Ballot Measure 114: About that Required "Firearm Safety Course"....

Continuing on the Very Bad Thing™ that is Measure 114. Full text available here (PDF warning).

From Section 4 — the "Permit-to-Purchase Process" section — subsection 1:

(b) A person is qualified to be issued a permit-to-purchase under this section if the person:
[...]
(D) Provides proof of completion of a firearm safety course as defined in subsection (8) of this section....

So now let's go see what Section 4, subsection 8 says:

(8) As used in this section, "proof of completion of a firearm safety course" means the following:
(a) Proof of completion of any firearms training course or class available to the general public that is offered by law enforcement, a community college, or a private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by a law enforcement agency, and that includes components set forth in paragraph (c) of this subsection; or
(b) Proof of completion of any law enforcement firearms training course or class that is offered for security guards, investigators, reserve law enforcement officers, or any other law enforcement officers, and that includes components set forth in paragraph (c) of this subsection;
(c) A firearms training course or class required for issuance of a permit-to-purchase must include:
  (A) Review of federal and state laws in place at the time of the class and other safe practices related to ownership, purchase, transportation and use of firearms;
  (B) Review of federal and state safe storage laws in place at the time of the class and other safe practices related to safe storage, including reporting lost and stolen guns;
  (C) Prevention of abuse or misuse of firearms, including the impact of homicide and suicide on families, communities and the country as a whole; and
  (D) In-person demonstration of the applicant's ability to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency. This requirement may be met separately from the other course requirements in subpargagraphs [sic] (A), (B) and (C) of paragraph (c), which may be completed in an on-line course, provided the on-line course has been conducted by a trainer certified by law enforcement.
(d) Proof of successful completion of a training course in order to meet the requirements for a concealed handgun license issued under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 may be submitted for a permit as a substitute for the requirements in paragraph (c) of this subsection, provided the completed course included each of the components set forth in paragraph (c) of this subsection.

Some people might read this and think, "So what? This all seems reasonable. What's wrong with this?"

Let's get started.

Starting from the end, subparagraph (d) says that proof of completion of a training course or class to qualify for a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) can be provided as a substitute for the course or class to qualify for a permit-to-purchase, IF (big "IF") that course or class includes "each of the components set forth in paragraph (c)". That sounds good, until you check the training required for a CHL.

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 166.291, subsection 1, paragraph (f) reads:

(1) The sheriff of a county, upon a person’s application for an Oregon concealed handgun license, upon receipt of the appropriate fees and after compliance with the procedures set out in this section, shall issue the person a concealed handgun license if the person:
[...]
(f) Demonstrates competence with a handgun by any one of the following:
  (A) Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife or a similar agency of another state if handgun safety was a component of the course;
  (B) Completion of any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course if handgun safety was a component of the course;
  (C) Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by law enforcement, community college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or a law enforcement agency if handgun safety was a component of the course;
  (D) Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, reserve law enforcement officers or any other law enforcement officers if handgun safety was a component of the course;
  (E) Presents evidence of equivalent experience with a handgun through participation in organized shooting competition or military service;
  (F) Is licensed or has been licensed to carry a firearm in this state, unless the license has been revoked; or
  (G) Completion of any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a firearms instructor certified by a law enforcement agency or the National Rifle Association if handgun safety was a component of the course;

(Astute readers might notice that Measure 114's section (4)(8), paragraphs (a) and (b), look like they were copy-pasted from ORS 166.291(1)(f), subparagraphs (C) and (D), with "Proof of" inserted at the beginning.)

There are two problems here: First is that the only consistent requirement from all these option is that "handgun safety" was a component. Locking, loading, unloading, firing, and storing — as required by Measure 114 — are not part of a typical CHL training course. Thus, most certificates of completion for a CHL won't qualify for a permit-to-purchase.

Second, a CHL applicant has a broad array of options to meet the training requirement: a course can be conducted by a trainer certified by law enforcement OR the Department of Fish & Wildlife (or another state's equivalent) OR the military OR the National Rifle Association. Even participation in organized shooting sports could count for a CHL application! Measure 114 removes ALL these other avenues and requires you to take a law-enforcement-certified class instead.

However, most CHL trainers are certified by the NRA, not law enforcement, and thus their certificates of completion for a CHL won't qualify for a permit-to-purchase. (It's ironic that cutting the NRA out of the training options has been on the anti-gunners' wish-list for some time, given that the NRA was formed for the express purpose of teaching civilians how to shoot. Regardless, the anti-gunners got their wish.)

So your CHL training certificate probably won't work. You'll have to take additional training.

But where do you get it? This creates a few other potential problems:

• Trainers certified by law enforcement tend to be law enforcement themselves, with all the normal duties of a sworn police officer.
• There's no requirement for any law enforcement agency to certify anyone else to provide permit-to-purchase training.
• There's no funding secured in the measure for any law enforcement agency to review private trainers' curriculum or issue certifications. (The "Defund the Police" movement further complicates things here.) This could mean their in-agency trainers are the only local people qualified to provide courses.
• Law enforcement trainers' time is limited. Tasking them with training private citizens adds an additional set of responsibilities, from developing curriculum and running the courses, for which they will (quite reasonably) expect to be compensated. Private citizen classes will likely be very costly.

