range is pistol only, though apparently .22 rifles are also okay to use. One good aspect of the range is you must bring your own ammo. This makes it cheaper to use than some other ranges and lets reloaders bring in their own, providing it meets club rules against magnum and other high-power loads. The range uses overhead wires maneuvered by hand cranks (see next picture) to move the targets out to the maximum distance of 50 feet. At least one of these malfunctioned while I was there, but for the most part they seemed in good repair.

There are ten lanes altogether and about half were in use when I went early in the afternoon. Other shooters present included families with young kids and several women; there was no macho posturing going on--everybody was friendly and under control. The place has a very good vibe to it. The only drawback is the range rule that targets be extended out to the maximum distance of 50 feet, so if you want to practice closer shooting that would be technically against the rules. (At least one shooter was shooting at 15 feet while I was there but no one said anything.)

The reason I am not a member of this well-maintained club is its requirement that all members first be members of the NRA. The club website says, "Johnson Creek Gun Club is NRA affiliated and requires NRA membership of all its members. It is quite possibly the only 100% NRA club in the area." Like most gun owners, I'm grateful to the NRA for its past work in promoting gun rights, safety and training programs. But I find membership in that organization an increasingly hard pill to swallow as the NRA increasingly identifies itself as a right-wing political organization. These partisan actions include such actions as Wayne LaPierre speaking at CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) where he referred to gun ownership as a "conservative value," and the NRA's over-the-top, histrionic attacks on Barack Obama last fall. As a result, I've let my NRA membership lapse and don't intend to renew it until the organization tones down it rhetoric as a de facto branch of the Republican party.

However, if you're already an NRA member (and I know several members of the Democratic gun caucus who are members at Johnson Creek) this is a close, convenient location for PDX shooters that I recommend using. If you're a member of the club or know someone who is, please consider allowing waivers to the NRA requirement by allowing membership in genuinely non-partisan pro-gun groups, e.g. Oregon Hunters Association, to be substituted by those who feel the NRA no longer represents our values.

Cell Pal Concealed Carry Holster

2009-06-07T14:04:00.000-07:00

Cell Pal is a very interesting & intriguing type of concealed carry system that lets you dress more normally. If anyone has used one, what's your impression?

What other systems have people used that they find work well for concealed carry, both on foot and in vehicles? Do share--thanks!

Taurus PT111 Millennium Pro: May be worth consideration for concealed carry

2009-05-27T08:17:00.000-07:00

The Taurus Millennium series has been on the market for quite a few years now. At first there were many problems with this series, but shortly after its introduction, Taurus introduced the the Millennium Pro series. The Pro series featured better trigger pulls and rectified the problems that occurred in the original Millennium series of pistols. The Millennium Pro series features small, polymer frames, and either carbon steel, or stainless steel slides (there may also be a titanium version currently offered). These guns are available in calibers ranging from .32acp-.45acp, and all feature double stack magazines. Here is a link providing more info and specs for the Millennium Pro line up: http://www.taurususa.com/products/gunselector-results.cfm?series=CC1

I have personally owned and carried a Millennium Pro in 9mm with a stainless slide for four or five years now. I chose this gun to add to my concealed carry roster based on its size, weight, low cost, and many favorable reviews that I had read (plus I think it is a rather attractive little gun). I chose the 9mm version because this pistol only weighs 180z, and I felt that 9mm was an adequate defensive round yet offers low recoil, which would be a plus in such a light weight pistol.

My Millennium Pro is a DAO (double action only) pistol, and I believe that they all are (they all were when I purchased mine years ago). Because it is a DAO pistol, the trigger pull is quite long. However, it is perhaps the lightest DAO trigger I have ever encountered. I believe the pull is between 5 and 6lbs, but I don't have a trigger pull scale to prove it. These guns also feature a single-sided manual safety. Many people think that a safety on a DAO pistol is unneccessary, and technically it is, but it gives me peace of mind when holstering. It seems to me that when holstering a gun, there is a slight chance that something could get caught in the trigger guard and possibly pull the trigger as you push the gun down into the holster. Therefore, if my carry gun (even DAO) has a manual safety, I chamber a round, engage the safety, holster the weapon, then simply flip the safety off.

The capacity of the 9mm version is 12+1. Ofcourse there are ten round magazines available for areas that don't allow higher capacity. For having a relatively high capacity (for such a small gun), the grip is extremely thin, and one of the most ergonomically pleasing that I have encountered on a semi auto pistol. The sights on the Millennium Pro are large and very easy to pick up. Mine is the normal 3 dot (featuring white dots) set up, but I believe that night sights and straight 8 (dot on top of dot) set ups are also available. The sights on mine are so wide and easy to pick up, that they are good for quick aquisition, but less than ideal for precise target shooting. Lets face it, with its small size and DAO trigger, this is not a target gun anyway, so this isn't neccessarily a complaint. This brings me to the only real complaint that I do have.

The sights on my gun are not alligned perfectly for POI (point of impact), and they are not adjustable. My gun continuously shoots a feww inches high and to the left at 50 feet. I can't remember if others have had this same problem when shooting my Millenium Pro, so it may be my shooting style, but I don't have this problem with other guns that I own and shoot. I just compensate while at the range by aiming slightly low and right, but I doubt I would remember to do so in a defensive situation. On the other hand, in a defensive situation I would likely be shooting at a shorter range, so it probably would not be an issue.

This gun is rated to accept +p ammo, and that is what I carry in it. The gun handles recoil very well, for such a light weight gun, even with hot +p rounds. I have never had any sort of malfunction with this gun over the few years that I have been shooting and carrying it, which has been a very pleasant surprise based on its low price (I paid $279 brand new), and Taurus's somewhat spotty reputation.

I think that I would reccomend this model based on the reliability of mine, and the fact that I have read many positive reviews about this model. However, there are many horror stories on the net (I realize that you can't always believe what you read on the net) about other Taurus products. Infact, I recently purchased a brand new, never fired, Taurus 85 Ultra-Lite .38 speacial, that had to be returned for repairs before I was able to shoot it. I have not gotten it back yet, but I hope it is fully functional and the many issues are cleared up when I get it back. It seems from what I have read, and now experienced, that Taurus is very hit or miss with quality control. There are many great ones out there, but there are also many lemons. I should mention that Taurus does have a life time warrenty on all of their guns which is a deffinate plus. That being said, I got a very functional, inexpensive, and attractive little gun in my PT111 Millennium Pro. I definitely think that the Millenium Pro line of pistols is worth checking out if you are in the market for an inexpensive concealed carry piece.

Bi-Partisan National Parks Gun Law Change Also Affects National Monuments

2009-05-24T10:39:00.001-07:00

On Friday, President Obama signed the bipartisan pro-gun rights bill that will apply state laws to lands administered by the National Park Service. The BLM and Forest Service have applied state gun laws to lands they administer for years without problems, but the Park Service has resisted. This has led to some absurd criminal charges against innocent gun owners for such things as having a gun in their car when driving on a public highway that is administered by the Park Service.

The law is set to go into effect February 22, 2010. In addition to National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges (NWR), the new law will also apply to National Monuments. While driving past the Clarno Unit of the John Day National Monument yesterday I came across a perfect example of why this is a good change. The Clarno Unit is a small (1,969 acre) parcel of land alongside Highway 218. This unit consists mostly of a parking lot and a 1/4-mile long interpretive trail at the base of a prehistoric lahar (a glacial mudflow started by a volcanic eruption.) It is an amazing place to stop and see if you are ever in the area, which is, quite literally in the middle of nowhere. Among other amenities, it has the ONLY public toilet between Fossil and Antelope, which also adds to its appeal as a stopping point when traveling with young children.

During my drive yesterday from Fossil to Antelope I could count the number of cars I passed on my fingers. I saw NO policemen or other government vehicles--you're on your own out there. So imagine my surprise when I pulled into the parking lot at the Clarno Unit and saw the following sign.

I'm not talking about the welcome sign, I'm talking about the smaller one down to the left:

Criminalizing the possession of firearms in a place like Clarno is simply ridiculous. Wheeler County and the surrounding area are the very definition of rural. Tourism around hunting, camping, fishing and fossil hunting are the mainstay of the local economy. Fossil is the kind of town where people store rifles in the windows of trucks but don't lock the doors. If you are a gun-owner on a long-distance trip to visit the area, chances are you will bring a gun for plinking, hunting or protection. But heaven help you if you pull into the parking lot at the Clarno Unit to use the toilet, the picnic tables or the interpretive trail and run into a ranger or other law enforcement agent who notices a gun in your rack or a bulge under your jacket--you could be arrested.

My hunch is that the current law against firearms is violated regularly at Clarno and other remote facilities administered by the Park Service, and most rangers would probably prefer to look the other way when they can. The new pro-gun rights rule may not go into effect for another year, but hopefully common sense will rule in favor of suspending prosecutions for enforcement immediately.

As this sign at the entrance to the picnic area reminds us--stay alert! And "Don't Tread on Me!"

U.S. House Joins Senate in National Parks Gun Ruling

2009-05-20T14:01:00.000-07:00

Today the U.S. House joined the U.S. Senate in passing an amendment to H.R. 627 (see "Concur in Sec. 512 of Sen Amdt.") allowing firearms to be carried in National Parks by those with state-recognized concealed carry permits. Despite the predictable jeremaids by the professional anti-gun lobbyists, this bill merely extends the same rules already applied in BLM and National Forest lands to National Parks and National Wildlife refuges. This means if you have a concealed carry license in Oregon, you don't have to leave the pistol you brought on vacation locked in the trunk for a thief to steal while you go hiking at Crater Lake.

Senators Wyden (D-OR) and Merkley (D-OR) both voted in favor of this amendment in the senate; Representatives Peter Defazio (D-OR), Kurt Schrader (D-OR) and Greg Walden (R-OR) also voted in favor of this amendment in the House.

President Obama has indicated he will sign the amendment, which passed on a separate vote from the main body of H.R. 627.

Here are some links to the voting record:
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/277
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/house/1/votes/277/

Please thank our senators and representatives for looking out for our 2nd Amendment rights and personal safety.

Penn & Teller Explain the 2nd Amendment in Less Than a Minute

2009-05-15T09:22:00.001-07:00

Penn and Teller give a pretty great argument of why the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the PEOPLE.

C. Michael Arnold,
Attorney at Law
Eugene, Oregon
http://www.arnoldlawfirm.com/

Ruger LCP: A Concealed Carry Gem

2009-05-14T10:52:00.000-07:00

If any of you are thinking about purchasing a small to tiny handgun for deep concealment, pocket, carry, ankle carry, etc., you should definitely look into Ruger's LCP. The LCP is a tiny .380acp semi auto that holds 6 rounds in the magazine, plus 1 in the chamber. This gun is double action only and has a glass-filled nylon frame and steel slide and barrel. Here is a link for the exact specifications: http://www.ruger.com/LCP/Specifications.html. The specs state that the trigger pull is 8lbs, but mine feels a bit lighter than that. Unfortunately I don't own a trigger pull scale so I can't back up that statement with fact.

Since this gun is so light, and slim, it is extremely comfortable for pocket carry with a quality pocket holster. I have also been told that it is great with an ankle holster as well, but I have yet to try this option. I plan on looking into an ankle holster in the near future. When in the pocket, one almost forgets that it is there.

Many people consider the .380acp to be underpowered for defense applications, but it is my opinion that with proper ammo selection, it is a viable defense round. Plus the gun is so small and light that people are more likely to have it with them than many larger guns, and a gun that you don't have with you is not at all effective for defense. I would also like to note that the LCP is rated for +p ammo.

Unfortunately, I have only been able to get to the range once with my LCP. With such a small, light gun, I expected considerable recoil. I was pleased to find that after my first shot the recoil was far less than I expected. Also, I was very pleased to find that after about 100 rounds there was not one malfunction. Accuacy was much better than expected from this tiny pistol with rudimentary sights. I was able to keep all shots on target (a sillouette style) from 50ft. They may not have all been "kill" shots, but most were.

All in all, I have been very pleasently surprised with this small wonder of a gun. I can fully reccomend one to anyone that is in the market for such a gun.

