This one is a re-hash of a bill she's been pushing for the last several sessions. Thanks to you, it's gone nowhere, but with the gun haters in charge of the Senate, this bill could very well move through that chamber.

The bill would allow schools to bar you from their property if you were in possession of a handgun even though you had a concealed handgun license.

Furthermore, it would allow the school to extend their power to deprive you of your rights, anywhere school children assembled.

We've seen this before.

If a school decided to take their kids on a field trip, you could be arrested if you were in the same location. Lunacy? You bet. But exactly what we expected. Frankly, we're surprised it took so long.

As of the time of this e-mail, the bill was not available in printed form. However, OFF has obtained a copy of the draft.
You can see it here in PDF format.

The bill will start in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee members are:

Ginny Burdick, Chair (The sponsor of the bill, although it will appear as "Sponsored By the Judiciary Committee) 503-986-1718

Charles Starr, Vice-Chair (A reliable pro-gun vote) 503-986-1713

Roger Beyer (A strong supporter of gun rights.) 503-986-1709

Floyd Prozanski (A militant anti-gun extremist) 503-986-1704

Charlie Ringo (A regular anti-gun voter) 503-986-1717

Vicki L Walker (A militant anti-gun extremist) 503-986-1707

Doug Whitsett (A newly elected Republican who answered our survey 100%) 503-986-1728

They can all be contacted here.

It's not too early to contact your own legislator and remind them to protect your gun rights. If you don't know who your legislators are, you can find them easily here:

We have been informed that hearings on this bill will be probably held in Portland rather than Salem. This would be done to assure the biggest possible anti-gun turn-out possible. We have been told that the hearing could be in the Multnomah County Courthouse. Although this has not been confirmed, if it is accurate, it would be done to guarantee that handgun license holders would be turned away should they be in possession of their legal self-defense firearms.

We will keep you informed as events unfold.

OFF ALERT 12/09/04

The Oregon Appeals Court dealt a major blow to the rights of Oregon gun owners yesterday.

As you probably know, The Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation has been involved in a lawsuit against the City of Portland since 2001.

In December of 2001, the city sponsored a tax-payer funded "New Year's" Party at Pioneer Courthouse Square in downtown Portland.
They spent over $49,000.00 of tax-payer money to hire "Entercom Radio" to provide "production" help with things like sound and lighting.

Persons with concealed handgun licenses were forbidden from coming to this free public event if they were in possession of their lawful concealed firearms.

On New Year's Eve, we sought a temporary restraining order to stop the city from enforcing this rule, which was clearly in violation of Oregon's pre-emption statute.

The Court refused to grant it and we sued.

The case finally reached the Appeals Court and they have rendered their decision.

The short version is this: While the Court reaffirmed that the city may NOT restrict licensed, concealed carry, they MAY hire others to restrict it.

There is NO QUESTION that this ruling is faulty and wrong. No person or entity can give a right to someone else that they don't have.

We will be working on a detailed analysis of this decision, but two main points were discussed that should be mentioned here.
First, was this a public event, or a private event?

The City paid for the event, it was held on public property, advertised as "City" sponsored and open, at no charge, to everyone (except license holders exercising their rights.)

The Court decided that they would not address this issue, based on the novel notion that it didn't matter because the event was over.

The second issue was whether or not the city could allow someone who "leased" their property to restrict the rights of the public.

This issue may be even more nonsensical. If you "lease" property, you pay for it. In this case, the City was claiming that "Entercom" "leased" the property. However, the CITY paid ENTERCOM, not the other way around. So the discussion of whether a party that leases property can deny the public civil rights has no bearing on this case.

Clearly "Entercom" was in no way a traditional lease holder.

The Court however, found that a lease holder COULD deny civil rights to the public. There are plenty of Federal Court decisions that flatly contradict this.

Using the Court's logic, the City of Portland could pay "Basic RIghts Oregon" to hold a gay pride parade. Basic Rights could then forbid heterosexuals from being on the streets where the parade was being held.

There are instances in this decision where the Appeals Court flatly misinterpreted cases quoted, particularly where they discuss (in a footnote) the Gathwright case.

Here they get the decision exactly backwards and interpret the Gathwright decision to mean the exact opposite of what it did.