And that last assumes their agency's brass doesn't continually fill their schedules with additional law enforcement classes, rendering them unavailable to train private citizens. Or create policies imposing arbitrary limits on permit-to-purchase class sizes. Imagine if a local department's only trainer is allowed to offer the course no more than once per month, with an attendance limit of six people. How long do you think before you can get in?

So training is required before you can apply for permission to purchase a firearm, but it's not necessarily a given that training will be affordable or even available.

And yet, that's still not the most glaring problem of the training requirement.

Ready for it?

The most glaring problem is in paragraph (c), subparagraph (D): "In-person demonstration of the applicant's ability to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency."

Before a prospective gun owner can apply for a permit to receive a firearm, they must first demonstrate — in-person before a law-enforcement-certified trainer — the ability to safely handle a firearm they are not yet allowed to have. Where is this firearm supposed to come from?

And if someone were allowed to bring a gun they already own for the in-person demonstration, and then the background check for the permit-to-purchase revealed they are a "prohibited person" who cannot legally possess that firearm, how is that not a Fifth Amendment violation?

(On that note, will a private trainer who lacks "qualified immunity" want to open themselves to the legal liability of possibly letting a "prohibited person" handle his/her guns?)

This measure is a mess. I'd say someone who doesn't understand existing gun laws wrote it, but it's becoming clearer and clearer that measures like this are written to sound good and reasonable to people who don't know the current law, while dovetailing with the specifics of existing laws to create an impassable legal quagmire for current and prospective gun owners. It is deliberate.

More to come on this measure later. Stay safe out there.

Quote of the Day — Oregon Ballot Measure 114

From the highly-restrictive "gun control" ballot measure that narrowly passed (50.83% to 49.17%) on Tuesday:

A permit-to-purchase issued under this section does not create any right of the permit holder to receive a firearm.

[Full text of the measure available here at Ballotpedia. PDF warning.]

This is from the Section 4 — specifically, Sectiom 4(6)(a) — of the measure that mandates a permit-to-purchase for all non-family firearm transfers (remember that Oregon prohibited private transactions outside immediate family members a few years ago). To qualify for a permit-to-purchase, an applicant must:

• Complete an application (form to-be-determined) with legal name, current address, telephone number, place and date of birth, physical description, and any other information the agency issuing the permit deems necessary;
• Sign the application in front of the permit agent;
• Provide proof of completion of a firearm safety class approved by law enforcement;
• Provide government-issued photo ID;
• Submit to fingerprinting and additional photographing by the permit agent;
• Submit to a criminal background check through the Oregon State Police (OSP) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) — more on this in a moment — and,
• Pay the fees associated with the fingerprinting and background check, which the measure says shall not exceed $65 (read: shall be $65).

The measure also allows up to 30 days for the permit-to-purchase background check (and if you think the permitting agency getting an answer back early means you'll get your permit early, I've got a bridge in Alaska for sale at a great price). Presenting a permit-to-purchase to the gun dealer, as required by this measure, also does NOT replace the OSP-run background check at the point of sale OR its $10 fee.

The fingerprint card gets sent to the FBI as part of the process, and this bit is "interesting" — from the measure, Section 4(1)(e): "The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall return the fingerprint cards used to conduct the criminal background check and may not keep any record of the fingerprints." Does the State of Oregon have the authority to tell the FBI what information it may and may not keep? I doubt it.

But back to the QOTD above. While I understand that neither the U.S. or State Constitutions nor any legislative bill or ballot measure "create" any rights, this line's appearance in the text would mean that even after jumping through all the hoops, passing all the checks, and paying all the fees, a permit holder could still be denied a firearm.

The effective date is not stated in the measure (which is another "interesting" aspect), but is assumed to be 30 days after passage, or December 8, 2022. That doesn't give permit agencies much time to standardize forms, review and approve "safety classes", or implement an entire permitting scheme, does it?

It's not hyperbole to say this measure is a major blow to the firearms industry in Oregon. I already know of multiple dealers whose plan in the face of this is to sell their existing stock (which due to panic, should be done by this weekend) and then either close up shop or move out of state. Nobody will be able to buy or sell a firearm until permits-to-purchase are in-hand, which will be 30 days after the effective date, assuming "safety classes" are available (more on this in another post). That's at least a month of zero legal firearm sales.

And this is only one section of the measure. I'll have more to post on it in the coming days.

Yes, it's going to be challenged in court, especially in light of SCOTUS' Bruen decision, but that will take time and resources. In the meantime, we have to live with it.

Stay safe out there.

"Baldr Odinson" Being Disingenuous Again

*tap tap* Is this thing still on? Yes? OK.

My apologies to our dear readers for the lack of content. Life tends to interfere with blogging, and when life speaks louder, you have to listen or get left behind.

My thoughts are not yet collected on the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Every time I turn on the news, it seems, the narrative has changed again, the "authorities" appear even more amateurish, and the "children" are even more exploited by the media.

It's painful to watch, really.

