Oregon Governor Promises Gun Control Push

“As we continue to observe the sweeping gun control movement moving from state to state,” mississippigunnews.com begins, alarmingly, “Oregon’s re-elected governor says one of his big bold moves will be to follow Washington State in an effort to increase gun-control measures. Gov. Kitzhaber sat down for an interview with reporter Laural Porter of KGW.” At the 3:54 mark above, Ms. Porter asks Gov. Kitzhaber if he plans to replicate the expanded background check law passed in Washington state. “Expanding background checks is the most rational and common sense things we can do,” the Governor replies. And if that’s not bad enough – and it is – the Oregon governor promised to attack on the other front in the civilian disarmament jihad . . .

Kitzhaber says the Beaver State health care system can “identify families and kids who might be at risk of these kind of tragedies.”

“How exactly will Oregon’s doctors and mental health professionals play into this agenda of gun control? Does Gov. Kitzhaber plan to have doctors report on patients?” mississippigunnews.com asks.

Good questions, which lead to one inescapable conclusion: while firearms freedom is spreading through the United States, the fight against statists and for gun rights is never-ending.

[h/t Mark N]

comments

  1. avatar Craig says:

    It’s the Domino theory, except instead of Vietnam and Cambodia, it’s WA and OR.

    Stay vigilant and active OR!

    1. avatar The Senator says:

      Exactly, I’ve been saying it for years. Domino theory people, it’s real and it’s happening. They used to just have NY&CA. Now they also have MA, CT, NJ, IL, CO, WA and Maryland. Soon they will have more, Oregon will most likley fall if people don’t fight there. Don’t give up and move. Stay and fight. You can’t win by continually running away. And don’t tell me it can’t work, because the tide has turned in some places. Wisconsin used to be on that list for draconian self defense laws and no concealed carry. Now they’re one of the leading states for firearms rights and a solidly blue state that is turning red. IL has been able to roll back quite a bit too.

      1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

        The people of Portland are more than willing to strap their boots in and stomp out freedom in the rest of the state. Looks like I will retire in Texas if this crap doesn’t get stopped. One nut job in Portland was pushing a pretty nasty AWB last year that would have wiped out your fourth amendment rights just by owning a ghost gun with 30 caliber assault clip.

      2. avatar fishydude says:

        But it’s the Mexico model. They don’t want people that want to change government for the better to stay. They want them to pack up and get the hell out.
        In NY, Guv Cumjob said exactly that.
        Another bit of irony. All the places run by the loony left are the most expensive places in the country to live. And they have the highest crime rates. So naturally they blame the high crime on what they see as a symbol of freedom and self reliance. The personal firearm.
        It is a lot easier to keep unarmed people scared and controllable.

      3. avatar residentCT says:

        A key element in the ct gov race was the end run around campaign finance law and monies that came to CT through the democratic governors association. Gov malloy postponed announcing that he was running for gov so he could skirt campaign finance law and basically get campaign donations through the DNC and the DGA. They played a significant role in getting him reelected despite a track record that should have ended his political career. Instead it allowed him to lie about the financial condition of ct, among many other things, and run a dirty campaign of well funded vicious attack ads, and afford the same PR firm that got Obama elected. One couldmwonder if it isnt reincarnation of the historic “engine of corruption” that was Tammanyhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Governors_Association

      4. avatar residentCT says:

        A key element in the ct gov race was the end run around campaign finance law and monies that came to CT through the democratic governors association. Gov malloy postponed announcing that he was running for gov so he could skirt campaign finance law and basically get campaign donations through the DNC and the DGA. They played a significant role in getting him reelected despite a track record that should have ended his political career. Instead it allowed him to lie about the financial condition of ct, among many other things, and run a dirty campaign of well funded vicious attack ads, and afford the same PR firm that got Obama elected. One could wonder if it isn’t the reincarnation of the historic “engine of corruption” that was Tammany hall. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Governors_Association

  2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    And why shouldn’t Oregon’s governor try to implement gun control? What personal consequences will he pay?

    I am sure the governor is quaking in his boots at the thought of constituents writing stern letters or heckling him at a speaking event. And horror of horrors, this might have a slight negative impact on his future political aspirations.

    Until politicians face painful sanctions for their efforts to infringe our rights, nothing will change.

  3. avatar JohnO says:

    Remove his security detail. So he can feel like one of the huddled masses.

  4. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Let’s see if they get as much help from the NRA as Washington did.

