Daily Archives: April 2, 2019

People Tee Off on “Incomprehensible,” “Vindictive,” “Incoherent” Gun Grabbing Bill in Oregon Legislature

It’s no secret that since Oregon Democrats took over they’ve sought to be the most ‘progressive’ of all the far Left states. No tax is high enough, no baby is dead enough, no salmon worshiped enough, no forest burned enough, no foster child imprisoned enough, no baker sued enough. And no gun right endangered enough.

On Tuesday morning in Salem, the State Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from a few dozen Oregonians on Senate Bill 978.

The bill and its 40-page amendment is a power grab that is so massive, so breathtaking, that it would arguably prevent people from using their legal concealed carry permits because so many new places could be defined as no-go-zones for legal gun carriers. It would turn “hundreds of thousands” of legal gun owners into felons overnight. It would require that guns be locked up, an issue that animated many of those testifying against the bill.

As Oregon Firearms Federation leader, Kevin Starrett, testified, “This vindictive, incoherent bill … makes it virtually impossible to leave the home with a firearm.”

Kevin Starrett, Oregon Firearms Federation

Which, of course, is the point of the bill, naturally.

Attorney and retired State Trooper, Douglas Brown predicted that “this will end up in the US Supreme Court” and testified that there “is a multitude of problems with [the bill],” including that it is “incomprehensible” making it “impossible to know if you’re breaking the law.” He warned that the incomprehensibility would leave citizens vulnerable to political prosecutions.

Phil Watson of the Firearms Policy Coalition warned that the bill is “aggressive against carrying for self defense.”

The head of the Yamhill County Sportsman’s Association, Jim Mitschel, labeled the bill “too broad.” He claimed that the language of the bill was so flabby that it appeared he couldn’t have a firearm in his home because it is, in the words of the bill, “adjacent” to a school where there’s a no-gun policy.

“I am adamantly against this bill,” the retired police officer and gun rangemaster added.

Make no mistake, there were many compelling speeches by people who want to end gun violence. Everyone in that hearing room was opposed to “gun violence,” of course.

Dr. Ben Hoffman from Doernbecher Children’s Hospital told stories of dealing with children shot with unsecured guns. He said, “It’s impossible to gun proof a kid, therefore we need to kid proof guns.”

Pastor Mark Knutsen testified about how he leads a gun-free church. I’m not sure I’d be shouting that one from the rafters, Mark.

Elizabeth McKenna, a retired attorney and member of the anti gun group “Ceasefire Oregon” testified that the fuzzy bill was “wise” and “will make us much safer in Oregon.”

Cole Rainey, sporting a Joey Nations for Congress t-shirt, ticked off a list of all the tyrannical leaders through history who have disarmed citizens and murdered their citizens. He said ‘you are putting the safety of Oregonians last and your political special interests first.’

Frank Martin, an Air Force Veteran, former law enforcement officer and gun enthusiast, told the committee that he was tired of being “… told that I’m the problem with gun violence.”

One man asked the Committee if the state would be going after Home Depot and Lowe’s for carrying nail guns.

Kim Rowlands noted that he believed the law even outlawed pepper spray, “You’ll make us less safe. You’ve made self defense free zones.”

Tammy McKenzie told Committee Members that “Guns rights are women’s rights. Guns rights are men’s rights. Guns rights are American rights.”

And in her commanding, yet matter-of-fact way, made possibly the most bracing comment of the morning, “The Second Amendment makes me equal to anyone. Anyone.”

Oregonian Dennis Powers said that “Oregon has more criminals than we need right now. This bill is designed to make gun owners criminals.”

Greg Terhune, visibly angry over the breadth of the bill, told the gathering “We will not comply. We are citizens, not subjects.”

The next hearing on the bill is April 8.

What’s the Deal With Moms Demand Action’s Pearl Clutching?

COMMENTARY

On Tuesday morning I watched testimony before the Oregon State Senate Judiciary Committee (see post nearby) on a bill (SB 978-Amendment 1) that gun rights advocates labeled “vindictive,” “incoherent” and who warned that, if passed, would make Oregon more dangerous, not less.

Seriously, this is one hot mess of a bill and amendment. Lawd. See my nearby post.

A handful of women in the audience wore red Moms Demand Action t-shirts.

Moms Demand Action is the Michael Bloomberg-backed anti-gun rights group filled with women doing their best to smother gun rights for all Americans the way their sisters in the abortion movement smother babies in the womb. Or, if you’re in Virginia and New York, in the crib.

Similarly, they claim to be doing it ‘for the children,’ a noble cause, but, oddly, don’t support trained and armed teachers in the classroom in Parkland, Florida. In short, they don’t want good guys to have guns, either.

The group was started by Shannon Watts. I don’t even know her but I guess she knows me.

Oh, heeeeey Shannon.

The group has the ear of Oregon state lawmakers. It opposes the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. It’s a radical group with values antithetical to the basic American precepts of individual freedom and freedom from governmental tyranny.

But something struck me as I watched the group’s testimony.

What was it?

Pearls? Who wears pearls to adorn a t-shirt?

Moms Demand Action, that’s who.

It’s a ‘thing’:

No, it’s really a thing.


Let’s see, what’s on my list to go testify in Salem today? Ah, yes, bring:

  • Red Shirt
  • Sensible shoes
  • Pearls

But you can leave the Constitution at home. You won’t be needing that.

Pearl clutching is so much a part of the group’s identity that a New Hampshire women’s pro-gun group handed out their own long strings of pearls to lawmakers to remind them that guns are equalizers and allow women to defend themselves.

And the men in the legislature wore them.

Moms Demand Action’s pearls are meant to wrong-foot their political opponents.

Male lawmaker to himself, ‘How can I publicly disagree with this woman when she looks like my mom when I was a kid? Those … pearls. Peaaaarls?! My grandma had pearls like that. Barbara Bush wore pearls. Hell, Beaver’s mom wore pearls like that.’

Cue June Cleaver:

So, what to do when you want radical change but want to keep it Lo Pro? Put “mom” in the title of your group and encourage your members to wear pearls.

The trick is to look as benign, doe-eyed and disarming as June Cleaver, while disarming America.