So instead, today we'll visit our old friend and resident Oregon anti-gunner, Jason Kilgore, a.k.a. "Baldr Odinson". He's had quite a lot to say about the Parkland shooting, little of it accurate or true (he IS an anti-gunner, after all). One recent post in particular, however, needs some fisking fact-checking, as he's (intentionally) omitting certain very-important truths.

Let's get started below the fold. As always, his words will be in block-quoted italics, and most of his links will be omitted.

"Compromise": I Don't Think It Means What You Think It Means

Over at Bearing Arms, Jenn Jacques has a post up about "compromise" with Democrats on "gun control".

It's mostly a decent article, but … she closes with this:

So if Democrats want a compromise, here it is: follow every single gun law currently on the book. Punish criminals to the fullest extent of the law. Ensure convicted felons serve their entire sentence. Only give second chances when the guilty have served their debt to society.

Do that, then we’ll talk. [emphasis in original]

While I appreciate the point she's trying to make, my answer to this would be, "No."

I agree that there are already plenty of "gun control" laws on the books, and the government should be enforcing each and every one (otherwise, what's the point of having the law?).

However, the "enforce existing laws" stance is not "compromise". That's just how it should be.

"Compromise" is giving up something to get something in return. If Democrats want to compromise on "gun control" laws, our response should be, "OK, what 'gun control' laws are you offering to repeal in order to get the new laws you want?"

If the answer is "None," then it's not a compromise. If the answer is "None, but maybe we won't go as far as we want," that's not a compromise, either. In neither case are the Democrats required to give up anything.

Give something, get something. That's compromise, and that's where the debate should start.

Sorry, Jenn. You're a bit off the mark on this one.

Interesting Legal Case Out of Pennsylvania

Amish man challenging photo ID requirement to purchase a firearm.

As reported by Legal Insurrection:

As Obama stumps for gun control in Chicago, an interesting case has been filed in an effort to protect both religious liberty and the Second Amendment. An Amish man from Pennsylvania attempted to purchase a gun via legal channels and was denied because he did not have a photo id [sic], and he did not have that photo id [sic] because of his religious beliefs.

The Amish in Lancaster Country believe that a photograph of themselves is the equivalent of a disallowed “graven image” and thus refuse to allow themselves to be photographed. This is a religious exemption/exception that has been readily acknowledged and accepted by state and local government who have issued photoless ids [sic] and drivers’ licenses to Amish people. [links omitted]

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, and what other areas of religious freedom — Obamacare religious exemptions, non-participation in same-sex "marriage" ceremonies, personal prayer in public spaces, etc. — this will affect.

Especially since the state and local authorities have acknowledged their long-standing religious views and made appropriate concessions, like issuing photo-less IDs and drivers' licenses that are equally valid as their photo-including counterparts.

The federal law (specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922[t][1][c]), however, is quite clear: no FFL can transfer a firearm to anyone without a valid photo ID. Leave it to the federal government to make exercising a basic, fundamental right mutually exclusive to exercising other basic, fundamental rights.

Like I said: interesting.

Stay safe.

ALERT: Oregon Gun Owner Action Required!

That didn't take long.

Barely two months after S.B. 941 (Oregon's shiny new "universal background check" law) went into effect, and two weeks after the mass killing at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, we have the anti-gun crowd's new demands for infringing our rights.

From Oregon Firearms Federation, we have a partial list (shamelessly copied from the alert, [with my thoughts in brackets]), including but not limited to:

• Central registration of all firearm owners and their weapons, and coordination of this data with criminal, mental health, and domestic abuse records at both the state and federal level. [Holy S@#t, they're going after the big fish, here.]
• Enactment of a 28-day waiting period on all firearm purchases. [Four weeks? Isn't that a bit excessive?]
• Institution of a license requirement to possess or purchase a firearm, with obtainment of a license requiring a gun safety course, an evaluation of personal history and mental well-being, and a thorough background check. [So Oregon will require some hybrid of Illinois' FOID card and Washington, D.C.'s gun license?]
• Requirement of a license to buy, sell, or transfer a firearm and ammunition, including through registered weapons dealers, private sales, individual transfers, and family transfers. [Knocking down all the exemptions in their already-extreme S.B. 941, I see, along with requiring another, separate license to transfer a firearm or to purchase ammunition.]
• Require that weapons be stored unloaded, in a gun safe, with a trigger lock. Possession of these safeguards should be necessary to obtain a firearm license. [Weren't "firearms must be stored incapable of being fired" laws struck down in D.C. v. Heller?]
• Render concealed carry illegal, and ban the open carry of a loaded firearm. [Weren't effective outright bans on carry struck down in multiple Ninth Circuit cases (of which Oregon is a part), including Peruta v. San Diego County?]
• Restrict ownership of automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and handguns to existing owners and require their storage at a licensed gun range. [There's currently no licensing scheme for "gun ranges". Are we going to set that up, or will this become a de facto ban? And again, weren't bans on whole classes if firearms also struck down in D.C. v. Heller?]
• Ban any clip or magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. [You knew this was coming, right? At least they're now recognizing a distinction between "clip" and "magazine".]

These proposals, if passed, would represent a severe blow not only to gun ownership in Oregon, but to home- and self-defense.

Most, if not all, of these demands are blatantly unconstitutional, but I doubt our Legislature (with a Democratic super-majority) or unelected anti-gun Governor will care much. They'll see "new gun laws" and jump at the chance of passing them.