    1. avatar Jared says:

      No, they won’t. And gun groups who have this stance on background checks are going to cause us to lose HARD on this issue.

      It’s quite simple, unless you want to get rid of all prohibited possessor categories, it’s asinine to not require a background check (with exemptions) for private sales.

      1. avatar General Zod says:

        And I suppose it’s “asinine” not to require background checks to simply hand a friend your pistol at the range? Because that’s what they have in Washington now. It’s not a matter of sales, you’re required to get a background check just to hand someone a firearm if they’re not your spouse or offspring. And then they have tog et a background check on you just to hand it back. Because the new law doesn’t say “sale”, it says “transfer”. And that covers any change of possession, whether it’s permanent or not.

        It’s people like you who justify these idiotic measures without looking further into them that are the reason our rights are in danger of slipping.

        1. avatar Jared says:

          Because of the NRA’s stupidity in WA, Bloomberg got to write the background check law which is registration; whereas, Alan’s version was an overall improvement with no registration and it closed the existing registration database.

          Before you go off with ignorant “people like you” comments. I think I see the big picture very well, that’s why I was one of the people who got the Northern Mariana’s Islands gun ban lawsuit off the ground. What have YOU done for gun rights?

      2. avatar The Senator says:

        Yes, please tell us how you enforce such a system without complete registration. Is that what you want?

        1. avatar Jared says:

          That’s just another talking point. You don’t need registration to enforce it. Of course when Bloomberg is done writing these laws since SAF has been bullied out of the way, don’t worry, it will have universal registration.

          The point of the law would be to actually prosecute someone who sells or gives a firearm to a prohibited person. That’s not possible right now in most states because all they have to claim is “I didn’t know, he said he was ok”.

          Many gun groups are their own worst enemies, if they don’t want any type of check on private sales (even if it makes it a felony for the state to ask for or record a serial number like Rhode Island) then they should just be honest and push to repeal ALL prohibited person laws.

      3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        It’s already illegal to provide a prohibited possessor with a firearm. So they’re not getting them from FFLs. They’re not getting them from responsible, law-abiding private sellers. Prohibited possessors are getting them from unscrupulous sellers, or committing other crimes to acquire them. None of that would change with so-called “universal” background checks.

        Moreover, in several of the highest profile spree shootings, the killers acquired their firearms after having passed background checks. It’s assinine to demand more of something that has already proven itself to have no positive effect.

        Expanded background checks will just ensnare good people in arcane and draconian gun laws. Beyond that, they will advance civilian disarmament because all checks must go through FFLs, and the Dems REFUSE to allow public access to the NICS database. They’ve fought this since the Brady Bill, including during last year’s gun grab attempt.

        They deny public access to NICS because they want to transform the FFLs into a fatal funnel in the supply chain. Impose that choke point, and they can throttle private gun ownership through FFL licensing requirements/fees, limiting licenses outright, excessive reporting mandates, abusive ATF inspections, setting exorbitant transfer fees, and suddenly even more spotty service out of NICS itself.

        Without universal background checks, they cannot wrap their hands around the throats of gun owners. It’s the height of naivete to suggest that imposing universal background checks with keep guns from bad guys. All it will do is disarm the good guys and leave them vulnerable to bad guys everywhere, especially armed bad guys.

        1. avatar Jared says:

          This is exactly why NICS should be pushed to be open to the general public, along with private point of contact checks like Oregon already has as an option.

          Examples like these with permit exemptions on top of it are good ways to have background checks without registration and it could open the door for the interstate sale ban to be repealed since it would have no justification and it would be a harder sell to keep…. of course gun dealers wouldn’t like this.

          If people don’t get a handle on private seller issues then Bloomberg WILL funnel all transfers through the choke point as you clearly mention and that is a horrible scenario. This is a reality.

          Right now, a private person could knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person and if caught, just claim they didn’t know. It would make sense to open up NICS to the public that way if some idiot sells a gang banger a gun, they could be prosecuted much easier as they should.

          After Washington State, I see the NRA stonewalling this issue and as 12 or more states fall victim to Bloomberg universal registration, then we will receive endless requests for $$$$ from the NRA to “Stand and Fight” some of these problems they created when SAF already tried to fix this issue and would have been able to.