Democratic Senators Wyden and Merkley Vote to Support Gun Owner Rights in National Parks

2009-05-12T20:28:00.000-07:00

Oregon's Democratic U.S. senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley supported gun owners rights today by voting to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms in National Parks.

Wyden and Merkley joined with 27 Democrats and 39 Republicans to pass an amendment to give gun owners the same rights and protections to carry in National Parks that have existed in BLM and Forest Service lands for decades without any problems.

Crime against park rangers and visitors has seen an increase in recent years and this prudent, bipartisan legislation should ensure that criminals won't find National Parks easy hunting grounds for defenseless victims. (See previous post for more information: "Guns in National Parks: Yes, No, or Sometime?")

Please be sure to thank our senators for their vote today.

The Oregonian speaks out against your rights

2009-05-12T10:21:00.001-07:00

The following commentary has been previously posted on the blog "Chuck for . . ." in response to a biased, uninformed and misleading Op-ed piece in The Oregonian calling for keeping CHL records available to the general public.

The Oregonian piece can be found at this link, where currently about 95% of the comments are taking them to task for shoddy journalism and general ignorance on the topics of firearms and gun rights.
--------------------

From Chuck for . . . :

"THE OREGONIAN IS AN ASS, ONCE AGAIN - ABOUT GUNS"

As a blogger and as a citizen I am a vast fan of printed newspapers. I am also a willing critic when they engage in assholedom. The Oregonian's Editorial about keeping concealed weapons permits public record is such an engagement - possibly wedding. They assert that their opposition to restricting access to these records allows Sherriffs to be reckless and unaccountable. First though they strike out at an Oregon Representative.

Indeed, Eugene Democrat Chris Edwards said of the measure, House Bill 2727: "It's about protecting the rights of the good guys. This is not about protecting the rights of punks, of hooligans, or meth tweakers."

There is a word for this sort of overblown rhetoric. Pandering.

"Pandering?" Well now, suppose we wait a bit and see about pandering...

In the 20 years that concealed-carry permits have been public, no violence has been committed against an Oregon concealed-weapons permit holder -- by a punk, hooligan, tweaker, cuckolded spouse, gulled lender or any other kind of bad guy -- because the victim's name was on a gun permit.

Does it pass muster as pandering to make an entirely unsourced and most probably unknowable assertion like this? That might be a reach so we'll move right along. Oh wait, there's a loon waiting in the wings.

In fact, the only recent connection we've noticed between crime and gun permits was the recent news item mentioning that Jiverly Wong, who murdered 13 people in Binghamton N.Y., last month, e-mailed his back to the police department before going on a shooting spree. Among other things, it makes you wonder what would prompt a police agency to give Wong a permit in the first place.

More importantly, there is the matter of just how good a job Oregon sheriffs actually do in properly enforcing even this lax law. State Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, and an outspoken advocate of stronger gun laws, said that a recent rough cross-comparison between a list of permit-holders and a list of jailed criminals showed hundreds of apparent matches.
There is no mention of any single actual instance of this in the entire editorial. Note, they talk about possibilities not facts. It would be a simple enough matter to bring forward a fact - they don't and neither does Ginny - serial 2nd Amendment infringement offender.

Citizens ought to be able to easily check whether their sheriffs are doing their duty properly, or whether they're giving out concealed carry permits to every Jiverly Wong who strolls up to the front desk.

The big closer, pandering in its most offensive and lying form. You cannot stroll up to any desk anywhere in Oregon and just get a concealed weapon permit, not even close to it, not even in the same universe as it. You can take a state mandated course conducted by a state approved instructor in order to qualify to apply, then you will pass an extensive background test and provide recommendations from known responsible citizens and then have a photo and fingerprints taken. You will be provided no legal relief for any crime committed while carrying, in fact they will be enhanced.

A load of tripe suitable for lining a hamster cage, inhabited by more evident brain power than the author of this. Which other pieces of information will they push to have public, driver's licenses? There are very good reasons for some pieces of personal information out of general hands. This thing is evidence of the wisdom of keeping keyboards out of some people's hands. Ah well, The Oregonian is failing pretty fast - lack of talent and relevance?

[Posted by Chuck Butcher.]

Dear Senator Wyden: Remember the 2nd Amendment when Replacing Justice Souter

2009-05-07T21:45:00.000-07:00

The Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon today sent the following letter to Oregon Senator Ron Wyden.

Ron Wyden sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee which will soon hold hearings on the president's nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court justice David Souter.

---------------------------------------------------

OPEN LETTER TO SENATOR WYDEN FROM THE GUN OWNERS CAUCUS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON

May 7, 2009

RE: Supreme Court nominations and the Second Amendment

Dear Senator Wyden:

We are writing to you on behalf of the members of the Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon. As a caucus, the second largest within the DPO, we exist to promote appreciation and understanding of the Second Amendment within the Democratic Party, and to work for the election of Democratic candidates within Oregon to further our party’s goals of economic justice and civil rights for all.

One way in which we work for the election of Democrats is in advertising our party’s strong record on civil liberties, including respect for the Second Amendment. Our members represent every county in Oregon from the most liberal to the most conservative but share the central belief that individual gun ownership is a Constitutional guarantee and one that has served to support our Democratic freedoms.

The official position of the Democratic Party of Oregon shows the same depth of support for the Second Amendment as it does for the entire Bill of Rights. The party’s official position on gun ownership as a right is summed up in Resolution 2005-008, which was overwhelmingly passed by the members of the State Central Committee in 2005. This resolution reads as follows:

A RESOLUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON

WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has long been dedicated to the preservation of civil liberties; and
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has long been dedicated to the preservation of freedom and social justice.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. To recognize and support the right to keep and bear arms in Article 1 Section 27 of the Oregon State Constitution and the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America as an individual right not granted by the government, but rather guaranteed by the government.

Section 2. In recognition of the tremendous personal responsibility engendered by the right to keep and bear arms, the Democratic Party of Oregon further advocates severe penalties and their enforcement for criminal use or misuse of the right.

Further information on our caucus and the position of the Democratic Party of Oregon regarding Second Amendment guarantees is posted on the party website: http://www.oregondemocrats.org/gun_owners

Today we are writing on behalf of our members to express our hopes and concerns for the replacement of retiring Supreme Court justice David Souter.

President Obama has made his position clear in regards to Second Amendment rights—he has stated he agrees gun ownership is an individual right. In this position the president shows his agreement with by both the Democratic Party of Oregon and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in last year’s landmark ruling “District of Columbia vs. Heller.” As Democrats it is our greatest hope that the president will follow up on these expressed beliefs and in his first Supreme Court nomination assuage the concerns of those gun owners who would otherwise vote Democratic if they were convinced of the sincerity of the party’s support for gun rights. We believe this can best be done by choosing a nominee with a strong history of supporting both Second Amendment rights and the concept of stare decisis, especially in landmark cases such as Roe v. Wade or D.C. v. Heller which have settled long-standing civil rights struggles.

We do not feel researching the background of a nominee to gauge his or her prior opinions or readiness to uphold or overturn prior case law represents a litmus test or unreasonable queries. Further, given the freshness of the Heller decision, we suggest and request you should do a service to those who value civil liberties by asking direct questions about the Heller case, in addition to other cases directly affecting interpretation of the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.

The Oregonian recently noted that during a town hall meeting you held in Fossil, Oregon this year, a young girl asked you what so many in the crowd were clearly thinking—“Is the president going to take away our guns?” Your response, in our view, was perfect—you noted that the president has done nothing to diminish Second Amendment rights and you do not believe he intends to. We believe it is of utmost importance that future events allow this statement remain true. It would be even better if the president were to do something truly positive for gun owners by appointing a justice with a deep passion for the Second Amendment and empathy with the concerns of the 30 million gun owners who voted for President Obama in 2009. There are as well as millions more watching who would also vote for Democrats if only for their concerns around this single issue could be soothed with action as well as words.

Appointment of a pro-gun rights, pro-Heller-decision justice with a history of respect for stare decisis is, in our opinion, how the president and yourself can “seal the deal” with gun owners in Oregon and through the U.S. Please do not miss this opportunity to show Democratic support for this central tenet of American democracy.

Sincere regards,

Zak Johnson, Chair (Portland); Chuck Butcher, Vice Chair (Baker City); Brian Reichhoff, Treasurer (Portland)

Oregon House Passes CHL Privacy Bill - HB 2727

2009-05-05T10:16:00.001-07:00

By a margin of 54-to-4, the Oregon House of Representatives has passed HB 2727, a bill to protect public disclosure of the names, addresses and other personal information of concealed handgun license (CHL) holders to the public; that is, the bill keeps it a secret who does and does not have a license to carry a concealed weapon and provides county sheriffs with a legal basis to deny requests for that information.

In this age where the definition of a "journalist" is increasingly fluid and the Internet can be used and abused to quickly and irrevocably spread private data around the world, it is important that government take steps to protect us from intrusion. Protecting CHL holder privacy has become an important civil rights battle since February when a Tennessee online newspaper opposed to all 2nd Amendment rights published the names, phone numbers, addresses and other personal information of CHL holders in that state. Exposing CHL holder information to the public puts those who follow the law by obtaining a permit before carrying a concealed firearm to discrimination from anti-2nd Amendment employers, background searches by would-be stalkers wanting to know if there victims are helpless, and targeting by burglars looking for firearms to grab while residents are away from home. Keeping personal information in government databases private is also the right thing to do as a matter of principle.

No laws in Oregon previously existed to prohibit similarly invasive and dangerous practices in our state as were seen in Tennessee. However, in recent court cases, county sheriffs have refused to hand over information in the name of privacy and public safety concerns. HB 2727 is not perfect, and has a wide loop hole in it to allow disclosure of the data if there is "clear and convincing evidence that the public interest requires disclosure in the particular instance." However, HB 2727 is a step forward from where we were before. (Other views on HB 2727 are available on the Oregon Firearms Federation website and the Oregonian.)

The bill now moves on to the Oregon senate. The concept of protecting CHL holder privacy as a civil right was endorsed by the Oregon State Sheriffs Association, the Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon, and the Multnomah County Democratic Party.

Please contact your Oregon state senators and remind them of the broad public support to protect the rights of lawful gun owners, public safety and the privacy of us all. HB 2727 is a step in the right direction on all counts.

Join the Blue Steel Democrats on Facebook

2009-05-03T16:21:00.000-07:00

In addition to our DPO Gun Owners community website page and this blog, there is now a Gun Owners Caucus Facebook page. This Facebook group is open to anyone to join, but you will probably need to create a free Facebook account first in order to view it.

The Facebook page has been added as a way to let our members more easily voice their opinions and recruit their friends and associates to join the Gun Owners Caucus in gun rights advocacy and education. Any member of Facebook can join our Facebook group, then post comments, opinions, pictures and video of your choice (keep it tasteful, please!)

If you aren't on Facebook yet, I encourage you to join by creating a free account here: www.facebook.com. If you are on Facebook, you can find our group by searching for "Blue Steel Democrats - Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon" and then clicking "join group."

Facebook is a "social networking" tool that allows people to connect, communicate and easily trade thoughts and ideas without needing to be experts in web design. If you are concerned about privacy on such websites, be aware that you can control the information others can see and you alone choose who can and can't view your "page." Hopefully Facebook will be a useful tool for the Gun Owners Caucus to spread our message and increase membership.

The Blue Steel Democrats blogsite will still be active as well--Facebook is an addition, not a replacement. I hope to see you there.

NYC Fatal Stabbings Up 50% in 2008

2009-04-30T10:47:00.000-07:00

The New York Times reports Knife Killing in [New York] City Increased 50 Percent in 2008.

The reason? Apparently, gun control:

"It was possible, but hard to document, [police spokesman] Mr. Browne said, that measures like undercover gun-trafficking investigations and interrogations, in which people arrested for lower level crimes are asked to provide information on gun cases, had led to the rise in knife killings and the drop in gun slayings."

And who are the victims? The disarmed citizens of NYC:

A psychotherapist in an Upper East Side office. A young woman working in a grocery store. A city bus driver behind the wheel in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, on a lunchtime route.