We will follow up with a more detailed analysis soon, including our future plans, but for now you can read this latest slam on your rights here.

OFF ALERT 12/6/04

Follow-up on Police "Roll Call Memo"

After repeated efforts to learn if a memo we received, purporting to be a Portland Police Bureau roll call memo, was genuine, we have received the following e-mail from Sgt. Brian Schmautz. (See our alert dated 12/3/04 below.)

Schmautz is the public information officer for the Portland Police.

While it remains unclear if the memo was distributed at any Police roll call, we submit Sgt. Schmautz's response. You can make of it what you will:

"I will again attempt to explain the situation. I received a faxed copy of
some information about Concealed Handgun Licenses. It is titled "Roll Call
Information/Reminder." It is not dated but has a stamp and the hand written
date 11/6. You have asked if the memo was distributed at a roll call and I
will attempt to explain why I have repeatedly written that the Police Bureau
has not authorized the distribution of any information about seizing
Concealed Handgun Licences.
The Police Bureau has a procedure in place if a bureau members desires to
put training or information related material in roll call boxes. Officers
submit information to the Training Division where is vetted to determine if it is
true, legal, and best practice. If it is determined that the information
should be released it will be printed on Police Bureau letterhead and
distributed to all officers.
Officers or civilian employees can place information that is not related to
training, policy, or procedure directly in precinct "all boxes." That
information is typically related to ongoing criminal activity or wanted
subjects.
The information in question was not sent to the Training Division or vetted
for accuracy. It does not bear the name of the author and there is no
evidence that it was written by an officer. If it had been submitted to
Training it would not have been distributed because it is not accurate
information.
What I have been able to learn is that someone placed in North Precinct's
all box sometime around November 6th. That it was apparently pulled from the
all box either because it was not appropriate information or because no one knew
how it got there. North Precinct is attempting to determine if it may have
been read by a sergeant at one of the roll calls but the command staff over
at North don't think so. I have been told that there is often to much
information in the all boxes and typically sergeants only read information
that is related to officers safety or ongoing criminal activity. What can
never be determined with certainty is if an officer picked up the all box
and just started reading it's contents. Because officers frequently pick up the
all box before roll call that is a much more likely scenario than the
information being read at roll call. It is clear that the memo was in the
box for a maximum of 24 hours.
Just to make sure there is not any lingering confusion about the issue,
Commander Madison did ask his Day Shift Lt. to attempt to determine who
placed the memo in the box and remind them of the policy regarding training
related information. Cmdr. Madison also asked the Lt. to obtain accurate
concealed weapons related information from Multnomah County and place it in
the all box in the event that an officer did see the information.
I will once again repeat, there is no conspiracy, plan, or ongoing policy
discussion concerning Concealed Weapons Licenses. I just checked with the
Training Division and one in the Police Bureau has requested or suggested
sending out any information concerning the potential methods of taking
licences away from anyone other that those people involved in criminal
activity or individuals who become mentally unstable.
I will also state that I am a Sergeant and not a policy maker for the Police
Bureau. If the Police Bureau was attempting to make policy I would tell
you and forward individuals to the appropriate source. In this case, the Bureau
is not attempting to write or change policy. At best there is a misinformed
officer or civilian employee who thought for whatever reason that they were
being helpful by preparing information that was ultimately wrong. All I can
do is tell people that this situation is an unfortunate misunderstanding
that has been corrected. If you have the ability to share that information and
you desire to do so that would be appreciated.
I have no further information on this issue. I will not be directly
involved in North Precinct's efforts to look into this matter. I am taking them at
their word that the problem has been resolved.
There is a check and balance for everything. The fact that the information
was quickly removed and that correct information will be given to officers
in the event they received inaccurate information is the best I can offer at
this time.
Hopefully I have answered your question this time and no further
correspondence is needed."

OFF ALERT 12/03/04

Oregon Firearms has received a copy of a memo reported to have been distributed at at least one Portland Police Department roll call.

The memo encourages police officers to seek to have concealed handgun licenses revoked for actions such as failing to report that you have a license and a handgun during routine traffic stops.

It also suggests that a handgun license can be revoked or "reconsidered" because of out of date vehicle registration information.

