Tag Archives: gun laws

Law Abiding Gun Owners in Crosshairs: Oregon Firearms Federation’s Starrett to NRA’s Dana Loesch on Fighting the New Gun Grab: “It’s Going to Require That Everyone Step Up.”

Oregon Democrats will hold a work session on “a bill” that, if passed, would result in worse gun laws than in New Jersey and California. SB 978 is about four paragraphs long, but has ‘amendments’ that expand the bill to well over 100 pages. It’s nothing short of a “pass the bill to find out what’s in it” nightmare.

See what real Oregon gun owners said about the proposed gun law changes at a hearing on the “bill” here.

Aside from shoe-horning these confiscatory gun bills into the books through their legislative super-majorities, Eugene Democrat and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Floyd Prozanski, moved this ‘bill’ along in a ‘gut and stuff’ fashion. There’s a reason there’s a cliche about “sausage making” in politics.

But we found out in a series of surprise “amendments” to the proposed “bill” revealed literally minutes before the hearing, that the four paragraph skeleton bill was a place-holder for every Michael Bloomberg, Everytown USA-Moms-Demand-Action wet dream ever conceived.

Here’s where the bill started:

That’s the whole bill. Four paragraphs.

Here’s where ‘the bill’ is now.

Forty four pages in “Amendment 1.”

Forty five pages in “Amendment 2.”

Forty four pages in “Amendment 3.”

Worse, the Democrats use the oldest trick in the book and declared the bill an ’emergency’ thereby requiring it be implemented within 90 days and prohibited it being referred to the voters as allowed by Oregon law.

In short, as Kevin Starrett of the Oregon Firearms Federation has maintained :

“This vindictive, incoherent bill … makes it virtually impossible to leave the home with a firearm.”

As I said in my previous post on this:

The bill … 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.

It would also impose an age limit on gun use, making even military veterans unable to use a civilian firearm. Ridiculous.

Starrett told Dana Loesch of NRA TV that this is an all-hands-on-deck situation. See the video here.

The NRA is holding two work shops along the Oregon coast to educate and motivate gun owners to fight back.

RSVP for Coos Bay workshop at Public Library on MONDAY NIGHT at 6:30pm is HERE.

RSVP for Newport workshop on TUESDAY NIGHT at 6:30pm at Holiday Inn is HERE.

Here’s what NRA-ILA said about the bigger issues in these “amendments”:

  • Imposing one-size-fits-all, government mandated firearm storage methods that require firearms be unavailable for self-defense and does not consider personal circumstances.
  • Discriminating against young adults under the age of 21 by denying them their Second Amendment rights
  • Expanding so called “gun-free zones” where law-abiding citizens are left defenseless against criminals who simply ignore such arbitrary boundaries.
  • Imposing additional government red tape in order to obtain a Concealed Handgun License.

In addition, the “bill” makes a gun owner responsible for ANY SUBSEQUENT CRIME that occurs with that weapon after a criminal steals it.

Folks, if your car is stolen prosecutors don’t hold you accountable if the car thief hits or kills someone with the vehicle.

Fight back.

I’ll be spending some hours going through the “bill” (amendments) to determine more surprises contained therein. I suggest you do the same. Send me your feedback at Victoria@VictoriaTaft.com.

Scott St. Clair: The Hollow Hubris of Gun Rights Infringement

guns how to write lawEvery current gun-rights-infringement proposal either on the table or enacted into law — New York and Connecticut — is a waste of time and effort. They’re merely ink on paper because they do nothing to deter or prevent future gun-related crimes, but they do a lot to increase bureaucratic foolishness and prevent people from legally exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Devoid of substance, but arrogant in reach, they’re sad examples of hollow hubris.

Don’t believe me? Read this recent column by The Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker who lays it out as well as anyone:

“In a country with an estimated 250 million to 300 million guns, imposing new laws on honest people is problematic and bureaucratically complicated. Add to the conundrum our politics of individual freedom combined with the exploitation of emotion to craft what is likely an impotent solution, and it is little wonder our congressional leadership is bamboozled.

Then why is the nation being subjected to the angst of the whole debate on the issue — just to make people feel better because they’ll think something has been done? Or are there other reasons hid from view? My guess is both.