So we see guns can be readily substituted with knives, clubs, etc.; like tea for coffee. Not really news to some of us, but for some truth is difficult to accept.

The article also carries an interesting correction: "The number of murder victims killed by any means fell to 14,831 in 2007, from 15,087 in 2006; those figures did not represent only those killed by guns." (The paper originally reporter those figures as all being gun homicides.)

The NYT lists the FBI as the correction source. The FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) lists 2005 total homicides as "16,692." so we have a downward trend overall in the last couple years. That figure probably comes as a shock to many people who have been repeated told it is about twice that high. But looking closely at the data, the homicide rates appear to be even lower. The number of homicides linked to firarms much lower than typically reported by anti-gun organizations.

Exactly what is considered a homicide?
According to DOJ, the weapons used in 2005 homicides were:

Handgun - 8,478
Other gun - 2,868
Knife - 2,147
Blunt object - 617
Other weapon - 2,528

That's 11346 "homicides" with firearms; 5292 without. But of the homicides listed, 635 are listed as "justifiable," including 192 by citizens and 343 by police. The DOJ doesn't list the weapons used in justifiable homicides, but I think it's probable that the police instances were mostly with handguns, and the citizen examples probably mostly so as well. That would lower the TOTAL number of unjustified murders with handguns each year to less than 8,000 (7,843). The total number of murders with all firearms is then 10,701 according to DOJ.

That is a far cry from the "30,000 gun murders a year" claim we see bandied about--a claim that is made only by using justified homicides, police shootings, accidents and suicides as all being equivalent with murder by describing them all as "gun violence." For example, the Brady Campaign website says "80 people a day die from guns." 365 x 80 = 29,200 a year, but as shown by the DOJ numbers, the 30,000 figure we so often hear actually includes 17,000 suicides, for which there are as many readily accessible substitutes as NYC shows there are for homicide. Those details are left out of the Brady website posting. As noted in previous posts, similar statistical slight of hand is used to grossly exaggerate the number of children shot each year, as well as the total number of accidental shootings.

Starting out with honest numbers is essential to any discussion, IMHO. Let's talk start our discussions by using the real number of gun homicides, of which we see there are between 10,000 to 11,000 a year and THEN look at policies to prevent these terrible crimes. Considering there are about 10,000 to 11,000 gun murders by criminals a year but 2.5 million defensive uses of guns each year, the statistics heavily favor the argument that armed citizens are safe ones; numbers that should also be part of any discussion on the role of armed citizens in our society.

The rise of fatal stabbings of defenseless victims in NYC is best linked to New York City's draconian bans on concealed handgun licenses. Until recently, NYC banned ownership of firearms by most citizens as well. If we want to see a decline in stabbings and other murders, New Yorkers should be given the right to concealed carry and to keep firearms in their homes without having to justify themselves to city bureaucrats. The dots seem easy to connect, but I expect you'll see a different spin put on it the conversation by the New York Times--is licensing kitchen knives next?

Guns in National Parks: Yes, No, or Sometimes?

2009-04-23T11:24:00.000-07:00

Last month U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly struck down the last-minute rule by the Bush administration that briefly allowed loaded, readily accessible firearms in national parks. Prior to this, loaded and accessible firearms in national parks had been prohibited since a 1983 ruling by the Reagan administration.

The Obama administration has said they will not challenge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling, which apparently had to do with a lack of any environmental impact studies, so unless something changes it will continue to be illegal to have loaded, accessible firearms in national parks.

MY TWO CENTS
There is an increase in drug and violent crime in national parks. This is especially so along the southern border in parks like Big Bend or Organ Pipe. The park rangers are outgunned and outnumbered. For these reasons, I would favor a ruling whereby national parks followed state law for firearms--laws prohibiting legal carry do nothing to decrease illegal carry already going on. Parks are no different than cities in that respect. (See "Ranger Details Crater Lake Shooting" for an example of violence in national parks.)

Certainly some exception should be made for carrying firearms in motor homes or other campers. These vehicles are treated like residences for many purposes in most states and the rules about firearms in homes would apply. In most RVs, there isn't anywhere "out of reach" to store a weapon. Certainly your "Good Sam Club" members aren't considered to be at a high risk for poaching or committing assault? If you're touring Oregon and want to visit Crater Lake, it's seems silly to say you have to stop off at home first to drop off your weapons that have been in the car for the rest of the trip.

I also think CHL permits (concealed carry) should be allowed in the parks. If you're on a trip around the state & take a firearm, especially a pistol, IMHO the very worst place to leave it in is your car at a remote trail head--taking it with you is much more responsible.

But what do you all think?

QUESTION FOR READERS:
What is your opinion on whether or under what circumstances loaded, accessible firearms should be allowed in national parks? Please support your argument.

Thanks.

Rasmussen Reports: 70% Oppose Gun Restrictions to Fight Mexican Cartels

2009-04-20T08:57:00.000-07:00

Even now that the myth that "90%" of illicit guns used in Mexico are coming from the U.S. has been thoroughly debunked (barely 17% of illegal weapons in Mexico come from the U.S.), the talking point has stuck, as today's Washington Post Op-ed by E. J. Dionne on "standing up to the gun lobby" shows.

However, the public isn't buying.

A new poll released this morning from Rasmussen Reports shows 70% of Americans oppose new gun restrictions as a strategy to fight drug cartel crime. Americans seem to understand better than U.S. politicians that the Mexican government's exaggerations and blame-the-gringos game are mostly developed for domestic political consumption, not from a true belief additional restrictions on U.S. buyers will actually staunch the flow of illicit arms to the Mexican cartels. (Click here to read earlier analysis of the true source of Mexican drug violence.)

Watch the Rasmussen Report video here.
--------
P.S. I generally have a lot of respect for E. J. Dionne. But as usual, when it comes to discussion of firearms, gun control seems to remain the one policy topic on which members of the press don't feel obligated to educate themselves about before regurgitating one-sided, intentionally misleading press releases.

Come on E. J. -- you're better than that, aren't you?

How about an expose on the intentional lack of border controls going into and out of Mexico by land, air or sea?

You might also want to learn a few basics about the types of weapons you are lumping together under the politically useful but technically meaningless label of "assault weapon" before you continue to vilify public ownership of semi-automatic rifles as the cause of Mexico's destabilization.

President Announces Desire to Ratify the Inter-American Convention

2009-04-16T19:41:00.000-07:00

In Mexico City today, President Obama announced his desire to see the U.S. Senate ratify the long-titled "Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials."

As reported by the Washington Post, President Obama reiterated his support for the Second Amendment, saying: "I believe we can respect the Second Amendment of the Constitution . . . and curb the flow of assault weapons to Mexico . . . None of us are under the illusion this would be easy."

Mexican President Calderon, who seems to have tempered his own former rhetoric about the U.S. Constitutional guarantees denied to his defenseless countrymen, added: "[he] respects the Second Amendment . . . but [wants a solution that] prevents abuse of the right by criminals."

Unfortunately, the inaccurate statistic that 90% of weapons seized in Mexico come from the U.S. was again repeated in the news conference. I think reuse of this widely disproved statistic is only adding fuel to the fire and should be retired ASAP (please mention to any of the administration figures you see.) I expect that those who see any international treaty involving the U.S. and the word "Firearms" as inherently bad will use the opportunity for fund-raising via scare tactics. And in truth we do need to keep a close eye on things.

However, I am willing to take President Obama at his word when he said he will not take away (or try to) firearms in the hands of law-abiding Americans.

BUT WHAT DOES THE TREATY ACTUALLY SAY?

First, here is a link to the cited "INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS." Please take a look at it for yourself.

I'm sure this announcement will cause alarm in various pro-RKBA forums & magazines, but my take on it is that the convention doesn't--in itself--actually say anything that should damn it at the outset. Here are some notable excerpts from the pre-amble:

"...STRESSING the need, in peace processes and post-conflict situations, to achieve effective control of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials in order to prevent their entry into the illicit market; ..."

Okay...so far so good...

RECOGNIZING that states have developed different cultural and historical uses for firearms, and that the purpose of enhancing international cooperation to eradicate illicit transnational trafficking in firearms is not intended to discourage or diminish lawful leisure or recreational activities such as travel or tourism for sport shooting, hunting, and other forms of lawful ownership and use recognized by the States Parties...

Not as strong as it could be--and certainly not in line with the full purpose of the Second Amendment. However, the line in bold--Recognizing that states have developed differnet cultural and historical uses for firearms--is a meaningful inclusion....

RECALLING that States Parties have their respective domestic laws and regulations in the areas of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, and recognizing that this Convention does not commit States Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character, and recognizing that States Parties will apply their respective laws and regulations in a manner consistent with this Convention..."

That seems like a complete recognition of the pre-eminence of the 2nd Amendment to me. But questions of law--as we saw with the Bush administration "signing statements"--are questions of will and of intention as much of word. So, there is nothing in the language above that commits the U.S. to bans, licensing or a national "list."

So far so good . . . But I think the potentially problematic parts are in Article XI and XVIII:

Article XI
Recordkeeping

States Parties shall assure the maintenance for a reasonable time of the information necessary to trace and identify illicitly manufactured and illicitly trafficked firearms to enable them to comply with their obligations under Articles XIII and XVII.

Article XVIII
Controlled Delivery

1. Should their domestic legal systems so permit, States Parties shall take the necessary measures, within their possibilities, to allow for the appropriate use of controlled delivery at the international level, on the basis of agreements or arrangements mutually consented to, with a view to identifying persons involved in the offenses referred to in Article IV and to taking legal action against them.

These articles could be interpreted either way. What is a "necessary measure" in "identifying persons involved in offenses"?

This convention/treaty is probably headed for the Senate. Our senators on both sides of the aisle need to ask these questions and make certain the language in the final treaty answers them in affirmation of the U.S. Constitution. Confidence in this outcome would be greatly enhanced if the statistical manipulations about where firearms are coming from and what types they really are were immediately made part of the discussion, i.e. drop the "90%" canard.

Note this excerpt from a recent L.A. Times article about the ongoing Mexican drug war:

The enhanced weaponry represents a wide sampling from the international arms bazaar, with grenades and launchers produced by U.S., South Korean, Israeli, Spanish or former Soviet bloc manufacturers. Many had been sold legally to governments, including Mexico's, and then were diverted onto the black market. Some may be sold directly to the traffickers by corrupt elements of national armies, authorities and experts say.

Acknowledgment of these facts by both the Calderon and Obama administrations--and dropping the pretense that U.S. gun shows are destabilizing the Mexican government--would be a first good step in finding meaningful solutions to solve our mutual problems.

Portland Man Defends Home With Handgun Against Intruder: 911 Audio

2009-04-16T10:54:00.000-07:00

In July 2007, Portland Oregon resident Leroy Hudson, 71, shot 26-year-old Brent Sweet in the head as Sweet "allegedly" tried to break into Hudson's home on Northeast Glisan Street. Mr. Hudson, his wife and his wife's even more elderly mother were all home at the time of the attempted home invasion.

The following audio of the incident was captured on the 911 call Mrs. Hudson made to the police while Sweet was breaking in to her home:

For those who don't hear the audio, things ended well for the Hudsons, but not so well for Mr. Sweet because Mr. Hudson shot him in the head with a .38 caliber handgun as Sweet was attempting to break in through the back door. Sensibly, the Multnomah County District Attorney's Office declined to file any charges against Mr. Hudson but (again, sensibly) did charge Mr. Sweet, who survived, with one count of first degree criminal trespassing.

Please note a couple of things. First, Mr. Hudson exercised extreme restraint and good marksmanship. He controlled his weapon and fired one round. He did NOT continue firing when it was clear he was no longer in danger. Second, the residents are a combination of elderly, African-Americans being victimized by a white hoodlum--so much for stereotypes! Mr. Sweet was 26 years old at the time and without their readily accessible firearm, the residents would have been at a considerable disadvantage against a young and determined home invader.

Note as well that even though Mrs. Hudson was on the phone to the police--and our city cops have a GREAT response time--this did nothing to get the young man off her back porch.