BE ADVISED, THERE IS NOTHING IN OREGON LAW THAT REQUIRES YOU TO VOLUNTEER THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE A LICENSE OR A LEGALLY POSSESSED HANDGUN DURING A ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP.

Furthermore, vehicle registration information is not tied to your CHL, only a current address.

We have made numerous attempts to determine if this memo is authentic. All requests for verification have been ignored.

(Since this alert was sent, we received an e-mail from Sgt Brian Schmautz. In it he states:

"I am a Public Information Officer not a policy maker for the bureau. Our
Policy and Procedure Manuel is available on our web site. I have NO
information that the Police Bureau has any desire to deprive anyone of their
right to carry a concealed weapon if they are not mentally unstable or
engaging in illegal activity. Feel free to read all the policies and
procedures of the bureau.
All police officer carry guns and many are collectors. I don't know what
additional assurance you require but hope this puts you at ease.
Sgt. Brian Schmautz "

Nowhere in his e-mail has he denied that the memo was circulated.)

We noted that the memo refers to "CWP's" or "concealed weapons permits." But, Oregon issues "concealed handgun licenses" not "concealed weapons permits."

However, in a phone call to the Portland Police Department, we spoke to a staffer who also used this incorrect term, which would indicate it is commonly used within the department.

As such, OFF believes it is prudent to assume that this is, in fact, a policy of the Portland Police, until and unless they inform us to the contrary.

The contact information for the Portland Police Public Information Officer follows

:PIO Contact Name: Brian Schmautz
Email Address: bschmautz@police.ci.portland.or.us
Phone Number: 503-823-0010
Pager Number: 503-790-1779

If you possess a CHL and are in the Portland area, exercise extreme caution during any contact you have with police officers.

OFF ALERT 11/04/04

Oregon bucked national trends and moved to the left this election.

In addition to returning all 4 Democrat Congress members, the Dems kept all the state wide seats.

Two Congressional races that some predicted would be close, the 1st and the 5th CD's were comfortably won by the incumbent anti-gunners who held them, David Wu and Darlene Hooley. Neither of their opponents were pro-gun however.

The Oregon Senate, currently split 15 to 15 will be solidly in the hands of the Democrats who picked up three seats.

This means that all committees will be picked by the Democratic Senate President. So, it's a safe bet that we will be facing an avalanche of anti-gun bills starting from day one in January.

Currently the two people seeking the Senate President's job are Peter Courtney , who currently holds the position, and Kate Brown, who wants it.

Both are committed anti-gunners. Brown, however, is a militant leftist and probably the more dangerous of the two. (You may recall she once invited a witch to give the opening "prayer" on the Senate floor.)

In the House, the Republicans lost three seats, but picked up one for a net loss of two.

One of those seats had been held by Max Williams before he left to take a job offered by the Governor.

That seat was won by anti-gun Democrat Larry Galizio who made a major campaign issue of attacking gun owners. Williams was anti-gun however, so that loss is not that big a change.

The House is now split 33 to 27, for a slight Republican edge. However, not all Republicans are friends of gun owners, so the margin is even tighter than it appears.

For example, Jerry Krummel has voted against gun rights, Derrick Kitts was the sponsor of anti-gun legislation in 2003 and Speaker Karen Minnis torpedoed all pro-gun bills in 2003 while allowing hearings on anti-gun bills
.
Clearly we will have our work cut out for us in the coming session. Your activism has paid off in the past and we're counting on it in the future.

If you're receiving this message and you are an OFF member, thanks. You'll be getting a more in depth analysis in the mail soon.

If you're not a member and would like to become one, there has been no better time. Your support will be essential in the months ahead.
You can contribute easily on line .

You can also make a contribution to our PAC .

In either case, a form is available if you prefer to make your contribution through the regular mail
You can keep track of all election results here.

OFF ALERT 9/21/04

CAMPAIGN SEASON STARTS... LET THE LIES BEGIN.

House Democrat Committee Sends False Mailers.
City Councilman Calls For Semi-Auto Ban.

The anti-gun nuts, stung by the end of the Clinton gun ban, have begun to hyper-ventilate. And as you know, when their lips are moving, they're lying.