I hate to beg, but please, please, please hit up OFF's mailing form (at the bottom of same link) and strongly consider donating to the cause of fighting these outrageous proposals, none of which — separately or together — would have prevented the UCC murders.

It's time to act.

Stay safe.

Fisking CeaseFire Oregon's New "Gun Law Survey"

Oregon's resident anti-gunner, "Baldr Odinson" (a.k.a. Jason Kilgore), has been busy posting on his "New Trajectory" site lately.

On Friday (Sept. 25) he linked to a CeaseFire-Oregon-promoted survey of Oregon's gun laws. I won't link to his article, but here's the survey: How Well Do You Know Oregon's Gun Laws?

It's a short, 10-question survey that's in dire need of a good fisking, so here goes (correct answers will be underlined).

New Jersey is at it Again

Hiz 'oner
dougernst.files.wordpress.com

 

Chris Christie’s New Jersey is at it again: bringing the full weight of the state against an innocent CCW carrier.  This case is far too similar to the travesty endured by Shaneen Allen.

The Fletcher Family
Range365.com

          Brian Fletcher mobilized his crew to repair storm related cell phone tower damage in Trenton, New Jersey. He left his North Carolina home less than an hour after an emergency plea from New Jersey. Once in Jersey, he was approached by a police officer. Fletcher handed over his ID and as any good North Carolina citizen would, he informed the officer that he had his CCW in his vehicle.

         Ignoring Fletcher’s critical disaster relief role, his NC CCW permit and his absolute lack of any criminal intent, the cop arrested and charged Fletcher with carrying a firearm - a Class 2 Felony in the Garbage State. It seems if a New Jersey cop approaches, you should only give him your name, rank and serial number, as you are deep in enemy territory.

         Fletcher is now home in North Carolina, free on a $25,000 dollar bond. A law-abiding man, he faces five years in prison and the ruin of his life for a "crime" without intent nor victim. His lawyer is trying for the pre-trial intervention program and hoping for a pardon. 

         We wish NJ governor Christie would shake off his usual food coma and do the right thing. We hope he immediately frees an innocent man, rather than waiting for the right time in his presidential campaign.  

phalsephillysports.files.wordpress.com

        And big guy, start to fix your damn state’s insane gun laws NOW, or you can choke on your overfed political ambitions.  

More Thoughts on National Reciprocity

This time, nothing at all to do with the SCOTUS decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

We took the family on an interstate road trip over the weekend. There were long drives, some sightseeing, spending time with extended family we hadn't seen in several years, and — of course — fireworks. Good times.

And yes, there is some truth to this:

(source)

During the drive back, though, I noticed something, and had a bit of an epiphany.

What I noticed was that, while hurtling along an interstate highway in California, we were surrounded by other vehicles feet or yards away, traveling at similar velocities (~70 mph) negotiating curves in the road, changing lanes, passing, allowing others to pass, and so forth. Being a holiday weekend, there were a healthy number of license plates from states other than California. I saw other Oregon plates, Washington plates, Colorado plates, a couple from Georgia, Florida, and New Jersey (long drives, those), and a few from the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta.

Yeah, kinda like that.
(source)

Yet, we all took the curves and traffic in stride — with very nearly the precision of a school of fish or a flock of birds moving in sync, and with no communication amongst each other besides the occasional flashing lights known colloquially as "turn signals" — and managed to not hit each other.

The phrase "poetry in motion" came to mind. That might be an exaggeration, but it was still somewhat amazing to observe once I noticed it.

We take it for granted, but it happens every day with shockingly few mishaps given the number of drivers and vehicles on the road at any given time. We don't suddenly become unsafe drivers when we cross an arbitrary line on a map.

That was the observation. Here's the epiphany:

The driving laws among the 50 states (and D.C.) are mostly the same. There are some minor variances — the speed limits on highways, emission requirements on vehicles, the fines and penalties for specific violations, etc. — but for the most part, the act of driving doesn't change when you cross state lines.

Additionally, although we all come from different states, and each state has different training and testing requirements for those who wish to earn their license to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, that license is good in all 50 states (and D.C.) in the Union.

So why is national reciprocity for carrying a concealed firearm such an issue?

Same reciprocity map from last week.
(source: USA Carry)

We hear from the anti-rights crowd how national reciprocity can't work because the laws and training requirements for CCW licenses are different in all 50 states, so there's no consistency, and that lack of consistency could cause problems.

Horse$#!+, I say.

I mean, sure, the gun laws vary a bit — some are "shall issue" while others are "may issue", New Jersey bans hollow point ammunition, several states require magazines that carry 10 or fewer rounds (and New York demands you only put seven rounds in those magazines), and some states require that a concealed firearm remain concealed — but then again, the driving laws of each state/province vary, too. Some states require emissions checks and some set their highway speed limits differently (Oregon's 65 vs. California's 70 vs. Idaho's 75). Some prohibit drivers from using cell phones without hands-free devices, some only prohibit sending text messages while behind the wheel, and others have no rules on the use of cell phones. Yet most days we (as a nation) manage to travel from point A to point B without getting speeding tickets or causing 50-car pile-ups on interstate highways.