As the saying goes, "WHEN SECONDS COUNT, THE POLICE ARE ONLY MINUTES AWAY."

This is one reason why hand guns are legitimate tools for all law-abiding members of the public to own.

I wish the best of luck to Mr. and Mrs. Hudson after this ordeal, as well as the sincere hope that Mr. Sweet has an uncomplicated recovery and is able to take steps to turn his life around.

Taurus Judge Promoted as Anti-Carjacking Weapon: Help or Hype?

2009-04-14T11:37:00.000-07:00

The link below shows an interesting promotional video of the Taurus Judge, a 5-shot .45 cal revolver also chambered to use .410 shotgun shells.

I've always liked .410. A long-barreled .410 shotgun loaded with 000 buckshot is actually much more lethal and useful for home defense than is generally appreciated by those favoring larger gauge shotguns. A .410 has practically no "kick," is easy to aim, and the shot is safer to use in many situations, such as home defense, where a bullet from a handgun or rifle is more likely to penetrate interior and exterior walls.

The .410 "000" buckshot shell fires shot pellets of about .36 caliber. The 2.5 inch shell holds 3 pellets, the 3 inch shell holds 5. Even in a pump-action model shotgun, this allows for an impressive rate of fire, with each pellet striking (at close range) with power comparable to a .44 Magnum, and with minimal spread at short distances, e.g. across the living room.

However, in the past I have not been impressed with short-barreled weapons that fire shotgun shells. This is because the power is greatly diminished and the spread of the shot is so great that the number of pellets reaching the target can be pretty low. Derringers designed to fire .410 shells are especially poor because of their very short barrels and tiny grips that make it difficult to hold onto when firing without changing your grip, e.g. firing with the middle finger while laying the pointer over the top. With bird shot, I have had the experience of firing a .410 derringer at plywood from only 6 feet and finding that none of the pellets either hit or penetrated the target. Not a great recommendation for self defense.

The Judge seems a bit better--it has a longer barrel than most .45 derringers, a good grip and of course 3 more shots than an over/under 2-banger. But the problems with spread and penetration seem to persist according to the reviews I've seen. The video below tackles these objections head on and recommends the judge for a very specific purpose--putting down a carjacker at nearly point-blank range. For this purpose, the wide spread of the shot would seem to be an advantage, and the lack of penetrating power might not matter as much since you'd presumably be going for a shot to the face, neck and throat.

Here's the video demo:

If anyone has had the opportunity to fire the Judge or similar weapons, I'd love to know your impressions; doubly so if you've used it in a self-defense situation or know accounts of those who have. Thanks.

Fusion Firearms: A Fantastic 1911 at a Decent Price!

2009-04-13T09:00:00.000-07:00

The 1911 is a wildly popular pistol platform for many good reasons. It is one of the most ergonomically friendly platforms and points very naturally. When one is considering the purchase of a 1911, there are dozens of choices. These choices range from about $450 all the way up to around $5000. Somewhere in between those extremes lies Fusion Firearms.

Fusion Firearms is a relatively new company that is run by Bob Serva. Bob is the former President of Dan Wesson and has been building 1911's in one form or another for a long time. On top of top- notch quality guns, Bob provides some of the best customer service in the business!

Each Fusion 1911 is built by hand with all parts hand fit. The slide to frame fit is remarkable, as is the barrel fit. Upon visiting Fusion's website (http://www.fusionfirearms.com/), you will find that there are previously built models for sale with a wide variety of slides, frames, sights, calibers, etc. Or you can do what I did and email Bob with the specs that you want for a custom build. This was an awesome experience as I picked out the exact frame, slide, trigger, trigger pull weight, serrations, hammer, safeties, sights, etc. that I wanted. Fusion has all the parts for you to choose from, or you can opt to have other manufactures parts used. It is really all up to you

I had never had a gun custom made to my specs before, and I must say, that every gun lover should have at least one custom pistol. After doing much research to find the parts that I wanted I emailed Bob Serva for a quote on my custom build. The quote was much less than other custom builders had quoted me for similar builds. The price that I was quoted as well as the many excellent reviews of Fusion's products made my decision to go with Fusion a "no brainer."
Now, I want to clarify something here while I'm talking about price. These guns are not at all cheap (mine ended up being around $1600), but they are usually far less expensive than similar builds from other custom, or semi custom makers. Everyone else that I contacted about similar builds quoted me well over $2000.

After you get your order completed comes the hard part; the wait. My wait ended up being about 5 months. Bob is very busy, but still 5 months isn't a terribly long wait for a custom 1911. If you find a gun that you like that is already built, there is no wait at all.

When I finally took delivery of my gun, I was thrilled to see how nice it looked, and how solid it felt. Everything was fit very well and there was no rattles or play at all between slide and frame. After field stripping it, I found a couple negative aspects although they were purely cosmetic and do not hamper the function of the gun. There are some kind of rough tooling marks on the inside of the slide and frame. As I stated earlier, these marks in no way negatively affected the function of the pistol and they are not visible when the gun is put together. I did find them to be a little disappointing in a gun at this price though. Besides that one small gripe, all else was spectacular. The trigger is amazing with a crisp pull right between 3.5-3.75 lbs (right where I asked it to be), and the sights that I picked (Novak tritium front with a 10-8 rear) provided an excellent sight picture that is very easy to pick up quickly. The Ion-bond dlc finish on the slide looked great and was applied evenly.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to put many rounds down range through this gun. I am having a very hard time finding ammo (especially .45acp) recently. I did however get to put 75 rounds through it at the range. I was able to scrounge up 50 rounds of WWB fmj and 25 rounds of assorted 230 grn Hrnady TAP jhp and Corbon +p 165 grn jhp.

The shooting session was short but uneventful as there were no functional problems with the gun or any of the ammo. At first my accuracy was not as good as I had hoped, but towards the end it started getting much better as I was getting used to the new gun. Also, I was not really testing for accuracy, but more for reliability at this point. I would like to add that I am in no way a great shot, but have read many reviews that Fusion 1911's are often capable of 5 shot groups at 25 yards of under 1 inch with good ammo.

Overall, so far I am extremely pleased with my new 1911. If you are in the market for an upscale 1911, I would definitely recommend that you look into Fusion Firearms. Here are some pics for your enjoyment:

The Myth of 90 Percent

2009-04-07T10:17:00.000-07:00

There is a good news article, complete with attributions, regarding the pervasive talking point that "90 percent of illegal guns in Mexico" come from the United States. The true number seems closer to 17 percent.

Check out the article here: The Myth of 90 Percent

Here are a couple choice tidbits from the piece:

"In a remarkable claim, Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., said Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States -- 730,000 a year. That's a far cry from the official statistic from the Mexican attorney general's office, which says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008."
"The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years -- but those grenades and the rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) are unavailable in U.S. gun shops. The ones used in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey in October and a TV station in January were made in South Korea. Almost 70 similar grenades were seized in February in the bottom of a truck entering Mexico from Guatemala."
"Why would the Mexican drug cartels, which last year grossed between $17 billion and $38 billion, bother buying single-shot rifles, and force thousands of unknown 'straw' buyers in the U.S. through a government background check, when they can buy boatloads of fully automatic M-16s and assault rifles from China, Israel or South Africa?" (Indeed!)

So where are the Mexican drug cartels getting their guns? They're coming from the exact sources you would expect--if you've been reading the paper for the last decade: China, Korea, the Russian mafia, FARC, Guatemala, and the Mexican military itself. Surprise, surprise.

Gun Safety Apples and Oranges

2009-04-05T14:26:00.001-07:00

This video is a public service announcement put together by a group called PAX, which bills itself as a non-political, non-partisan group looking for "real solutions to gun violence."

For those who think this video is nothing more than melodramatic scare tactics, rest assured these things happen. I have a good friend who's gone through life with a large dent in his forehead where one of his brothers shot him with a .22 pistol when they were playing "Cowboys and Indians" about 30 years ago. Studying this issue by itself, PAX's campaign of "Changing Culture AND Saving Lives" seems reasonable. Honestly, who can argue with the advice to "ask if there's a gun where you child plays"? Seems like common sense.

Unfortunately, PAX dilutes their sensible messages of "ask" and "tell" (if you overhear a plot at school, etc.) by mixing apples and oranges. Presumably this is done explicitly to create the political biases they claim to eschew (which is a shame). For instance, the famous statistic that "8 children in America die from violence every day" is a very different thing than saying 8 children are accidentally killed every day, but the latter is exactly what is implied. Using the Center for Disease Control's database (CDC), I found that in 2005 (last year with available records) the total number of accidental shooting deaths of ALL KINDS for children ages 1 to 17 was 127. That's 127 too many, but it's also 1 every 3 days, not 8 a day. Homicides with a firearm committed against children 1 to 17 in the same year totalled 921. (Suicides with a firearm in 2005 for the same population were 412, with the youngest victim being 10.)

So, we have the claim on PAX's website: 8 a day time 365 days = 2920. But the CDC says all shooting deaths of minors in 2005 were 921 (homicides) + 127 (accidents of all kinds) + 412 (suicides) = 1460. (The total firearms deaths from "all intents" returned for ages 1- 17 is 1490 using the database.) I would say 1460 is also a large number, but inflating statistics for your own means do not help your cause nor do they help in finding a solution. The use of the word "children" is also misleading, because, as we shall see, by "children" we aren't just talking about 7 and 8 year olds playing games, we're including teenagers actively involved in poor lifestyle choices, like gangs and drug dealing, that actively endanger them through their own actions.

The CDC plays this game, too. In their report on 2008 Report on Youth Violence, the CDC says that, "In 2005, 5,686 young people ages 10 to 24 were murdered—an average of 16 each day (CDC 2008a)." But using their own database, we see that only 921 of these murders were of actual "children" as defined as someone under 18. Counting 18 to 24 year olds as "youths" might be legitimate in some cultural contexts, but this language seems guaranteed--perhaps designed--to obscure the real risk of to "children" from accidental shootings, school massacres and other sources of violence. Bear in mind that in most jurisdictions 18-year-olds may legally own a rifle and the 21-to-24 year olds included here as "youths" can own handguns. In Portland, Oregon, where I live, these 21-year old "youths" are even eligible to join the police force! The earlier conflation of apples and oranges includes pears and kumquats at this point.

The problem is that when bad data is used to exaggerate a problem or obscure its real causes, it results in poor reactions to fight that problem. A policy designed to protect children from the dangers of playing in a neighbor's home with a gun is--presumably--not the same policy that would protect school age students from murders by loners or protect underage gang members from being murdered in the course of illegal trade. Statistics used to protect "youths" from handgun violence should not include gun ownership rates or homicide/accidental death rates among 21-to-24-year-olds who may legally possess guns. As the saying goes: garbage in, garbage out. This is a classic case.

A word to PAX, the Million Mom March, and others trying to stop gun violence in America: sloppy or intentional misuse of gun statistics is guaranteed to alienate the most important group--gun owners--from joining your cause. And without gun owners' advice and "buy-in" there will be no progress on gun policy or in addressing our all too high levels of gun deaths, both intentional and accidental, from which our country suffers.

The "Ask Campaign" is a good idea; but you should try to engage gun owners with the truth--which is scary enough--without resorting to exaggeration. There's a less polite word for that, and once you're accused of it you have no credibility with the very group you claim to want to reach.

And of course, gun owners, do lock up your damn guns where minors, burglars, and "youths" (whatever that means) can't get them. That is, if you haven't already.

Mexican Gun Control is the True Source of Violence

2009-04-02T09:58:00.000-07:00

Much has been made lately of the supposedly sky-rocketing violence in Mexico associated with the drug trade. Mexican officials have been laying much of the blame for their domestic problems at the feet of the U.S. and the rights of Americans to purchase and own firearms. In today's online Christian Science Monitor (CSM) it was stated that "90% of guns recovered in Mexico are traced back to the U.S." American gun owners are rightly concerned that attempts to help Mexico fight criminal drug cartels may be used as a pretext for abridging our 2nd Amendment rights.