In a hit piece intended to discredit a Republican running for the Oregon House, "FuturePac," the mouthpiece for the House Democrats, has sent a mailing attacking Republican candidate Suzanne Gallagher.

Gallagher is running for House District 35 (Tigard) against Democrat Larry Galizio.

"Quoting" our candidate survey they claim "Suzanne Gallagher told a right wing gun group that she would oppose any reasonable restrictions on where unlicensed, concealed weapons could be carried---even in schools."

As far as we're concerned that's a great idea, but Gallagher never said anything of the kind. "FuturePAC" is , to no one's surprise, lying.

Our candidate survey, does not even contain a question about guns in schools, and unlicensed carry in schools is prohibited by Federal law. So the desperation on the part of the freedom haters is becoming more and more pronounced.

Rachel Albers (503-646-0441) who handles press for Galizio, attempted to explain the lies by saying that Gallagher had answered the survey opposing extending new restrictions on concealed carry. But as we said, this has nothing to do with schools, where unlicensed carry is forbidden under Federal law.

Galizio's website contains the following quote “It's unfortunate that our opponent doesn't value open, accountable campaigns that are focused on the issues,”   We think it's unfortunate that Galizio stands behind the lies told by "FuturePAC."
The liars at Future PAC can be reached at 503-249-0457.
Larry Galizio,  who was the beneficiary of the lies, can be reached at (503)516-1101 or (503)646-0441.

Anti-gun Portland City Councilman Jim Francesconi, trying to deflect attention from the beating he's been taking in the Portland Mayor's race, (from anti-gun ex-police chief Tom Potter) has issued a resolution requesting that semi-automatic firearms be banned in Oregon.
A portion of the text appears below.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Portland City Council calls on the Oregon Legislature to ban assault weapons from the State of Oregon.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, should the State Legislature prove unable to pass a statewide assault-weapons ban, the Portland City Council calls on them to create a law allowing local governments to enact their own such ban within their local boundaries.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Francesconi was a major contributor to Ginny Burdick's 2000 anti-gun show ballot measure .Remember, contributions to our PAC can earn you a tax credit. What better time?

OFF ALERT 09/10/04

Clinton Gun Ban Dead.


The US House of Representatives has adjourned. Their next scheduled meeting is Sept 13, 2004.

At that point, the mindless joke that was the Clinton "Assault Weapon Ban" will be dead.

While it's important to keep in mind that this insane legislation can rear its ugly little head at any time, it's also appropriate for you to give yourself a much deserved pat on the back.

In spite of 10 years worth of lies from Brady, Burdick, Schumer and the press, your hard work has paid off.

While the talking head sock-puppets and the drones in the print media repeated the lie that this bill was "overwhelmingly supported" by the American public, your calls, letters and e-mails spoke the truth. For that you should be proud.

As you know, we will soon face an attempt at a similar ban in Oregon. But, your willingness to fight means we will defeat that as well.
Of course, there is much left to be done.

The hysteria of the anti-gun nuts have convinced many that our streets will soon be flooded with Uzi's and AK-47's, two firearms that will still be illegal thanks to George Bush Sr. So we know what our next job is.

Meanwhile, Oregon Firearms Federation will keep you informed.

We thank all of you who have supported our efforts and promise you, that in January, we'll be in Salem, and with your help, we'll stand in the way of every freedom hating scheme the gun grabbers can dream up.

Congratulations on a battle well fought.

OFF ALERT 9/9/04

LOCAL SEMI-AUTO BAN ANNOUNCED. TIME TO RETIRE GINNY BURDICK.

As we predicted, Ginny Burdick has announced plans to introduce a ban on semi-automatic firearms in Oregon as soon as the next session begins.

In a "e-newsletter" Burdick listed her priorities for 2005;

  "Allowing local school boards to ban all guns from school grounds and school buses even if someone has a concealed handgun license.
  Preparing legislation to impose a statewide ban on assault weapons if Congress fails to renew the national ban by the deadline later this month. "

If you saw last night's "Nightline" you know that the anti-gun forces (including Ted Koppel and LA Police Chief William Bratton) are still willing to tell any lie and fabricate any statistic to promote their agenda. Burdick is no different.