      4. avatar AnonInWA says:

        “It’s quite simple, unless you want to get rid of all prohibited possessor categories, it’s asinine to not require a background check (with exemptions) for private sales.”
        You are exactly right. People don’t realize that as long that we allow the concept of “prohibited person” defending against the UBC is indefensible. Think a little about it. If there are free individuals out there prohibited from having a gun, how we can be against UBC?
        Our stance should be very clear: There are no free persons that are prohibited. If they can;t be trusted with a gun why we release them in the general population? If they care about safety these person should not be released. That is the only argument that makes sense against thew UBC. anything else is just tortured logic that makes us look like fools.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Or, it’s none of the government’s damn business whether I want to buy or sell a gun. That’s the best argument against UBCs. It’s also a great argument for abolishing the unconstitutional background checks we already have.

          Every last proposal these grabbers make is just another step toward civilian disarmament. They have zero interest in safety, security or crime reduction, because these measures have zero impact on those things.

          Surrendering in smaller, politically correct steps, so as not to live the worst of it in our lifetimes, is not a winning strategy for our side. It’s a shameful sacrifice of future generations’ freedoms, all so we can enjoy ours a tad longer and not be thought of as inconsiderate louts by the media. Well.

          If we forfeit our freedom and accept so-called universal nackground checks, let alone collaborate in their introduction, then, my friend, merely looking like fools will be the least of our worries.

        2. avatar AnonInWA says:

          @Jonathan, that was exactly my point. There isn’t government business as all free persons have no limitation on exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Hence no BC as it used to be before 1968.

    2. avatar Neil D says:

      “Let’s see if they get as much help from the NRA as Washington did”
      You mean none, right? I saw virtually NO pro-gun ads before the vote for I-594. I suspect that is why it passed. Bloomberg must have paid a LOT for the ads he ran. They were on all the time.

  5. avatar Shane says:

    Proof how stupid us Oregon voters are. His girlfriend blatantly uses influence, state offices, and resources for monetary gain and he still gets re-elected. We have already closed the “gunshow loophole”, so what lies will he use to get more BS on the books?

    1. avatar Don says:

      I’m with you, this joker was worthless his first term, I am still speechless that he’s been elected to a FOURTH term (non concurrent). Might possibly be a shade better than Roberts was but still?????????? I guess he sees Obummer getting away with it, so…….

      Open carry, concealed carry, don’t care, as long as you DO carry.

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      Oregon’s governor race was a superb illustration of fake democracy: we didn’t get an actual choice, we got to choose between two losers selected by the people with enough money to fill campaign chests. One of my mom’s elderly friends said the two main candidates looked like a choice between Hitler and Mussolini… my guess is she pegged Kitzhaber as Mussolini.

      I’m hoping he does something bad enough to trigger Oregonians to vote for term limits for governors — like, one.

  6. avatar Avid Reader says:

    They’re emboldened in part because we couldn’t get rid of Hickenlooper in Colorado. Even though the other marquee races went R, the fact that Hick escaped unemployment by the skin of his teeth makes them feel safe.

  7. avatar El Mac says:

    Rust, Statists and Evil never sleep. This country used to tar and feather fvckwads like that dude. In Nuremberg, we hung a few like him too.

  8. avatar folsom says:

    Idaho looks like a nice state..

    1. avatar GWHNick says:

      Unless you live in Alaska, it is best if your state does not touch the Pacific Ocean. There must be an undetectable amoeba in the water that makes people think irrationally.

      1. avatar James Miller says:

        You’re aware that Alaska touches the Pacific Ocean, right?

        1. avatar somedude says:

          I believe “Unless you live in Alaska” states the exception to the rule. Because Alaska touches the Pacific, he had to state the exception.

        2. avatar James Miller says:

          Nevermind. Must of had a defective cup of coffee. 😛

      2. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        To be fair, most of the ones touching the Atlantic Ocean aren’t doing much better either. The only reason why it may not be as bad as the other side is that there are more states.

  9. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    So now the battle is at my doorstep.
    Time to focus efforts here.
    I’m still incredulous that this guy got re-elected.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      That’s right Tom,

      The flaming paper bag is burning on your doorstep.

      Whats your strategy?

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        I’ve given money to several campaigns and recall efforts on the national level. That money will now stay in state.
        Calls and letters to my reps. (Course, being an outlier, my reps are republican. I’ve spoken to them personally and they are pro 2A. I’ve even been shooting with one)
        The problem is the Portland metro area, the Salem metro area and south into Eugene. Very deep dark blue. And those are the population centers.
        There are a few key politicians that I will help dethrone at the next election cycle.
        Up till now, Oregon has been left alone.
        Shall issue, check.
        Open carry, check.
        Concealed carry to and from target shooting, hunting and fishing without a permit, check.
        Machine guns, check.
        Silencers, check.
        Carry in schools, check.