And statistically, we have just as many cars in the country as guns, but guns cause far fewer fatalities — accidental or not — than cars. Repeat after me: The tool is not the problem. Misuse of the tool is.

[UPDATED TO ADD:] U.S. Concealed Carry Association published this article addressing events world-wide wherein people used motor vehicles as weapons, with the specific intent to harm or kill as many people as possible. Yet, nobody is questioning whether we should be allowed to own or operate cars, and nobody is protesting Ford or General Motors for manufacturing such "dangerous weapons". [/UPDATE]

The bottom line is this: If we can be trusted to responsibly operate a two-ton, 300-horsepower, mechanically-complex (have you looked under the hood of a modern car lately!?), seven-passenger moving death machine across state lines, it's safe to assume that carrying an operable defensive concealed firearm across state lines will be no big deal.

Write your Congressional representatives. Tell them to support and/or co-sponsor the various concealed carry reciprocity bills currently introduced in Congress. Remind them that the "sky is falling", "road-rage-turned-deadly", "blood in the streets" predictions of the anti-rights crowd over expanding gun rights have never come true, and that if we can be trusted to responsibly drive a motor vehicle safely nationwide with all the varying driving laws, then surely we can be trusted to safely carry a concealed, holstered firearm in any state in the Union.

Stay safe.

Political Correctness Kills A Woman

Killed by Paroled Illegal Alien With Multiple Felonies, Multiple Deportations -- And a Free Pass 

Gun Crime - Or Government Crime?
  

Kathryn Steinle
ibtimes.co.uk

         Kathryn Steinle, 32, was shot to death at a popular San Francisco tourist spot, a victim of political correctness as surely as if the elites themselves pulled the trigger. 

         The man being charged with her murder is a thug, a drug addict, an illegal alien deported five times, a criminal with seven felony convictions, four involving narcotics, and on parole for yet another crime. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, 45, aka: Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate and Juan Jose Dominguez de la Parra, is a despicable man. Yet, he was allowed to travel the border and this country seemingly at will, avoid further deportation courtesy of the Obama administration, and go largely unpunished for his crimes. Then on the first day of July, a man who should have been behind bars or a thousand miles away, took a gun he wasn’t allowed to have as a felon, in a city that disarms its law-abiding, and went to a tourist attraction looking for someone to kill. Without a word, from behind, he shot a random stranger through the heart.  

         Sanchez’ latest outrage started back in March, when he was turned over to San Francisco police on an

Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez
kcra.com

outstanding drug warrant by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE officials issued a detainer at that time, requesting notification prior to his release so arrangements could be made to take custody. Except, ICE knew that SF had declared itself a “sanctuary city” and that the request would not be honored. ICE effectively, cynically washed their hands of him. Sanchez was also in violation of his ongoing Texas parole. His legal status, his prior convictions, his parole violations didn’t matter: SF freed him to prey on an unsuspecting populace.  

          A few months later, Katy Steinle, a beautiful, vibrant young woman lay dying in a pool of her own blood, begging her distraught father to help her.  

        There can be no better - or worse - reason for why we fight for our Second Amendment Rights. No greater proof of why we must be our own first responders. We Are On Our Own. We must stay strong and capable of defending ourselves. We cannot afford to do otherwise. Not when our own government favors criminals over the law abiding. Not when feel-good sentiments trump reason and justice. Not when our government seeks to remove our most effective means of self-defense against the evil they nurture.  

        Fight!

Gun Control Saves A Life

No, really, you read that right. Breitbart reports how how New Jersey's strict "gun control" laws have successfully (and documentedly) saved a life:

On April 21, Carol Bowne from Berlin Township, NJ, applied for a license to own a handgun, which she wanted to protect herself from a former boyfriend against whom she had a restraining order.

On June 3—while still waiting for the state to give her permission to own a gun—Bowne’s former boyfriend, Michael Eitel, allegedly stabbed her to death in her own driveway.

(See also: this article from the Courier-Post.)

There you have it! A man's life was protected as a direct result of New Jersey's strict "gun control" laws, up to and including discretionary "may issue" licensing to own — let alone carry — a handgun. It's common-sense, don't you know! For the Children!

What? You didn't seriously think New Jersey's "gun control" laws would save the innocent person's life, did you?

[UPDATE 6/8/2015 10:00 am PST:] Dave Workman (see hat tip below) has more on NJ's gun laws here and more on the mainstream media ignoring the story here. The image on the second article gives me an idea for a form of silent protest. [/UPDATE]

Stay safe.

(Hat tips: Ian Argent at Shall Not Be Questioned for the Breitbart link and Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman for the Courier-Post link.)

Hey, It's Not a "Gun Ban"....

Inspired by these two posts, I decided to make a little map of my town: Salem, Oregon.

The first post, by Sebastian over at Shall Not Be Questioned, goes over a petition at Change.Org to prevent a strip mall property owner from leasing a space for a gun store, on account of the space being "too close" (two city blocks) to a school. Part of the description mentions that four other schools are within five miles.

The second link looks at how a "five-mile rule" (wherein guns cannot be bought or sold within five miles of a school, even from/to retail FFL dealers) would affect Houston, Texas. There's no legal space left to buy/sell/trade guns, anywhere in town!