Mexico has a real problem with drug gangs and drug-related violence. It has bigger problems with social inequality. These same problems exist in the U.S. in places where poverty, gun prohibition and gun violence overlap. There is no reason to extend the size of these pockets of violence and failed public policy by increasing gun prohibition in any way either in the U.S. or abroad.

Behind the self-righteous indignation of Mexican officials and the earnest hand-wringing by anti-gun politicos in the U.S., reality is taking a beating. It's time to look at a few facts about what really causes violence and why so many guns in Mexico are traced back to the U.S.

Today's CSM article is a good place to start. Along with repetition of the talking points officials on both sides of the border keep regurgitating, the CSM had this to say:

It is no small task to access a gun in Mexico, at least legally. There are no commercial guns stores – those who want guns for self-protection or hunting must petition to the Mexican defense department. Intense background checks including psychological exams are carried out. Most of the guns in delinquents' hands in Mexico cross its borders illegally and circulate on the black market.

If you have ever traveled through Mexico--and no, spring break in Cancun doesn't count--you will have noticed a few things:

First, as noted above, Mexico has almost a complete ban on legal ownership of firearms because it doesn't trust its citizens. This is certainly the case since the 1968 student uprisings, though it has done little to prevent subsequent uprisings, such as the indigenous movement in Chiapas in the mid 1990s. At the same time, Mexicans--especially the poor--know that their police will not protect them and do little to address actual crime. Crime is rampant, especially in places like Mexico City and in rural areas in the south. Disarmed population + poverty + inept/corrupt police = crime wave. This is a true source of the strength of criminal gangs in Mexico, just as it is the true source of entrenched criminal cultures in many parts of the U.S. But law-abiding Mexicans can also take steps to protect themselves from these criminal cultures--and these steps include purchase and ownership of firearms, even if these are technically illegal. You might not see them on the streets, but you do see firearms in private hands in Mexico. Don't assume the "90%" of weapons mentioned above is exclusively weapons seized from drug gangs--lots of Mexicans own guns in spite of laws against it. Given the crime there, wouldn't you?

Second, the border crossings into Mexico are virtually unguarded. This includes going into Mexico on foot from the north, by boat from the south or any other way you care to enter the country, including driving in from the U.S. I used to drive down to Juarez on a regular basis and I can attest I was never seached going in either on foot or in my car. I once traveled by canoe from Tenosique, Mexico into Guatemala and the border patrols in the jungle along the river were non-existent--and this was during a period of open rebellion in Chiapas. If Mexico wants to stop illegal imports, they could start by patrolling their own border, but this isn't possible as long as it is a political and economic necessity for them to keep the borders as open as possible to allow the transit of economic migrants, e.g. undocumented workers.

Third, Mexico for the most part has two economic classes--ultra-rich and utterly poor. Mexican gun control is about keeping the poor and their sympathizers from taking economic reform into their own hands (Remember "Tierra y Liberdad"?) Mexican millionaires & billionaires are protected by a large state apparatus, including the military and police, that includes protectionist laws for monopolies on such things a telecommunications and natural resource extraction. Poverty and educational inequality facilitates the creation of a permanent criminal underclass. This is especially so when the poor are made doubly powerless via disarmament.

Fourth, the police forces (and many individual police officers) work largely to maintain the existing social order. In places like Oaxaca or farther south in Chiapas, the police more or less openly murder peasants trying to maintain access to land and even murder or otherwise repress more "middle class" labor leaders such as teachers working to achieve a more equitable society. For many people, the police simply are not an option or ally in fighting crime or in trying to protect yourself; disarming victims only makes it worse.)

Fifth, guns do not cause violence. I know this seems counter-intuitive to many people, but it's true. Mexico is a violent country, and from what we hear it is getting more violent. But in the last year for which murder statistics are available, the murder rate in Mexico was only half of what it is in Puerto Rico and less than a third of what it is in Belize. (Why is there no outcry to stop the violence on Puerto Rico, which the U.S. has much more direct responsibility for than Juarez?) By contrast, the murder rate in the U.S., where we are supposedly awash in guns, was only half that of Mexico.

My experience in traveling abroad is relevant on this point--I used to work in Yemen. Yemen is generally thought of as a dangerous place due to politically motivated kidnappings and occasional violence between the central government and local political or tribal groups asserting their traditional authority. EVERYONE in Yemen owns and carries a firearm, often fully automatic, as well as large daggers. Finding people with stashes of hand grenades isn't unusual. And yet, the murder rate in Yemen is lower than that in the U.S. and barely a third of that in Mexico, where gun prohibition has been the law for decades. How could this be so? The answer is that Yemen has a more stable social structure than Mexico, and, I would add, does not have gun control. Together these factors allow people to protect themselves--you just don't murder somebody in Yemen because their family--not the government--will get you for it. My point is not the relative cultural strength of the U.S., Mexico and Yemen, all three of which have their own strengths and weaknesses, but rather that the simplistic equation of guns = violence is exactly that.

If the U.S. wants to truly help stabilize Mexico--as well as our own economic and social structure--we should be a good neighbor and pressure them to enact a broader set of legal and economic reforms. What we should not do is to further enhance the ability of Mexican elites to monopolize the use of violence in maintaining an unjust social order through gun control.

Democratic senators declare NO to gun control as a solution to border violence

2009-03-29T14:54:00.000-07:00

Is there anyone who doesn't at some point wish they lived in Montana? For Democratic gun rights supporters, that is even more true now that Big Sky country is represented by three of the strongest gun rights advocates in office anywhere: Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer, Democratic Senator Jon Tester, and Democratic Senator Max Baucus.

Earlier this month, Baucus and Tester sent a joint letter of strong objection to A.G. Holder in response to Holder's comments clearly testing the waters to see if violence in Mexico linked to the "War on Drugs" could be used as a pretext to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. (Holder's comments were recently echoed by Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, leading to speculation these have become administration "talking points.")

Said Baucus and Tester:

We oppose reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons, and we call on the Department of Justice to enforce existing laws before it considers imposing any new restrictions on gun ownership . . . Your comments noted increased violence among international drug traffickers as a reason to reexamine the ban on assault weapons within this country; however, this statement fails to acknowledge laws already in place that work to address this issue. Under current law, both transferring a firearm to someone knowing that it will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime as well as possessing a firearm in furtherance of a Federal drug trafficking crime are already federal felonies punishable by imprisonment . . .

. . . In the light of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller, affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms as an individual and constitutionally protected right, we urge you to avoid any legislative proposals that would jeopardize the Constitutional right of law-abiding Americans to own firearms.

Here, here. THANK YOU, Senators.

Senator Tester followed up by repeating this message during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on March 25, 2009. At that time, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Deputy U.S. Attorney General David Ogden were testifying about cracking down on drug-related violence on the Mexican border, and each repeated the (talking) points that Mexican drug cartels are fighting each other and the Mexican military using firearms smuggled from the United States.

The key word in Napolitano's and Ogden's testimony of course should be "smuggled," which as Baucus and Tester both pointed out, is already illegal. (As noted in this NPR article, Mexican authorities even captured a "narco-submarine" last July being used to smuggle five tons of cocaine into the U.S.--perhaps the implication here is that submarines are being purchased using straw buyers at gun shows? The role of gun prohibition in Mexico in feeding the smuggling market or the violence by preventing law-abiding people there from protecting themselves from gansters apparently didn't come up; though you would have thought that would be one of the first topics of conversation.)

During the hearing, Tester had this to say:

“I want to be clear,” Tester told Ogden. “Some have used this latest outbreak in Mexico to argue for tighter gun control restrictions in the United States. I don’t agree that that’s the right answer. I think the right answer is really cooperation at all levels of government, and smarter intelligence—more eyes and ears on the border, getting tougher on criminals that are smuggling weapons and drugs.”

Indeed. Please make sure your own members of Congress are urged to join Tester and Baucus in this principled stand for U.S. Constitutional rights.

How Come?

2009-03-27T12:17:00.000-07:00

You may wonder why you as a supporter of your 2nd Amendment rights you feel as though you are a minority group in the Democratic Party. The actual facts are that you are not. Huh? Nope, you're not. You don't have a strong support system and it isn't particularly vocal in wide terms, but the actual numbers are on your side. What the anti-guns side has is being well financed and through that all the access to media and political figures whether earned or purchased that comes with it. Unfortunately what pieces of our side have that same advantage are also proving themselves to be enemies of Democratic ideologies well beyond the 2nd.

I have dropped my NRA membership and will not be going back until they figure out the 2nd Amendment is not about the right wing whackoes of the Republican Party. Appearing on Glenn Beck was the absolute end of any argument with myself on that stance, that is ludicrous and so counter to my political ends that I won't play. If you still pay dues this is something I encourage you to think about. But what replaces it?

The GOC/DPO is not powerful, we are just respected enough to be heard - some. That voice could be a lot louder and a lot more persuasive if a couple things were true, a large membership and real financial pockets. Now something to remember is that GOC has little control over money, money to us goes to DPO, but that money is accounted for and it shows plainly in the DPO books. Our access to money increases if we are bringing in significant amounts and we are allowed to pay for our events through what the event brings in. Demonstrable numbers and significant income will drive how loud and how well regarded our voices are.

Yes, this is a recruitment post and a political begging post. You have friends, get them signed up. When we manage to put on events, make the time to come out or donate to the cause. We are thrifty with money, have to be because we don't have any and then reporting requirements keep us very much on the straight and narrow. No one in GOC can profit from our activities and even getting reimbursed is tough. This link will put you or a friend in contact with GOC.

Thanks
Chuck Butcher

Adults in Charge?

2009-03-27T10:44:00.000-07:00

Long-time gun rights advocate and Gun Owners Caucus Vice Chair, Chuck Butcher, has posted a good summary of a concern currently gripping many gun rights advocates:

Will the War on Drugs be the new pretext for destroying our 2nd Amendment rights?

His discussion is in a post called "Adults in Charge?" posted on his regularly updated blog, "Chuck For..."

Here's a taste:

Yesterday Rachel Maddow reported on Sec State Hillary in Mexico and her taking on some US responsibility for Mexico's problems, drug demand and guns. Rachel was pleased, the adults are in charge she crowed. Excuse the hell out of me, hardly.

Read the rest and comment here or there.

As a good friend from A.B.A.T.E. said lately, "gun control will be the Democrat's Waterloo." Progressive advocates must not let this happen; there is too much other work to be done to squander political power and prestige on a meaningless, ineffective and ideologically driven anti-gun agenda. Many Democratic politicians realize this; all should have it explained to them again, and again.

Please contact your senators (and Congressmen) and make sure they clearly declare that no treaty with Mexico which abridges U.S. 2nd Amendment rights will ever be ratified:

OREGON SENATORS:
U.S. Senator Ron Wyden
http://wyden.senate.gov/

U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley
http://merkley.senate.gov/

65 Congressional Democrats tell Holder "No" on the Assault Weapons Ban

2009-03-19T09:57:00.000-07:00

Led by Arkansas Congressman, Mike Ross, sixty-five pro-gun Democrats--including Oregon's inestimable Pete DeFazio--signed an open letter to Attorney General Eric Holder opposing any effort to renew the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. 65 Congressmen represents a significant portion of Democratic house majority; enough to show clearly the assault weapons ban (AWB) is dead in the current Congress.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, respectively the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, have already gone on record publicly opposing any new AWB. It is my sincere hope that the perennial anti-gun legislators will recognize the futility of bringing forward any new legislation to ban any currently legal class of firearm, thus avoiding political theater that could only damage Democrats despite the hard work by so many Democratic Congressmen.

Reprinted here is the complete text of the letter, followed by a list of all who signed it. If your own Congressman isn't on the list ask him or her "Why not?"
----------
Text of Mike Ross's letter:

Dear Attorney General Holder:

As strong supporters of the Second Amendment, we were very concerned to see your recent remarks suggesting that the administration will push for the reinstatement of the 1994 ban on "assault weapons" and ammunition magazines.

We believe that this ban was ineffective during the 10 years it was law, and would oppose its reenactment. Crime began falling before the ban was passed in 1994, and continued falling during and after the ban. The last time the murder rate was at its current level was more than forty years ago.

