Among the state grassroots groups I follow is Oregon Firearms Federation, and regular readers know I've been reporting on their alerts about a bill they say is a setback:
SB 1008, a bill to reverse the gains made in the 2009 session was sent back to committee last week after it became clear no one understood it.
Now, a slimmed down version has been introduced. SB 1064 has been introduced and referred to the Senate Rules Committee.
The bill reverses SB 603, which passed in 2009. 603 corrected an error in Oregon law that said a person with a felony conviction could petition the courts to have his rights restored to purchase a firearm. But he was still prohibited from owning it!
The new bill was rammed through committee with only one hour's notice. That appears to have been deliberate, meaning in order to discourage public input. And while Oregon Firearms Federation testified in opposition, and also delivered opposition testimony on behalf of NRA, one gun group that supported the measure carried the day: Oregon Gun Owners.
Who?
Long time members may recall that "Oregon Gun Owners" was the group that drafted legislation to outlaw private transfers of firearms at gun shows and in some cases your own home. When OFF defeated that bill in 1999, "Oregon Gun Owners" attempted to put a measure on the ballot to outlaw private firearms transfers at gun shows. That failed as well, but a competing measure sponsored by Ginny Burdick passed. "Oregon Gun Owners" once attempted to hijack OFF's domain names until threatened with legal action.
We can only speculate as to why OGO has come out of the woodwork to promote another anti-gun bill. They played NO part in the bill they are seeking to overturn and had no position on the basic issue of whether Oregon gun laws should make any sense.
What they HAVE done is give cover to the anti-gun politicians who can now say that a "gun group" supports overturning the progress we made with your help last year.
Those are pretty definitive and damning charges. I went searching for Oregon Gun Owners because I haven't dealt with them, and found their website which claims:
Oregon Gun Owners has been protecting firearms rights in Oregon for over 34 years. Our philosophy is simple and clearly defined. Our goal is the preservation of our right as a free people to own and use firearms for legitimate purposes including self defense, collecting, target shooting and hunting.
In accordance with that right, we emphasize and promote responsible and safe ownership of all firearms. Through our Education Foundation, we support and fund programs designed to promote gun safety.
Sounds good. But then I found this:
The organization that calls itself Oregon Gun Owners has contributed to the political campaigns and political action committees of many ANTI-GUN politicians.
Would you like to see the proof for yourself? Well, read on for it's all right here in black and white.
That certainly deserves further scrutiny. Three questions come to mind:
Are the criticisms true?
What is OGO's rationale for supporting SB 1064?
Why would Oregon politicians defer to them when NRA and OFF oppose a bill?
I'll be happy to give Oregon Gun Owners space in a future column to explain their position on the bill, and to address anything I've presented here they may consider unfair, out of context or misrepresenting.
Comments
<i>"...Our goal is the preservation of our right as a free people to own and use firearms for <b>legitimate purposes</b>..."</i>
<i>"...we emphasize and promote responsible and safe ownership of all firearms....we support and fund programs designed to promote <b>gun safety</b>..."</i>
Isn't this the exact same verbiage used by Ray Shoenke and his Trojan Horse organization? Not to mention Sarah Brady, Paul Helmke, Josh Sugarmann, Wendy Cukier, et al?
Anytime I see the phrases "gun safety" and "legitimate purposes" used in a gun-related message, my BS detector explodes.
Hey, if you can't win a debate on the merits of your position, the next best thing is to deliberately confuse everybody.
They're called "weasels". One of my favorites was John F. Kerry (who served in Viet Nam) when he stated flatly and without equivocation, "I support the Second Amendment as it has been interpreted." Hmmm.... Interpreted by whom I wonder... Sarah Brady, perhaps?
Maybe they are a wolf in sheep's clothing type organization. Many of these groups infiltrated the hunters rights scene under the guise of being pro hunting. They are anything but.
Not wolves in sheeps' clothing, but rather maggots in the spoor.
"Maybe they are a wolf in sheep's clothing..."
Just the opposite. They are sheep in wolves clothing.
I am familiar with OGO aka Oregon State Rifle Association. I was around them for quite a few years back in the late 90's until 01. I do not know who currently heads this organization however the people I knew I believe were the founders. Unfortuantly this organization still manages to hang around and they have a wierd way of negotiating our rights away while still claiming to fight for our rights.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!