So we have two choices. We can wait until January, when Burdick may very well be the Chair of the Senate committee that hears gun control bills, or we can do everything in our power to make Burdick go away.

As you know, Burdick is up for re-election. Her opponent is John Wight. John is smart, experienced and supports gun owners' rights.

OFF members have already contributed generously to John's campaign, but we need to do more. Getting rid of Burdick will be the single best thing we can do to protect our rights when the Oregon Legislature convenes in January.

Please consider making the most generous contribution you can to John's campaign. This may be one of the best investments in gun rights you could ever make.

Please visit John's website . You can contribute to John's campaign directly through his web page using Pay Pal.

You can also make a donation with no Pay Pal account by using our secure website. Be sure to write "Wight" in the comments section so we can forward your donation to John.

This is , without doubt, the most crucial election we face this year. Please consider doing all you can to help John get elected and send Burdick back to private life.

OFF ALERT 9/7/04

Dear Oregon Gun Rights Supporter,
We are coming down to the wire on the expiration of the Clinton semi-auto ban.

There are only a few business days left for Congress to reenact this senseless and unconstitutional attack on gun owners' rights.
Needless to say, we are watching very carefully to make sure that Schumer and friends don't attempt a last minute drive for renewal.

The anti-gun groups around the country are growing increasingly shrill in their demands that the gun ban be renewed. An e-mail from "The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence" sent today, urges their supporters to call the White House on Thursday and ask George Bush to renew the ban.

Gun rights supporters should be making calls on the same day, at the same time ,Thursday, September 9th, 2004, between the hours of 9 am and 5 pm EST at 202-456-1111.

If you are an OFF member, you should have received our last letter explaining our expectations about this bill. It is our belief that if the ban sunsets, there will almost certainly be a push to enact similar legislation statewide.

If the Democrats take control of the Oregon Senate, and Ginny Burdick is re-elected, she will almost surely become chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Since gun control is all Burdick does, it's a safe bet that we'll see an avalanche of new gun grab bills in 2005. We are counting on your help and support to block them.

Your contribution to our political action committee can make the difference between success and failure when the legislature convenes in January. To make an on-line contribution, please click here.

Remember, contributions to PACs may qualify for a tax credit of up to $100.00. That means your support could very well cost you nothing.

Now we have some really good news. Since OFF first started working to safeguard your gun rights, Eric Dickman has served on our board of directors.

Eric is a long time competitive shooter and has been an activist for gun rights for many years. You can imagine that an OFF board member is not likely to be a fence sitter on gun rights, and Eric is as solid and principled as any person I've ever met. That's why I'm thrilled to be able to tell you that Eric has decided to run for Oregon's House of Representatives in the 46th District.

Neither of the other two candidates in the race responded to OFF's candidate survey, which is a good indication of where they stand on your rights. I needn't tell you that Eric's survey was 100%. (If you want a copy send us a note and we'll e-mail it to you.)

That's why I'm asking that you consider making a contribution to Eric's campaign. Whether you live in his district or not, Eric will be an uncompromising voice for gun rights. This is one election where we'll have no questions about who to endorse, and we hope you will help Eric as well.

If you'd like to donate to Eric's campaign on line, you may do so at the OFF website at the address given above. Please make a note that your contribution is for Eric. Checks can be sent to:
Friends of Eric Dickman
3111 SE 53RD
PORTLAND, OR 97206

Remember, if your contribution is OVER $50.00 you need to provide your employer or your occupation. Thanks for your ongoing support for gun rights.

Kevin Starrett

OFF ALERT 7/17/04

CONCEALED HANDGUNS IN STATE PARKS

We recently received a copy of an e-mail sent by the Oregon State Parks Department concerning the legality of concealed handguns in Oregon State Parks.
It was forwarded to us by talk show host Lars Larson from KXL Radio in Portland.
It stated that concealed handgun license holders COULD NOT legally carry in state parks.
We immediately called the author of the e-mail, Mr Kevin Price and informed him what the actual law was. He asked for a day or two to clarify the policy.
Yesterday we received a copy of his updated response. Both e-mails are reproduced below. The Parks Department website, which did clearly state that firearms were prohibited, has been changed and no longer makes that statement.
Thanks to Lars Larson for bringing this to our attention.