        If Kitzslobber wants to change what is working quite well, then I will become very active in the political machine.

        1. avatar futile ism says:

          You missed licensed CC in bars. And I’d certainly miss that. So let’s make sure that doesn’t change. Nothing here in OR is broke and we sure as hell don’t need to fix it. I’m with you brother.

    2. avatar folsom says:

      I’m with you Tom, Kitz is the worst, this midterm election was so disappointing. Now the antis will have majority in the Oregon house so anything Kitz says will probably go.

      Oregon folks, stay tuned in to what OFF is doing and get involved where you can!

  10. avatar James Miller says:

    Any smart governor would wait to see the outcome of whatever law another state passed before trying to force it on his own population. That way when it gets repealed or likely crashes and burns, your political career won’t be in jeopardy and innocent people in your state won’t end up in prison or dead.

  11. avatar ToddR says:

    “common sense” buzz-word.

  12. avatar Rog Uinta says:

    To my esteemed colleague who recently moved from AZ to Oregon: I told you so!!

  13. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    Tom Skerrit is the governor of Oregon??

  14. avatar Foop says:

    Hang on. After the shootings over the past few years, the gun community has cried “It’s not the guns, it’s the crazy people!” The explicit recommendation of gun rights advocates has been to focus on mental health and keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable rather than passing broad legislation that affects everyone. Doing so, by necessity, involves evaluation of a gun owner or someone that is looking to acquire a gun and people in the mental health field are the most qualified to do that overall.

    It gets very tricky, and implementing any sort of restriction on access to firearms on people with mental issues without affecting the rights of other citizens who would maintain their right to bear arms under any sort of restricting legislation would be a practical minefield (HIPAA laws and violations, potential appeals processes for a determination of mental state/predisposition that disqualified one for gun ownership, activist doctors who describe a condition one way or another to disqualify otherwise qualifying people under any restrictive law, etc). However, you can’t advocate for the restriction of firearms ownership by the mentally disturbed one day and then object to any method of implementing those restrictions the next. If we, as a community, don’t constructive direct such legislation to be as unintrusive as possible and, instead, object to everything, then more restrictive legislation that touches our rights is eventually going to pass.

    You can’t say no to everything. Meeting antigunners at the table and helping to redefine what reasonable gun restrictions are is more likely to work in our favor than stonewalling, which is what seems to be advocated here.

    1. avatar James Miller says:

      Outside of the fact that murder is already illegal, what restrictions do you consider “reasonable”? All direct restrictions are infringement which is irony considering the 2nd amendment is the only one with “shall not be infringed” blatantly stated right in the verbiage but some folks seem to hold that up to interpretation.

      1. avatar Foop says:

        Well, according to well established constitutional law, even fundamental rights can have constraints placed upon them if there is a sufficiently compelling need. While direct restrictions may be an infringement, some such restrictions are constitutional, even if you ask some conservative constitutional scholars.

        I’m not going to spitball about what conditions might justify a restriction and then debate constitutional law with an armchair conlaw professor. If legislation comes up, I’d be happy to debates the merits of any given provision.

        1. avatar The Senator says:

          Which “well established” constitutional law are you referring to?

        2. avatar James Miller says:

          I’m not going to … debate constitutional law with an armchair conlaw professor.
          -Armchair Conlaw Professor

        3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Ahhh……..the “living, breathing Constitution” school of thought. Always a crowd favorite, when it permits an end run around the Bill of Rights and an express lane to one’s personal policy preferences.

          Except, the Constitution is the contract between the Federal government, the People, and the several States. It defines the rules and responsibilities up front precisely to avoid the caprice and inhumanity that is authoritarian rule.

          But hey, you’re into making rules up as we go along, so how about you head over to my place this weekend for some friendly Saturday night poker? You know how to play, right? Not that it matters. By the first few hands, you’re going to get a much needed life lesson in infringements, restrictions, and “sufficiently compelling needs.” [Spoiler alert: Papa needs a new ski boat!]

          * I accept cash, checks, all major credit/debit cards, and free and clear deeds & titles.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Meeting antigunners at the table . . . .

      Not unless they are first parboiled.

      1. avatar Foop says:

        Well, that’s certainly a hoity toity approach that makes you look like an unreasonable libertarian. It’s also the way to convert precisely no one to the cause.

        1. avatar The Senator says:

          What exactly is so wrong with libertarianism?

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Well I thought it was funny, Ralph, and I’m more hoi polloi than hoity toity. Go figure.