Even the Urban Institute study of the ban's effectiveness mandated by the 103rd Congress found that it could only have a limited effect because "the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders."

It is hard to believe the ban would be any more effective in controlling crime by well-funded international drug traffickers, who regularly use grenade launchers, anti-tank rockets and other weapons that aer not available on the civilian market in the United States.

The gun control community as intentionally misled many Americans into believing that these weapons are fully automatic machine guns. They are not. these firearms fire one sot for every pull of the trigger. Some of the guns that would be banned under proposed bills have been around for more than 70 years, and are often passed down from generation to generation.

Many of our constituents lawfully own and use these firearms and ammunition magazines that would be affected by the new ban. Indeed, these are commonly owned firearms through the country. Law-abiding Americans use these guns for all the same reasons they use any other kind of gun--competitive shooting, hunting, and defending their homes and families.

Our constituents also have very real and serious problems that we in Congress urgently need to address. People are worried about keeping their jobs, paying for their families' health care, educating their children, and retiring with the kind of security their parents and grandparents enjoyed. A long and divisive fight over a gun control issue will only distract us from giving these more important issues the attention they deserve.

Again, we would actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban, or to pass any similar law. We urge you to abandon this initiative and to focus instead on effective law enforcement strategies to enforce our current laws against violent criminals and drug traffickers.

List of Democratic Congressmen against the assault weapons ban:

1. Mike Ross (D-AR)
2. Tim Holden (D-PA)
3. Jerry Costello (D-IL)
4. Jim Matheson (D-UT)
5. Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
6. John Dingell (D-MI)
7. Marion Berry (D-AR)
8. Nick Rahall (D-WV)
9. Gene Green (D-TX)
10. Chet Edwards (D-TX)
11. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX)
12. Gene Taylor (D-MS)
13. Bart Stupak (D-MI)
14. Collin Peterson (D-MN)
15. Harry Teague (D-NM)
16. John Tanner (D-TN)
17. Allen Boyd (D-FL)
18. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA)
19. Eric Massa (D-NY)
20. Steve Kagen, M.D. (D-WI)
21. Betsy Markey (D-CO)
22. Paul Hodes (D-NH)
23. Ron Kind (D-WI)
24. Peter Welch (D-VT)
25. Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
26. Tim Ryan (D-OH)
27. Walt Minnick (D-ID)
28. John Boccieri (D-OH)
29. Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
30. Tom Perriello (D-VA)
31. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
32. Ben Chandler (D-KY)
33. Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
34. Debbie Halvorson (D-IL)
35. Travis Childers (D-MS)
36. Tim Walz (D-MN)
37. Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
38. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX)
39. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
40. Rick Boucher (D-VA)
41. Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
42. John Murtha (D-PA)
43. Bart Gordon (D-TN)
44. Zach Space (D-OH)
45. Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
46. Lincoln Davis (D-TN)
47. Artur Davis (D-AL)
48. Charlie Melancon (D-LA)
49. John Barrow (D-GA)
50. Christopher Carney (D-PA)
51. Dan Boren (D-OK)
52. Parker Griffith (D-AL)
53. Charlie Wilson (D-OH)
54. Heath Shuler (D-NC)
55. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD)
56. Jim Marshall (D-GA)
57. Jason Altmire (D-PA)
58. Larry Kissell (D-NC)
59. John Salazar (D-CO)
60. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
61. Frank Kratovil (D-MD)
62. Glenn Nye (D-VA)
63. Bobby Bright (D-AL)
64. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ)
65. Joe Baca (D-CA)

Oregon Congressman Kurt Schrader announces opposition to HR 45

2009-03-16T13:11:00.000-07:00

Another Oregon Congressman, Kurt Schrader (Democrat - 5th CD), has come out publicly against HR 45, also known as "The Blair Holt Bill."

An active Gun Owner Caucus member received the following reply via email from freshman Congressman Kurt Schrader expressing his opposition to this wide-ranging gun control and registration bill. Schrader took the opportunity to voice opposition to the bill and stake out his own pro-2nd Amendment position:

Dear [name removed for privacy]:

Thank you for writing me with your thoughts on HR 45, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. I understand and share your opposition to this legislation.
I am a responsible gun owner. The Constitution allows the right to keep and bear arms. The federally mandated licensing of firearms set forth in HR 45 would over step the bounds on the Federal government set by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Thank you again for your letter and should you have any further questions or concerns, please contact my office by calling (202) 225-5711 or 1-877-301-KURT.

Sincerely,

KURT SCHRADER
Member of Congress

And thank you, Congressman Schrader, for making your position clear and protecting the rights of Americans to defend their civil rights. It is good to know our newest Oregon congressman stands with fellow Democratic Oregon Congressmen Peter DeFazio and David Wu in supporting gun owners' Constitutional rights.

A summary of HR 45, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, can be found here. This is a truly terrible gun control bill unlikely to have any effect on crime but which would go a long way towards taking away your 2nd Amendment rights. It needs to fail.

Multnomah County Democratic Party Central Committee votes to protect CHL holder privacy

2009-03-14T15:00:00.000-07:00

The following resolution was passed overwhelmingly on a voice vote of the Multnomah County Democratic Party on Thursday, 3/12/09. The party, which represents the Portland Oregon metropolitan area Democrats, favors protecting private information of concealed handgun license (CHL) holders as laid out in the following resoltuion:

Resolution No. 2009-15 Privacy of Concealed Weapons permit holders

A Resolution of the Multnomah County Democratic Party Central Committee:
Whereas, concealed weapons permits are obtained by people for personal protection;
Whereas, concealed weapons permits are obtained to help insure compliance with state laws pertaining to carrying and transporting of firearms;
Whereas, the Constitution of the United States guarantees the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms; and,
Whereas, individuals who obtain a concealed weapons permit have a right to privacy;
Therefore, be it resolved that the Multnomah County Democratic Party supports the withholding of information providing names of individuals, who have obtained concealed weapons permits, from the public.

That sounds pretty clear to me. Keep CHL info out of the public records.
--------------
Update: This story has also been picked up in the Daily Kos: Oregon Democrats Support Privacy Rights for Gun Owners.

The Oregonian public blog to discuss Assault Weapons Ban on 3/15/09

2009-03-14T14:20:00.000-07:00

On 3/7/09 the Oregonian ran an opinion called "Growing Fears on the Southern Border." It repeated the canard floated earlier this month that gun control in the U.S. is necessary to help curb drug violence in Mexico. In response, I sent them a letter (see below) which will be posted to The Oregonian public blog at 8 PM Saturday, 3/14. The post will be listed in the Sunday edition, with links to the online discussion.

This will offer a good opportunity to voice your opinions on recent proposals to restrict U.S. gun rights in the name of the War on Drugs. My opinion is that the War on Drugs has from the very begin served as a poor mask for overreaching government policies, on both the right and left, and it's no surprise to see it trotted out in the gun control debate.

To visit the Oregonian post, go to "My Oregon" located at www.oregonlive.com/thestump. The post will appear at 8 p.m. Saturday, 3/14.

Please make your voices heard. Thanks.

-Zak
-----------------

Original Letter, excerpt:

Your opinion column in Saturday's edition (3/7/09) titled "Growing fears on the southern border" repeats the current murmur that gun violence associated with narcotics trafficking in Mexico is the result of gun laws in the U. S. . . [This letter is now the property of The Oregonian, please log in to read the full text and to join the conversation. -Z.]

A Pat on the Back to Zak and the Gun Owner's Caucus

2009-03-13T10:07:00.000-07:00

Last night at the Multnomah County Dems meeting Zak Johnson made a presentation to the audience (mostly PCP's) regarding the current bill (I'm sorry I can't remember the number of the bill right now) to keep CHL holders' info private. The purpose of Zak's presentation was two fold; to inform, but mostly to have this issue put to a vote to see if there would be support for the bill from the Multnomah County Democrats.

After Zak gave his presentation to the audience the matter was put to a vote. A "pro" vote ment that the bill would be supported by the Mulnomah County Dems, and a "con" vote would mean the opposite. The result of the vote was a resounding "yes", or "pro" support of the bill.

The significance of this is that perhaps the most liberal county in Oregon voted in the favor of gun owners' rights. This is GREAT! It seems that the tide may be changing for the better within our party.

Thank you Zak for making yourself heard and for presenting at the meeting. Thank you to all of you who have shown your support for this bill and others like it by contacting your legislators. Please also thank your legislators that have backed this bill, and/or any other similar bills.

I hope to see you all in Albany on Sunday!

Pelosi Shoots Down Assault Weapons Ban

2009-02-26T14:50:00.000-08:00

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has gotten into the pro-2nd Amendment game by shooting down the prospect of renewing the so-called Assault Weapons ban. This comes after recent statements by AG Eric Holder (see next post) saying the administration would attempt to reinstate the ban.

Pelosi said Holder had not consulted with her before issuing his comments. She added her own opinion on what to do:

"On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now," Pelosi said. "I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that."

See complete references online on The Hill.

Score one for the Speaker! This shows Nancy Pelosi, whatever her personal feelings, "gets it" and understands that the new Democratic-controlled Congress will not support further restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights.

While Eric Holder's anti-2nd Amendment positions are well-known, you also have to wonder how much he consulted with his boss before his recent statements. My guess is, not much.

Concerning Holder's actual statement, here it is:

"Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border."

Um, sorry, but if "assault weapons" are coming into Mexico from the U.S., they're passing into the L.A. harbor on Chinese merchant ships first. Those ships can dock anywhere north or south of the border. And considering Mexican drug gangs now employ squads of former Mexican special forces officers as assassins, no change in U.S. law is going to impact the availability of firearms for Mexican mobsters. However, given Holder's conversations with Mexican officials on the issue, it is important that no treaties with Mexico are allowed to serve as backdoor routes to gun control.

But again--nice one, Pelosi!

Obama to Seek New "Assault Weapons" Ban

2009-02-26T11:26:00.000-08:00

Here's a link to yesterday's ABC News article with some comments by AG Eric Holder that make me feel less than comfortable. Apparently he is wanting to re-institute the ban to protect Mexico!?! Sacrificing Second Amendment rights as a foreign policy ploy sounds a little scary to me.

C. Michael Arnold,
Attorney at Law
Eugene, Oregon
http://www.arnoldlawfirm.com/

Oregon House Introduces BIll to Support CHL Privacy

2009-02-21T12:27:00.000-08:00

There is excellent news this week in the ongoing effort to secure privacy rights for Oregon's Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders.

Representatives Jeff Barker (D-Aloha) and Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer) have put forward HB 2727, a bill which

"Prohibits public body from releasing information that can be used to identify holder of or applicant for concealed handgun license. Authorizes disclosure for criminal justice purposes and pursuant to court order."

HB 2727 was one of several bills drafted to address the gaping hole in Oregon law that currently allows anyone access to records of who does or does not possess a CHL; and I'm happy to say the HB 2727 already has an extremely long list of bi-partisan co-sponsors. (A similar bill being drafted by Rep. Jules Bailey (D-Portland) was designed to address the same issue, but is now moot. Reps. Bailey, Nick Kahl (D-Gresham) and several others not yet listed as co-sponsors have indicated they intend to co-sponsor and vote for Barker's and Thatcher's bill as well.)

Blue Steel Democrats has had several earlier posts in support of CHL privacy. Keeping CHL records private is a position supported by all major firearms advocacy groups in the state, as well as the Oregon State Sheriff's Association.

The Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon encourages all gun owners and other individuals concerned with privacy rights to contact their legislators with thanks and encouragement that HB 2727 becomes law.

Three positive gun rights bill in the Oregon legislature

2009-02-09T11:35:00.000-08:00

The Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF) has posted a list of 3 positive gun rights bill currently pending in the Oregon legislature. These are on the table largely due to the influence of House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Jeff Barker (D-Aloha, District 28), a dependable long-time advocate for gun owners in the state of Oregon.

The bills are HR 2463, HR 2330, and HR 2314. Check them out here on OFF's website, and thank Rep. Barker when you see him.