What I call the “icky” crowd — “Those guns look icky, so they must be outlawed” — who are ignorant about weapons and indifferent to

guns 2A

 the point of hostile to the gun rights of others want to feel self-righteous and sanctimonious because they’re working to ban “assault rifles” when they have no idea what one is, how one works or that what they seek to ban is merely cosmetically different from an ordinary semi-automatic rifle. They feel towards guns the way many people feel toward snakes, slugs or rats. Up on the chair they jump because of the icky factor. The icky crowd are trivial people who are driven by their emotions, not their minds. But there are some who are driven by their minds, and these are the dangerous ones.

guns liberal 2ATrue-believers bound and determined to eliminate the individual right to keep and bear arms will stop at nothing to accomplish their goals. They’ll lie, cheat and, literally, steal to get their way. They lie about their intent, they cheat by faking numbers and they’re eager to steal your constitutional gun rights in the abstract and the actual guns from your home. Their mindset is control: You must be bent to their will because your freedom is a threat to their existence. They are a genuinely insecure and sorry lot because their lives are lived in fear, which means their lives are half-lived.

So, we’re stuck once again debating empty proposals that will do nothing — absolutely and positively NOTHING — to address the issues their proponents, who are fully cognizant that they will do nothing, claim they want to address. It’s a fraud, a sham and a cynical show.

Scott St. Clair is a journalist, rhetorical pugilist, agent provocateur, aider and abbetor of James O’Keefe and a former competitive Highland piper. He says what he thinks, means what he says and doesn’t suffer fools. He’s also a member of the Victoria Taft Blogforce. His opinions are entirely his own, and you shouldn’t expect them to mirror yours.

Clackamas Shooting Victim’s Daughter on Gun Laws: “Do Something” To Show We’re “Serious”

Cindy Yuille. Murdered by crazed man with gun at Clackamas Town Center.
Cindy Yuille. Murdered by crazed man with gun at Clackamas Town Center.

President Obama is holding pep rallies and ferrying around in Air Force One the families of Sandy Hook shooting victims on his campaign to yank more gun rights. It’s a sad sight. Imagine if President Bush had ferried around the families of victims of 9/11 to campaign for tougher laws against terrorists. Though it would have made more sense, the optics would have been equally as sickening. 

Family members of victims are seldom the best sources for solutions to the nation’s ills. As I pointed out here I know whereof I speak. 

The testimony of the daughter Cindy Yuille who was shot by a crazed gunman at Clackamas Town Center in December is a case in point. 

The testimony before Friday’s Oregon State Senate Judiciary Committee meeting which I live blogged here showed why we should sympathize and grieve with victims and hold off changing the laws on their tearful say-sos.

Here are my real time notes of the testimony of Clackamas Town Center shooting victim Cindy Yuille’s daughter who says even though the four gun laws under consideration on Friday would not have any impact on a future shooting, something must be to “show we’re serious,”

The Victoria Taft Show Janet Hasalaqua [Passalacqua]is daughter of nurse Cindy Yuille killed at Clack Town Center. urging passage of any bills that stop violence. [Weeping] There are smart reasonable ways to prevent gun violence. This is not about taking guns away, however we must take responsibility for our guns. What happened at Clack Town Center could have happened to anyone. If the shooter hadn’t known how to properly operate his weapon many more would have been killed [says nothing about guy with gun who stopped shooting] these bills won’t stop another CTC but it shows we’re serious about it. The gun that was used to kill my mother was stolen. Something needs to be done about this. it should have been locked up.

I agree the gun owner should have had his gun locked up or hidden from the murderous thief. But left out of Passalacqua’s testimony was the story of the lives saved by another man with a gun. A good guy with a gun. Nick Meli was there when he heard the bad guy’s gun jam and drew down on him. (see posts here, here, here and here).The bad guy cleared the gun, ran away and the next shot that rang out in the cavernous Clackamas Town Center was the one the suspect used to kill himself. 

Worse? Passalacqua’s do-something-anything response that even she admitted would have no bearing in the shooting that senselessly took the life of her mother. 

“…[T]hese bills won’t stop another CTC but it shows we’re serious about it. The gun that was used to kill my mother was stolen. Something needs to be done about this.”

She’s young (24) and grieving. I understand. But her testimony shouldn’t hold anymore weight than any one of the dozens of people who testified Friday. 

She told Jeff Mapes of the Zero that she is considering using her experience to urge more gun control.

It seems to me we have enough people attempting to make gun laws that will do nothing except to harass legal gun owners. One Ginny Burdick is enough.