    3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      “You can’t say no to everything.”

      Why, yes, yes I can. Or if you prefer, I’ll say “shall not be infringed” to everything. If you really want to get into it, I shouldn’t have to say anything at all, as we shouldn’t keep having this conversation.

      Shall not be infringed. It’s so simple, practical, elegant in its simplicity, and worked for many, many decades before racists started screwing it up.

      No infringement is the starting point…..and end point……of the topic. Every time the grabbers raise the topic, in the interest of fairness and tolerance and “common sense” we’re supposed to break off another piece of our freedom and hand it over. There is NEVER a proposal by the gun grabbers to repeal any restriction or advance firearms freedom. EVER.

      It’s always “Well, it’s that time again. Time for us to screw you out of more freedom and impose slow motion slavery.”

      They define every single engagement as a process of moving us from where we are, to someplace better; only the better place never actually appears. The sunny uplands of crime-free America never arrives, no matter what freedoms they snatch from us, having promised this would be the last time. And so, they keep moving the goalposts.

      They keep redefining what’s needed, what’s allowed, what’s common sense. They will never be happy, and certainly not before they’ve confiscated every last gun. We have their own words to this effect and I am sick and tired of being told I’m the bad guy, I’m what’s wrong, I’m unreasonable, and I’m a monster because I live in peace and resist forfeiting my freedom!

      1. avatar Scott P says:

        “They will never be happy, and certainly not before they’ve confiscated every last gun.”

        Exactly they got to keep the gravy train rolling.

        Next it will be knives like in the UK; “Common Sense Knife Control”.

        Then blades of any kind, bows and arrows, power tools, tools in general…..

        Until we have to be force fed everything through a tube to survive bound to the wall, floor, so they can feel safe in their slavery.

      2. avatar Foop says:

        You can say whatever you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that your understanding of constitutional law is simplistic, flawed, and incorrect. You can keep your head in the sand as long as you want, but when you finally pull it out, things will have changed for the worse and it’ll be, in part, your own damn fault.

        1. avatar The Senator says:

          Or your just making shit up, and don’t know jack about constitutional law because anytime anion refutes your claims you return with “I know what I’m talking about, you don’t.” And provide no real argument, evidence or reason to back up your claims to this godlike constitutional knowledge. You can personally interpret it however you feel, that doesn’t make it right. Again, there’s no part of the constitution that makes it ok to pass a law that violates an amendment. The only way to violate an amendment is to repeal it.

    4. avatar Neil D says:

      Have to agree with Foop. Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people is a huge challenge. Especially when there are many that have never been officially diagnosed. I don’t want to see any more gun restrictions for law abiding, sane people. But, unless the mental illness problem is addressed we will likely keep seeing back door attempts at more gun restrictions.

      1. avatar Fake Name says:

        Just watch, mental health WILL become the new backdoor attempt.
        http://www.oregonfirearms.org/first-anti-gun-ballot-measure-filed

        Note how the current narrative is about how gun violence is a public ‘health’ issue. You don’t need a crystal ball to see how doctors (and information disclosed to them) will play a huge role in disarming one law-abiding gun owner at a time – in the name of public health. Look into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) to see all the ever-evolving classifications of ‘things that are wrong with you’ i.e. reasons to prohibit you from your RKBA.

        This should make your guts ache: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-6jATtqMJw

        @Foop – Your comments are excellent. 100% on point.

        1. avatar derpderp says:

          Thank you, your predictions are one point as well. Mental health is going to be the new cause by which antigunners enact reform. It is going to happen, whether it is in the medium term or the long term, and gun rights supporters need to be planning for it so that they can more effectively shape the dialogue and, thus, influence the final outcome. The sooner we start, the better prepared we will be.

        2. avatar Fake Name says:

          Correction – I meant @ Jonathan – Houston.

      2. avatar Roymond says:

        That’s why Democrats will stand with Republicans when it comes to voting money to help our mentally ill: if we actually do that, they won’t have this issue to flog the Second Amendment with.

    5. avatar Roymond says:

      The mental health restriction can be reigned in by limiting it to individuals who have been determined by a public institution to be sufficiently dangerous that they are banned from the grounds. Such a law should provide that said institutions may be sued for arbitrary decisions, and to keep that clear should require that said institution must obtain and pay for evaluations from three different mental health practitioners, of which at least one must be a psychiatrist and at least one a psychologist, said practitioners to be selected one by the institution, one by the individual, and the third by a mental health advocacy organization.