So today we're going to examine what even a paltry "one-mile rule" would do to the gun business in sleepy little Salem, Oregon*.

Here's a map of Salem with a bunch of schools — "certified" pre-K, K-12, and higher; public and private — marked out by red dots (and graduation caps; Google fills those in for some schools for some reason):

Click to embiggenate

Note: The initial Google search was "public schools", but I added several more dots by hand to cover private, post-K-12, and pre-K campus locations. I won't claim to have gotten them all, but as you'll see next, it really doesn't make much difference.

Here's the same map, with a 60-pixel-radius (which represents one mile, judging by the scale in the lower right; I counted) red circle superimposed over each dot:

Again, click to embiggen

Remember that this map, unlike the map of Houston, is filled with one-mile circles, not five-mile circles. But do you see many places where gun shops could legally be located? Envisioning a two- or five-mile ban is an exercise I'll leave to the reader.

The anti-rights crowd claims they don't want to ban guns; they just want to enact "common-sense, reasonable" restrictions on where and when guns can be bought, sold, traded, stored, transported, carried, and used. Including within X distance from schools, churches, public buildings, parks, playgrounds, shopping malls, movie theaters, homes, offices, and parking lots. For the children, don't you know.

But we're supposed to believe it's not a gun ban.

Don't ever let anyone tell you they're not trying to take your guns.

Stay safe.
------------
* - Salem, despite being the capital of Oregon, is not a big city. It's about 12.5 miles north-south and maybe 8 miles east-west, at the longest/widest points (and that's if you include West Salem, which is in another county and is therefore technically a different city. A "five-mile rule" on just the six public high schools in the district would effectively cover the whole town.

Bad News on S.B. 941

It passed.

As in, passed the Senate (which I talked about here), and last night passed the House, too.

It's now going to Gov. Kate Brown's desk, where all the local news channels are reporting she's expected to sign it.

I know it's a long shot — she's a Portland-area Democrat, after all, and those types generally just love them some "gun control" — but until she puts pen to paper, there's still a chance.

So here's my proposal:

She's openly bi-sexual, and made her political bread standing up for "gay rights" and "women's rights". Hit up her Contact box with pro-gun messages, and emphasize the pro-woman and pro-gay aspects. Hit her in the heartstrings.

Talk about the hypothetical battered woman whose friend offers to loan her a firearm to protect herself from her abusive spouse; both would be instant felons if S.B. 941 is signed into law.

Talk about the hypothetical gay couple who endure hateful slurs day in and day out, who start receiving credible threats against their lives and safety. One may own firearms, but cannot legally transfer a gun to the other — because they're a same-sex couple, they cannot be legally married in Oregon*, and so the spousal exemption in S.B. 941 doesn't apply; they'd both be felons if it becomes law.

[Added:] It's come to my attention that recent court challenges may nullify (or may have already nullified) the "one man, one woman" language in the Oregon Constitution, so this second hypothetical may be a non-starter. Regardless, spam the contact form with the first hypothetical and the notion that criminals don't run background checks or register their guns. Mention Haynes v. U.S. for extra credit on that one. [/Added]

Also, make sure to point out that no criminal transfers will be prevented by this law. None. Zero.

I know it's a long shot, but we've got to take it. Hail Mary's work occasionally.

Light her up.

Stay safe.
------------
* - Oregon State Constitution, Article XV, Section 5a. "Policy regarding marriage. It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage." Hey, I didn't make the rules, but we can use them.

Legal Opinion Bleg....

Do we have any legal professionals in the audience? Preferably licensed in Oregon?

I have a question for any legal minds out there, and would love to figure this problem out. I'm trying to determine the answer to this question:

Is it legal or illegal for a state employee to carry a licensed, concealed firearm into state office buildings?

For the purposes of this bleg, I'm strictly concerned with the legalities. Whether it's a "condition of employment" is another matter for another time.

Please don't be shy; all opinions are welcome, and I won't consider any of them actual "legal advice" — unless the commenter is an Oregon-licensed attorney, and positively affirms that his/her comment can be taken as a legal opinion. I'm mostly just group-testing my logic.

[ADDED:] I should note this is all my own cursory research, and although I believe the conclusions are valid — or at least call into question the "conventional knowledge" described herein — I feel a disclaimer is necessary, so here it is: I am not a lawyer or judge, and this should not in any way be taken as legal advice. In fact, in this post I am asking if anyone can offer a legal opinion or any law/statute/rule/policy or case law I may have missed. Thanks. [/ADDED]

Details and analysis below the fold.

Update on the "Universal Background Check" / Registration Bill

I've been a bit remiss in reporting on this. For that, you have my apologies.

Here's where we're at now: Senate Bill 941 has passed through the Senate. As I said earlier here and here, Senator Prozanski pushed it through the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote, sending it to the Senate floor. Senate President Peter Courtney (himself no friend to gun owners) got a full vote on it rather quickly, and it passed on near-party-lines; one Democrat — Betsy Close, and actual pro-gun Democrat (yes, they exist!) — voted against it, but even with her dissent it passed.