_First E-Mail_________________________________________________________________________
July 14, 2004
Mr. XXXX,
Jo is right, there are no exceptions, as I interpret our rule, for loaded firearms in Oregon State Parks. Firearms are allowed as long as they are not loaded in our parks. We sometimes have hunters who access other properties through our parks. They are asked to unload their weapons untilthey reach their destination.
If you have any further questions feel free to contact me.
Kevin W. Price
Assistant Area Manager
Columbia River Gorge State Parks


_Second E-Mail_______________________________________________________________________
July 15, 2004
Dear XXXX
Thank you for your most recent e-mails.
I'm very sorry for any misunderstanding in our communication concerning firearms in Oregon State Parks.
You were right, individual(s) with a concealed weapon permit can legally carry firearms in Oregon State Parks.
We're in the process of reviewing our rules and regulations in this area.
We will take the proposed changes to the Oregon State Parks Commission for consideration.
I'd also like to apologize for any misunderstanding concerning our web page. As you noted, our rules concerning firearms were indeed posted on our
web page. Our contractor inadvertently re-posted the rules while doing maintenance on the system. That was a mistake. The rules have since been removed.
Again, thank you for writing us and for giving us a chance to correct the matter.
Sincerely,

Kevin W. Price
Community Outreach Manager
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department

OFF ALERT 7/14/04
Department of Human Services Changes Gun Policy.

As you know, the Federal Court chose not to rule on our complaint that the Oregon University System was imposing illegal policies by banning CHL holders from having firearms on campus.

We maintain that the law is clear on this issue, but we still await a resolution.

We are also still waiting to hear from the Oregon Appeals Court on our lawsuit against the City of Portland for its illegal policies concerning CHL's.

But we think our efforts, though not yet complete, are having an effect.

We have been informed that the Oregon Department of Human Services has changed part of its policy on concealed carry in their offices.
While they continue to discriminate against their own employees (lunacy in this time of work place shootings) they have CHANGED their policy for non-employees with CHL's.

Their previous policy included the following:
"a. When a visitor brings a weapon into a DHS worksite, law enforcement shall be notified, even if the visitor indicates that they have a permit to carry a concealed handgun."
That policy can be found here.

Their new policy follows state law, at least for non employees. A copy is available in PDF format here.

This is a small step forward, but we are sure it would not have happened without the support we have received from folks like you, which allowed us to pursue these legal matters.

OFF ALERT 6/30/04
Court Opinion in School Gun Case.

As many of you know, the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, was in court recently against the Oregon University System.
The facts of the case are unambiguous.

Across the state, schools are violating state law by imposing restrictions and prohibitions on concealed handgun carry.

Oregon law is uncharacteristically clear on this issue. No government agency, no city, no municipality, no district or bureaucrat may legally impose a restriction on concealed handgun carry, EXCEPT the state legislature.

Yet, as we know, it happens daily. From the Port of Portland to the Oregon University System, bureaucrats are making up their own rules.
The law, in this case, is absolutely on the side of gun owners, so there would seem to be little in the way of a legislative remedy for the kinds of abuses which gun owners face state wide.

That's why we sued the City of Portland for their violations (that case is ongoing) and why we took on the University System.
For a variety of reasons we took our suit against the University System to Federal Court. We received their opinion today.
A copy of the opinion is available on our website. Opening it requires Adobe Acrobat.

Brian Stubbs, the student who was the plaintiff in this case, did everything in his power to challenge the University's illegal anti-gun policies prior to taking it to court. But Brian did not violate the school's policies, even though it's clear they are illegal.

As a result, the court found, that in the absence of Brian openly breaking the rules, and suffering the inevitable repercussions, both academic and professional, he had suffered "no harm."

In essence what the court decided was, that unless and until, a license holder subjects himself to possible arrest and penalties, they have no standing to seek protection for their rights in Federal Court.

As you can imagine, we are disappointed by the position the Court has taken. Essentially, they have taken no real position at all.
We are assessing our options for our next step and can assure you that every possible avenue is being explored in our efforts to force the bureaucrats to be held accountable.

We are grateful for all who have supported these efforts. With your help we will continue to fight these battles in every way we can. You can help here.