OFF is asking for support of these bills by contacting your legislature--details for this campaign are also on the OFF website.

But What Do We Do About the Nut Jobs?

2009-02-02T18:02:00.000-08:00

There have several high-profile incidents involving the all-too-familiar refrain of disturbed loaners or depressed "providers" (mostly out-of-work husbands/fathers)--that is, murdering SOBs--massacring strangers or family members with guns. I personally believe these incidents reflect a troubled culture in this country that is largely unconnected to guns, but which unfortunately has fixated on guns as its means of expression. In other countries, the murderous minds turn to other favored means of violent self-destruction--arson in Turkey, explosives in China--in ways common and predictable enough within each society to let us realize guns are not the cause of the illness.

But as gun owners and gun advocates, we have to admit guns are a hell of a symptom. To protect our rights and our society's long-term freedom by maintaining the primacy of the 2nd Amendment, we need to answer the objections of those who believe a ban on guns would provide the bromide they seek.

Predictably in the wake of the recent events, there has been the predictable outcry for greater gun control. Most of it is uninformed and reactionary. One exception to this is an op-ed piece in the Oregonian by self-declared anti-gun writer, Reagan Ross.

While I disagree with Ross that gun control is desirable or beneficial to society, it's clear that Ross and pro-gun rights activists like myself have a common goal of trying to create a more peaceful society. It's worth reading Ross's entire article, but I'd like to quote some of what he says here:

While I'm [Ross] a big believer in stricter gun control -- registration, safety locks, automatic gun bans, background checks and so on -- and while the volume of dangerous guns available is distressing, the reality is that if a violent offender wants a gun, he will get a gun. However, I would argue that it is less the availability of a gun itself than a sensibility that jointly romanticizes and glorifies gun ownership and, by extension, accentuates masculinity for these young, angry males. For this reason alone, we need to break through this "gun culture" sensibility and move to a more constricted view of gun ownership. - Reagan Ross, Marylhurst University

Ross's point about the romanticism around guns in America is easy to see. He's also honest enough to report what he knows to be true--it isn't the presence of the gun, it's the cultural attitude toward the gun that leads to gun violence.

But what he says about a "more constricted view of gun ownership" is a good idea--a view that does not include romantic images of a loser redeeming himself through murder of innocents in a Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid meet Sam Peckinpah fantasy. In short I'd say we need to make guns more about hunting, political freedom, and crime prevention and less about sex, personal power and instant fame.

Which leads me to an open question to our caucus members:

What steps can we take as gun rights advocates to change the image of guns, gun owners, and gun ownership to create a positive image of guns that will no longer make gun violence an attractive, romantic cliche for the disturbed and impressionable?

England Wants Their Guns Back!

2009-01-30T10:44:00.000-08:00

Hello all. I recently received an email from gunsamerica.com about the citizens of England fighting to get their guns back. As we all know, England has extremely constricting gun laws. Years ago, the citizens of England were forced to give up all of their handguns to be destroyed. Now, they are facing a hunting ban, and many see this as the last straw.

A link to a great youtube video was included in the email. It is a little lengthy, but well worth the time it takes to watch it. According to the video, the citizens of England staged the country's largest ever peaceful protest to try to regain their liberties. The people interviewed in the video warn us Americans, that our liberties will be taken from us if we let them.

Below is a link to the video. Give it a watch if you have not already done so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE

We need to continue to fight to ensure that our liberties are not taken from us!

brian r

The Blair Holt Bill: Cynicism at Its Finest

2009-01-25T21:31:00.000-08:00

H.R. 45, also known as "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and record of Sale Act of 2009," is a wide-reaching gun control bill introduced in Congress in January 2009 by Rep Rush, Bobby L. (IL-D).

The bill's namesake, Blair Holt was by all accounts a brave young man who was murdered at age 16 in Chicago in 2007 while protecting a girl on a public bus from another young man trying to shoot her. The killer, Michael Pace, also 16 in 2007, apparently got the gun from yet another minor, Kevin Jones , who was only 15 in 2007.

Note that both of the perps were under 21. Neither had any legal right in any state to own a handgun, let alone to carry one legally. There is no place in the United States where anyone could have legally sold or loaned a gun to either of those kids. Bizarrely these facts are ignored in H.R. 45's call for NEW laws, when the existing laws are either unenforced or unenforceable.

Illinois, especially Chicago, already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, which you would think would be prima facie evidence that gun control laws will be ignored by criminals and only put the law-abiding at a disadvantage. (I haven't been able to find a source about where Kevin Jones got the murder weapon, but I'd lay money that it wasn't from a gun dealer, a pawn shop, or non-licensed seller (non-dealer) at a gun show. If you have any info on where Jones got his gun please post it here, but chances are the gun was from a robbery, which according to sources in the know, is also the main source for illegal guns on the streets of Portland.)

My guess is that Rep Rush is a pretty smart man, and as such knows all this. But doesn't care. It's easier to use an unfortunate victim to pass through a gun control bill he would have proposed anyway. And H.R. 45 is a veritable Christmas tree of anti-gun legislation, most of which is already in place in Illinois, and none of which would have saved Blair Holt.

Here's a sampling.

Sec 101 - Requiring a national license to own a handgun or semiautomatic firearm:
"It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license."

A qualifying firearm is defined earlier in the bill as "any handgun; or any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device."

Sec 102 - Application Requirements:
". . . a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age. . ."

Sec 201 - Banning any transfer of a firearm other than via a licensed dealer:
"It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a qualifying firearm to, or for, any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, or to receive a qualifying firearm from a person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, unless, at the time and place of the transfer or receipt."

The bill goes on in like fashion. Regarding Sec 102--the order that you keep your firearm stored in your home and sign a paper swearing you'll do so--it doesn't appear that Rep. Rush believes that precedent was set by the Heller decision, which reads:

. . . Held: . . . 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional . . .

Sorry, Rep. Rush, but this bill ain't happening; SCOTUS will strike it down even if it does pass. But I'm pretty sure you knew that already. At this point H.R. 45 appears to have no co-sponsors; I hope that's as good a sign as it appears, and that Congress will not waste time with bills that violate the Constitution, reinforce the stereotype of "gun grabbers" on the Hill, and which would have no positive impact on crime.

Surely the 111 Congress can do better?

Priorities: Why Democrats Should Fight the Gun Grabbers

2009-01-18T11:42:00.000-08:00

This piece is written in hopes of reaching out to the anti-gun wing of the Democratic party. It's pointless to pretend you aren't hoping for your turn at bat; so please listen.

We all agree there is a lot of work to do in this country right now to fix the problems of the past 8 years and more. What does this have to do gun rights? Very simple. In one of the very first posts on this blog, we documented a very simple cause and effect:

When Democrats work for gun control, they lose national elections. Period.

So, as George W. Bush prepares to leave office it's worth remembering the Bush presidency would not have happened if Al Gore had supported gun rights. That is the analysis of Al Gore's 2000 campaign spokesman Doug Hattaway--that Gore lost the election because of his stance on guns. If even a small portion of the "single issue" pro-2nd Amendment voters (roughly 20% of the electorate) had voted for Gore in 2000, he would be been elected president in 2000, regardless of events in Florida and the behavior of the U.S. Supreme Court. Think about that when you think about the 2010 mid-term elections . . .

With Hattaway's comments in mind, I invite you to watch Keith Olbermann's depressing summary (below) of last 8 years and to keep the following in mind:

* The Bush years wouldn't have happened if Gore had won just one other state a with pro-gun electorate. (Gore lost his home state, Tennessee, you will recall.)

* If the Obama administration or the Democratic majorities in Congress try to bring back the assault weapons ban, Bush and his ilk will be back in four years, if not 2010.

To "bringing back the ban" we should add any draconian back-door methods to neuter the Heller case and the 2nd Amendment in general such as ammunition taxes or bans as well as any attempt to bring about a de facto end gun sales by allowing law suits against manufacturers. Don't get cute with trying to get around the Constitution; we've seen the last 8 years where that leads. Please folks--don't give the Republicans an opening. Regardless of your own views on guns, Democrats must join together to oppose and educate gun control advocates within our party in order to save our strength for the difficult work ahead.

If you don't agree with 2nd Amendment supporters on the positive purpose of guns in society, then I have one word of advice I hope you will heed: "Priorities."

Here's Olbermann's review for those who can stand another retelling:

Molon labe.

"In 2008, NRA Shot Blanks."

2009-01-12T23:57:00.000-08:00

Ray Schoenke, President of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), offers his analysis of gun politics in the last election on his AHSA website blog:

In 10 of the 11 states where the NRA Political Victory Fund's efforts against Obama were concentrated -- gun-friendly regions in states like Colorado, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico – they lost . . . (On the plus side, the NRA’s histrionics and fear mongering tactics did succeed in bolstering gun sales after the election, which is a good thing in this dreadful economy). . .

. . . So why is the NRA "shooting blanks" these days? Because they don’t get it. The landscape has changed. With the Supreme Court overturning the D.C. gun ban, our gun rights are secure and government confiscation is off the table. Now, we can actually talk about responsible gun laws, conservation, public access, global warming – and even the economy.

Read more and comment on the AHSA website: http://www.huntersandshooters.org/

-Z.

Help protect the privacy of CHL holders

2009-01-09T10:33:00.000-08:00

Hello all. As you are all aware, the privacy of Oregon concealed carry permit holders may be in jeopardy because of vagueness in the law as it is written. A couple of us have already spoken with State Representatives who are interested in pushing for legislature that would protect the privacy of CHL holders. Our friend Zak Johnson has written a great letter which has been sent to the correct people. Zak has given me permission to post this letter here as an example for you all to follow if you feel comfortable doing so. The letter is as follows:

I am writing to you to strongly encourage you to introduce and support legislation to protect the privacy and safety of concealed handgun license (CHL) holders in Oregon. Records of who does and does not have a CHL should not be available to anyone who wants to see them, and the lists of CHL holders should not be available to the press for review or publication. Current law, unfortunately, is ambiguous on this point, and the privacy of CHL holders from scrutiny by the press or potential employers is not currently protected.

As I expect you are aware as a long-time supporter of gun owners' rights, there is an on-going controversy in Oregon on this issue. The current controversy began as a result of the Medford Mail Tribune's lawsuit filing to discover whether teachers or school board members in Jackson Co. were CHL holders, but that lawsuit has much wider implications. Unfortunately, the current legal status of CHL privacy is not clear. Currently, it up to each county sheriff to determine their own policy. Most sheriffs, including the sheriffs of Jackson Co. and my own county (Multnomah) have decided not to release CHL records at this time, but the legal standing for them to continue to do this long-term is not settled. In some counties (Washington), the sheriffs have decided only to keep the records private if specifically requested to do so; but this policy is flawed because the only time a "request denied" would come back would be when the individual was a CHL holder who had requested privacy!

Because of the Oregon legislature's position (sensible, in my opinion) to make gun laws consistent and uniform throughout Oregon, I believe CHL-holder privacy is an important issue for the legislature to take timely action on. I and the gun-owners I have spoken with overwhelmingly believe that CHL holder records should not be released to the general public or to the media.

Raul Ramirez, CEO of the Oregon State Sheriff's Association, nicely summed up many of the reasons for CHL privacy when he wrote:

"Those with legitimate need for a gun permit will not want that need, their name and address, and the fact that they carry a weapon to become known publicly. Indeed, disclosure would defeat the purpose of the concealed weapon permit. The point of having the permit is to be able to be armed safely without public knowledge. Privacy of this information makes sense! The information should be deemed private in the case of any permit holder. To do otherwise invites trouble, whether it be aggression directed at an armed permit holder or a burglary in search of firearms." (Source: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december042008/weapons_permits-12-4-08.php)

I would add to Mr. Ramirez's reasons the following: the Internet and "blogging" journalism has increasingly blurred the line between who is and is not a legitimate journalist. There are little to no controls over bloggers and what the choose to publish. Leaving records of CHL holders open to searches by anyone--even those claiming press credentials--invites likely "outing" of CHL holders. (I have written further information on my reasoning on the blog of the Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon, here: http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/2008/12/concealed-carry-permits-should-remain.html).