      Such an arrangement could have prevented two or perhaps three of the big-headline mass shootings in the last few yeas. Anything broader than that would be useless.

      Lawmakers need to learn one simple lesson from firearms enthusiasts: aim at the target; don’t spray all over and hope you hit something.

  15. avatar pg2 says:

    Kitzhaber….public disarmament….surprise, surprise.

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    Watching the left coast slide into the morass of modern Progressivism is like watching a sinkhole swallow a very nice house.

    Let it bleed.

    1. avatar The Senator says:

      In time it will also slide into the Pacific.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        And then it drags the rest of the country with it. I’ve said it a kabillion times. If you want to break gun control in America, you have to first break it in CA. Until that happens this is just an ongoing merry go round ride.

  17. avatar Alex says:

    This scares me, being an Oregonian. Granted, I don’t think he said that he was actually going to do anything, just that it was apparently “common sense” to him.

    Background checks/registrations are just another way for the government to force their control on the people. I can just imagine being told:
    “Your gun is now illegal to have, hand it over or pay some ridiculous fee to keep it” (you know, because poor/middle class people don’t deserve to have specific types of guns)

    or something like

    “You were diagnosed with depression between 1998 and 2000, you cannot have this gun to protect yourself” or ADD/ADHD or any other mental issue deemed “disqualifying” for gun ownership.

    I get that in some cases, the government has to protect the people. But we need to balance that with the people’s ability to protect themselves – from other people OR the government.

    /end rant

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      The depression diagnosis is important to me, as I am still classified bipolar, along with PTSD which has also been suggested as a reason to bar ownership of firearms. But my case is also illustrative of the fact that these are not necessarily impediments: one of my psychiatrists, learning I owned firearms, required me to go through a separate evaluation, after which he decided I was a safer person to have firearms than most of the population, because he determined that I was not constitutionally capable of using a firearm to inflict harm on any human being — including myself — except under direct threat (and he wasn’t certain I would even defend myself, if I were alone, but did think that anyone attacking one of my friends or family would be committing suicide by armed citizen).

    2. avatar corvus says:

      Keep your eyes on OFF’s alerts because the anti-gun push in Oregon is going to come from the state legislature, not (or not only) 2016 initiatives.

      1. avatar mirgc says:

        Thumbs up on the OFF (Oregon Firearms Federation) alerts.

        Also couple other points to make:
        1) Kitzhaber also took over $250,000 in support from Bloomberg this last election.
        2) Along with 8 other states, Oregon’s state attorney earlier this year filed a “friends of the court” amicus brief in favor of the NY SAFE act.

        Get involved. Get some friends involved.

  18. avatar Roymond says:

    Any limitations on firearm ownership have to come from the definition of the term “militia” as used by the Founders and Framers. Anything else is out of bounds, since if one point of the Second Amendment is to guarantee we have an effective militia, no one who could legitimately serve can be barred.

    They did recognize certain people as not being competent (a word whose meaning has shifted, BTW) to handle firearms, but they were few. They certainly would not include a lot of the folks already prohibited by law from having firearms today!

  19. avatar Lars says:

    I have said it before and I will say it again. Where they legalize drugs they will soon after push for gun control. A vote for rec marijuana or whatever is a vote for gun control.

    1. avatar futile ism says:

      Good point. And a scary portent of things to come. Ganja and guns don’t mix! /sarc

  20. avatar oregonusedtobecool says:

    kitzabher is a corrupt elitist who walks the progressive line of ” do as i say because i know better trust me”. he should be in prison for his backroom dealings with california transplant big money power brokers who have exploited oregons land people and resources as if they were a third world country. it has been very easy since clinton, spotted owl fake environmentalism, nafta, meth, and underpriced illegal immigrant labor have all destroyed the middle class economy so despised by crony capitalists and the leadership of both parties. oregon was better off when eugene, portland, and salem were full of well meaning and less greedy hippies.

  21. avatar fight the B tards says:

    OREGON legislators ramming gun bills MARCH 26 2015

    http://www.oregonfirearms.org/gun-grab-is-flying-through-the-legislature

    SEND A MESSAGE TO LEGISLATURE HERE
    http://www.oregonfirearms.org/gun-owner-registration-bill-introduced

  22. avatar Cassie says:

    Bloomberg Felons Push Fake Shootings (Aurora & Charleston Hoax). Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) is a pack of CONVICTED CRIMINAL MAYORS!

    (VIDEO)
    http://ow.ly/XWWHY

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email