So now the bill is in the House, assigned to the House Rules Committee. (Why not Judiciary, as in the Senate? Because it could face opposition there. The Rules Committee is much more receptive to anti-gun bills.) House Speaker Val Hoyle — who courted gun owners during her election campaign — has intimated that it will get through the House quickly.

If that happens, it's a near-certainty that ultra-"Progressive" Governor Kate Brown will sign it into law.

So right now the fight is in the House Rules Committee, and they will be holding a public hearing on the bill tomorrow, April 22nd, at 1:00 pm in Room 50 (in the basement of the Capitol building). People wishing to testify in person will need to sign up starting at 11:30 am. We're expecting anti-gun groups like CeaseFire Oregon and Bloomberg's Demanding Moms to try to pack the House (literally, in this case), so any extra support we can get from the pro-gun side will be helpful.

This is it. This is very likely our last chance to fight this thing. If any of our most excellent readers can be there, it will be appreciated. And if you can't be there but live in Oregon, contact your Representatives and urge a "No" vote.

[ADDED:] If you can't make it to the hearing, but still want to submit written testimony, e-mail it to hrules.exhibits@state.or.us. They prefer written testimony in PDF format. [/ADDED]

Stay safe, everyone.

Oregon S.B. 941 Clears Senate

Surprising precisely nobody.

What is surprising (or perhaps not, if you've been paying attention lately) is that the Democrats used Senate rules and procedural moves to actively shut down Republican participation — killing a number of bills and amendments that would ultimately benefit all Oregonians, not just gun owners — and the chief sponsor, Sen. Floyd Prozanski, reportedly open-faced lied about what was in his bill and what it would do.

Giving him the benefit of doubt, it's possible he hasn't read the very bill he's sponsoring and doesn't know what's in it (taking a page from Nancy "We'll have to pass it to find out what's in it" Pelosi's book), or he's deliberately obfuscating and deceiving both the Senate and the public.

I don't know which is worse, but either is unacceptable behavior for a Senator (although oddly not unexpected for a committed anti-freedom [not just anti-gun] collectivist).

So now we take the fight to the House. Expect procedural shenanigans there, too, and probably lies and deceptions about what the bill does.

If you live in Oregon, contact your representative (listed alphabetically by last name) and tell him/her you expect a "No" vote on this. If you don't know who represents your district or what district you're in, check this map (residents of the Salem and Portland area, zoom in to make sure; the boundaries are … interesting).

And as always, stay safe.

(Hat tip: Oregon Firearms Federation e-mail alert)

Senate Bill 941 Update — Bad News

All good things must come to an end, apparently.

I reported this weekend that Oregon Senate Bill 941 was facing opposition in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we were looking at possible amendments that would remove any "teeth" from the bill, and potentially kill it.

Via another update from the Oregon Firearms Federation, I have some bad news: S.B. 941 was passed out of Judiciary on a party-line vote, and Judiciary Chairman Sen. Floyd Prozanski (who is also the author and primary sponsor of the bill) would not even consider any of Sen. Kim Thatcher's proposed amendments.

It's no surprise; S.B. 941 is Sen. Prozanski's baby. Why let little things like rational opposition, Constitutional rights, or moral decency get in the way of a perfectly good agenda?

So now it goes to the full Senate (there's little chance that Senate President Peter Courtney — also a committed anti-gunner — is going to assign it to another committee), where it's likely to pass. After the 2014 elections, the GOP lost two Senate seats: Democrats have a 18-12 majority, and there's only one reliably pro-gun Democrat in the mix.

Then it goes to the House, where we still have a chance to end it; the Dems have a majority in the House, too, but it's not quite as overwhelming. We'll still need to find out which committee(s) the bill gets assigned to, and light up the phones and e-mail servers. I'll post the committee assignment(s) and contact information for the committee members when I learn more.

Until then, stay tuned, and stay safe.

Update on Oregon Senate Bill 941

I figured I'd kick off the weekend with some good news!

Via the Oregon Firearms Federation's e-mailing list, I learned that the committee vote on Oregon's Senate Bill 941 (which I wrote about here) has been postponed until Monday, April 6th. The postponement is due to amendments introduced by Sen. Kim Thatcher, who historically has been solid on gun rights.

Sen. Kim Thatcher
(source)

The first proposed amendment (PDF warning), if passed, would require that instead of subjecting private firearm transfers to Oregon State Police background checks — which include registration — the Dept. of Justice will notify the Dept. of Motor Vehicles of all Oregonians with felony convictions, and when their driver licenses, learning permits, and non-driver ID cards are up for renewal, they will be marked. All the private seller is recommended to do, then, is check the ID of the buyer: no "felon" brand, and the sale is good to go. It will also help dealers, too; if they check the ID and it's marked as a "felon", they don't need to contact OSP and pay the $10 fee to run the check in the first place.

Another amendment put forth by Sen. Thatcher removes all the text of the original S.B. 941 and replaces it with a provision that merely removes the "knows or reasonably should know" language from the criminal statutes on selling to prohibited persons (ORS 166.436 and 166.470). No DMV records get updated, no changes to ID cards; if you sell to a prohibited person, you're liable, but background checks remain 100% voluntary for private transfers (although, as an incentive, there is a criminal and civil immunity provision [ORS 166.436(7)] for the private seller if he/she runs a background check on the buyer, the buyer passes, and the buyer uses the firearm in the commission of a crime). There's no text for this proposed amendment yet; I'll update this post if/when it becomes available.