The actions of both the Medford Mail Tribune and the local Medford school board suggest that if CHL permits are treated as public records there will be nothing to prevent both public and private employers from checking job applicants' public records to see who has a CHL and to then deny employment (whether openly or unofficially) to anyone whose name they find on the roles.Further, given the current controversy, I think it's very likely that companies or government agencies may begin CHL reviews as part of their job screening process (if they are not doing already.) This would leave employees subject to hidden penalties as a result of simply exercising their civil and legal rights.

The controversy with the Medford Mail Tribune asking for records of all CHL holders was in response to a single teacher in Medford declaring publicly that she intended to bring a firearm into the classroom for self-protection. But this case is irrelevant to the larger issue of privacy. Whether or not local school boards may implement policies to ban employees from bringing firearms to work is a separate matter that should not mean that CHL holders as a class forfeit their rights to privacy simply because one of them might be violating a policy of either a public or private employer.

I believe CHL permits are in the same category as medical history--they are a record of an individual's personal, not public, profile, and they should remain such.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

I hope that all of you please consider writing similar letters to your legislators. Here is a link:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/index.html

brian r

Josephine County Sheriff To Meet With Gun Owners

2009-01-06T11:20:00.000-08:00

Attention Josephine County Residents:

AN EVENING WITH SHERIFF GIL GILBERTSON (Josephine Co.)

Tuesday, January 13th
7:00pm-8:30pm
Redwood Grange
1830 Redwood Ave, Grants Pass

Should concealed handgun permit holders information remain private? Should the media be allowed to publish the names and address of permit holders?

Sheriff Gilbertson recently stated his opinion on this issue, and his strong belief in the Constitution, specifically the 2nd amendment. This will be the central topic of discussion, as well as other 2nd amendment related issues, such as “restricted shooting districts”.

This will be an open forum, with questions from the audience welcome. As time allows we will also discuss the ongoing funding issue, and the future of Josephine County Law Enforcement. Plan on attending this informative meeting and learn more about this important issue, the Sheriff’s position, and how this affects you.

For info call 541-291-3158 or e-mail mancuso@grantspass.com

(This announcement comes from the Oregon Firearms Federation. A complete synopsis of the event and background issues can be found on the OFF website.)

Evolution in Reverse

2009-01-03T22:39:00.000-08:00

There's a very interesting article in the latest Newsweek called "How Hunting is Driving Evolution in Reverse," subtitled "It's Survival of the Weak and Scrawny." The basic premise is that by selecting the biggest, fittest, most extraordinary animals as trophies, humans are altering the gene pool with the effect that hunted species are getting smaller:

"Researchers describe what's happening as none other than the selection process that Darwin made famous: the fittest of a species survive to reproduce and pass along their traits to succeeding generations, while the traits of the unfit gradually disappear. Selective hunting—picking out individuals with the best horns or antlers, or the largest piece of hide—works in reverse: the evolutionary loser is not the small and defenseless, but the biggest and best-equipped to win mates or fend off attackers."

The example of the increase in "tuskless" elephants is quite interesting:

"Tusks used to make elephants fitter, as a weapon or a tool in foraging—until ivory became a precious commodity and having tusks got you killed. Then tuskless elephants, products of a genetic fluke, became the more consistent breeders and grew from around 2 percent among African elephants to more than 38 percent in one Zambian population, and 98 percent in a South African one. In Asia, where female elephants don't have tusks to begin with, the proportion of tuskless elephants has more than doubled, to more than 90 percent in Sri Lanka."

Other examples are cited in the article, including a study on Canadian bighorns turning into "little bighorns" that seemed credible.

The evidence isn't overwhelming, but the premise makes sense, and doesn't seem to be anything new. PSU archaeologist Ken Ames has shown that selective hunting of male antelope to preserve herd size has been going on in the Middle East for 10,000 years or more. Similarly, the steady shrinking in size of North American bison over thousands of years has been explained in terms of smaller specimens having shorter gestation periods that make them less susceptible to human hunting than bigger animals that stay pregnant longer.

But perhaps selectively going after "trophy" animals represents a new type of natural selection that we should rethink? I completely understand the impulse of wanting to find that special trophy animal, but if we want to maintain the health of species through hunting, people may want to occasionally take on the traditional role of wolves--eat the small, scrawny, and weak--and find a way to make sure da 30-point buck (or at least some of them) keep breeding.

The Salad Bar of Rights: We don't get to pick and choose

2008-12-19T14:54:00.000-08:00

It is a common flaw in gun control rhetoric that somehow the Second Amendment is about hunting rights. The Second Amendment and the Oregon Constitution do not say that there is a “right to keep and bear sporting goods.” The primary purpose of these constitutional provisions is to protect citizens from tyranny — not to preserve a right to shoot deer.

And don’t forget that Oregon Constitution affords its citizens broader protections than the Second Amendment and specifically covers self-defense.

Gun control advocates are often quick to point out that there are more than 30,000 people shot to death each year in this country. However, they routinely neglect to point out how many of those deaths were in self defense or by criminals against an unarmed victim. Additionally, their usual statistics never take into account how many crimes are deterred and deaths prevented by citizens with firearms.

In the last 100 years, governments have murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals. More importantly, those government-sponsored murders were preceded by gun control laws making the citizenry easier to control and kill when they were unable to resist.

It is amazing how quickly we forget the gun control laws of the Soviet Union, Nationalist China, Nazi Germany, Communist China and the Khmer Rouge that preceded their killing of more than 60 million people. And that still leaves us to ponder the gun control legislation that preceded the death of the one million Armenians at the hands of Ottoman Turkey, or the indigenous peoples and other political enemies killed at the hands of Guatemala or genocide at the hands of government in Rwanda and Uganda.

Our Founding Fathers knew the threat of a government to its people, hence the Second Amendment. History has unfortunately reaffirmed this lesson again and again.

We do not get to pick and choose which constitutionally guaranteed rights we will support like we are at a salad bar of rights. It is disingenuous to complain about the neo-cons stepping on our civil liberties (First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments) — by their dispersing lawful assemblies, illegal wiretaps, deprivation of the right to counsel, torture, etc. — but completely ignore what the Framers found so important of a right that they listed it #2. We should protect all of our civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

C. Michael Arnold,
Attorney at Law
Eugene, Oregon
http://www.arnoldlawfirm.com/

Department of Administrative Services (DAS) Schedules Hearing on Firearms Rules Changes

2008-12-12T12:36:00.000-08:00

The Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS) is holding a public hearing on December 22 to consider proposed rules language changes to bring DAS "rules" into compliance with state firearms laws. In Oregon, the legislature has the sole right to govern all firearms legislation, and administrative "rules" which are in conflict with "law" are illegal.

The proposed rule change is captioned, "Rules for Use of Buildings, Grounds and Parking Lots under Department Control." The hearing is to decide whether to amend OAR 125-075-0015 to bring it into compliance with ORS 166.170 and 166.370.

In a nutshell, if implemented, the rules change is likely to verify the rights of CHL holders as well as the drivers of certain classes of vehicles to have their firearms with them in DAS buildings, grounds and parking lots, as the case may be.

View the proposed changes, here.

Information on how to comment (hopefully in favor) of these rules changes can be found, here.

You may also provide oral or written comments in favor of the proposed rule changes at the public hearing set for Monday, December 22, 2008, at 10:00 a.m.

Location: Department of Administrative Services, Facilities Division

1225 Ferry Street SE 2nd Floor

Salem, OR 97301

Mt. Ashland Conference Room

Concealed Carry Permits Should Remain Private

2008-12-11T09:41:00.000-08:00

There is an on-going attempt in Oregon to allow "outing" witch hunts of concealed handgun license (CHL) holders. News organizations and some unspecified groups are requesting lists of all holders from county sheriffs. (The Oregon Firearms Federation has several good synopses of the ongoing controversy on their website.)

Raul Ramirez, CEO of the Oregon State Sheriff's Association, weighed in recently with an opinion piece arguing that concealed carry permit (CHL) holders should be entitled to privacy. In that regard, it's hard not to agree with him.

Quoting Ramirez:

"Sunshine and transparency is central to American democracy, as is the oversight role of the press. This does not mean that every public record should be subject to review by all who request it . . . Those with legitimate need for a gun permit will not want that need, their name and address, and the fact that they carry a weapon to become known publicly. Indeed, disclosure would defeat the purpose of the concealed weapon permit. The point of having the permit is to be able to be armed safely without public knowledge.
Privacy of this information makes sense! The information should be deemed private in the case of any permit holder. To do otherwise invites trouble, whether it be aggression directed at an armed permit holder or a burglary in search of firearms."

I couldn't agree more. When it comes to the right to privacy, I can't think of any compelling reason to grant public access to knowledge about who has or hasn't obtained a CHL for the purposes of self-defense or even simply to exercise their constitutional rights.

To back up, the current controversy in Oregon began with the famous case of the Medford teacher who sought to carry a concealed weapon at work due to a belief that her husband was stalking her. As a result, the following occurred:

"The lists have always been available under Oregon's Public Records Law but the issue drew major controversy last year when a Medford teacher with a CHL got national attention when she wanted to carry her gun at school.
The story prompted reporters to ask for a list of every permit holder in the county and -- after a court battle -- they got those names.But the court also decided that because of concerns for personal safety anyone who has a CHL can choose to keep their name off the list, and that's exactly what the Linn County sheriff is offering." (Source - KPTV, Oregon)

To my thinking, having to fill out additional forms to keep your name off a list is absurd. It seems that in such a case, people without permits would still be identified as not having them while people with them but not on the list would be identified as having them. So the only time a record's request would be denied would be in cases where someone is on the list but asked to have that information kept private. Will this really be that hard for people to figure out? I doubt it.

A recent opinion piece on BlueOregon.com took up the issue with the following statement:

"But I'm surrounded by thousands of people bearing handguns, and apparently I do not have the right to know who these people are (I'm not sure how Multnomah County is handling this). Yes, the right to possess guns and other weapons is contitutionally [sic] protected, but so are other rights for which citizens must be responsible. Abuse the right of free speech, and you can pay in court. Abuse the right to bear arms, and another human being may die. I can let evil words slip past me, but I have no protection when someone, especially someone who succumbs to fear, chooses to aim a gun my way."

Conflating or intentionally confusing the act of legally carrying a weapon with "abuse" or the desire to threaten people is especially galling, but not perhaps atypical (most of the comments in response to the author took him to task for these insinuations.) These statements recall to mind the over the top hysteria about gun violence escalating back when Oregon adopted the concealed carry law. The violence hasn't happened--and most studies show a strong correlation between concealed carry laws and a drop in crime--and I truly believe the author of the quote above is made safer by the "thousands of people" quietly, legally and responsibly carrying firearms around him.

You might ask, why not just carry openly? In Oregon, it is currently legal to openly carry firearms in most circumstances. However, unless you're actively engaged in hunting at the time, this simply isn't culturally acceptable even if it is legally acceptable. It's also arguably provocative to wander around flaunting a gun (and more than likely to attract unwanted attention of all types, including police harassment.) Try dropping your kid off at school with a six-shooter on your hip and see what the public reaction is if you don't believe me. Concealed carry, while also turning crime into a guessing game for the criminals, is also less provocative and more civil. The desire to "out" people exercising their right to carry concealed seems to be driven more by a desire for decidedly uncivil political power over them in order to press the anti-gun agenda. Witch hunts and attempts to expose or intimidate people for legal, constitutionally protected behavior--including exercising the right to privacy for non-public individuals--is not democratic with a big or small "d."

If government allows witch hunts or public intimidation of people trying to exercise their constitutional rights, it comes close to any definition of "infringement" that I can think of. In my opinion, the sensible thing to do is to treat CHL permits like any other privacy issue. Just because you go to a publicly funded clinic doesn't make your medical records public knowledge. Just because you decide to exercise your constitutional rights to bear arms doesn't mean the whole world needs to be able to find out about it from a quick google search.

I recommend contacting your local sheriffs and also your state legislators to let them know your feelings on this one.