These are not bad amendments (I prefer the second one, as it mostly maintains the system as-is), but I believe in the end one or the other will serve as a "poison pill"; it'll cause the legislative death of the original bill when the sponsors pull the bill or refuse to vote for it. In this case, we can call it A Good Thing™. We'll see how the amendments do in committee and/or the Senate floor.

Stay safe.

Christe Pardons Shaneen Allen

     Exhibiting none of the aggressive decisiveness he's shown around the buffet table, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has finally done the right thing and pardoned Shaneen Allen.

Shaneen Allen and Sons
Burlington County Times

      Eighteen months ago, Allen was arrested for mistakenly taking her concealed carry pistol into New Jersey. Traveling to a birthday party on the Jersey shore, Allen was pulled over for a minor traffic offense. An honest citizen, she immediately informed the officer that she was carrying a weapon under her newly minted Pennsylvania CC license. The cop's reaction was also immediate, Allen was arrested and charged with a felony.  

   The single mother of two spent the next 46 days in jail. John McClain, the prosecutor for the hoplophobic Atlantic county, decided to make an example of her. Even though Allen had a spotless record, he denied her a program would have excused the felony with good behavior. The full weight of the state was poised to crush her with more than ten years of prison. All for an offense without intent, nor victim. 

     Festering corruption like Jersey's can rarely stand the attention: McClain subsequently allowed a hometown professional football player, who had beaten his fiancee unconscious in an elevator, into the program denied Allen. That travesty allowed the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, the New Jersey 2nd Amendment Society, talker Tom Gresham, and the odd blogger or two, to ignite a nation-wide public firestorm. McClain had to ungracefully back down and allow Allen into the diversion program.

     Now, still feeling the heat, Christie has pardoned Allen. He did the right thing; eventually, grudgingly. However, the insane, unConstitutional laws that put her in jail remain in force. Other law-abiding citizens, like Brian Aitken, are being destroyed for similar petty violations of the state's draconian, anti-rights laws. Christie has done nothing to counter those injustices, and has in many ways supported the anti-gun measures.  

    You can choke on your Presidential ambitions fat guy. 

Updated: Oregon Gun Owners: Your Weekend Activism

Sen. Floyd Prozanski
(source: OregonLive.com article)

By now, many of you may have heard of Senate Bill 941 (PDF warning), introduced by one of our resident perennial gun-grabbers, Senater Floyd Prozanski.

I can sum up my feelings on this one in four simple words:

This. Bill. Must. Fail.

This is a bill for the infamous "Universal Background Check" (UBC). It is a ban on private transfers of firearms, with a few exceptions. A violation of this bill, should it become law, is a Class A misdemeanor on the first conviction, and a Class B felony on any subsequent convictions. Penalties for the first conviction are up to a year in prison, a fine of up to $6,250, or both. Subsequent convictions: up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, or both.

But wait (as the late, great pitch-man Billy Mays used to say), there's more: Background checks in Oregon are not run through NICS for free. Oh, no; that would be too simple. They're run by the Oregon State Police Background Check Unit (OSP BCU), who charges $10 for the "service" of running that check for you.

But wait, there's still more: The "dealer number" for the OSP BCU is still not available for "civilians" to use. Nope, if you want to do a private sale/transfer, you and the buyer/seller will have to appear, in person, before a federally-licensed gun dealer, who can call and run the check, charge you the OSP BCU's $10, plus whatever the dealer chooses to charge for the "service".

And, if you're the seller, you would be required to follow all the "record retention" laws in regards to the paperwork concerning that sale, as if you were a dealer. Penalties are the same as if you were a dealer whose "bound book" didn't quite measure up to ATF inspection.

Oh, yeah, and OSP BCU is the group that creates the registry of commercial firearm transfers, and this bill now extends the same guidelines and requirements to private transfers. Welcome to full registration, folks!

So I'll repeat what I said above: This. Bill. Must. Fail.

You're weekend activism homework: Contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (where the bill currently resides) and urge them to vote against passing this travesty to the Senate floor. The members are (click to e-mail):

• Sen. Floyd Prozanski — 503-986-1713
• Sen. Jeff Kruse — 503-986-1701
• Sen. Sara Gelser — 503-986-1708
• Sen. Ginny Burdick — 503-986-1718
• Sen. Kim Thatcher — 503-986-1704

You might have noticed that Sen. Prozanski is not only the author of the bill, but he's also the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee where the bill currently resides. Hardly seems fair, does it?

[UPDATE: 3/30 5:00 pm] Written testimony can be submitted to the whole committee staff by e-mailing it to SJud.Exhibits@state.or.us. They prefer written materials to be in PDF format, but the advantage is that any materials submitted become part of the public record attached to the bill. According to the agenda for the day, "The committee meeting record will remain open and testimony will be accepted until 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 1." That's the deadline. [/UPDATE]

Let's do what we can to kill it in committee.

Thanks, and stay safe.