Showing posts with label Oregon Firearms Federation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oregon Firearms Federation. Show all posts

Friday, December 16, 2016

Another Pro-Gun Republican Has Had Enough Of Oregon Firearms Federation's Extremism

I'm laughing tonight.

Oregon Firearms Federation (or "OFF", which bills themselves as "Oregon's only no-compromise gun lobby"), and their rabid executive director, Kevin Starrett, are no strangers to extremism.  They lie, distort, and belittle in order to try to get their way.  They are far worse than the NRA, and often accuse the NRA of being "too compromising."  Any time there is even a hint of gun violence prevention bills, OFF immediately jumps to extreme conclusions and mobilizes against those horrible liberals comin' to take their gunzzz (This is the same group that has tried to pass bills to allow felons to be armed, to allow convicted drug offenders to carry concealed guns, and even to force schools at all levels to have mandatory gun classes for kids, among other extremist positions, and they have gleefully burnt effigies of the governor on the capital steps, marched through the capitol building with assault rifles, and stood behind gun violence victims in legislative hearings while sporting loaded handguns in open intimidation of those brave presenters).

Lately, an Oregon politician named Val Hoyle has been in the running to fill a soon-to-be-vacated state senate seat.  In past years, Val Hoyle had gotten an A rating from OFF.  That is, until she dared to co-sponsor a bill for universal background checks (Oregon Senate Bill 941), at which point her A was turned to an F.  She understood that, according to four different polls of Oregonians, the bill was supported by the public to the tune of 79-90%!  The bill passed and was enacted in May of 2015.  The response from OFF and its followers was immediate and extreme.  They urged their followers to disobey the law (yes, as usual, the pro-gun movement is also pro-criminal).  They vengefully started a movement to try to recall Hoyle and three other Oregon politicians who had supported the bill, which failed miserably, and they also started a movement to get county commissioners to pass resolutions against the bill.

The county commission of Lane County, here where I live, and where Val Hoyle's house district was located, was one of those commissions that passed such a resolution (you can read it HERE).  In fact, they passed it AFTER the bill had been passed, which means that their statement that they would refuse to fund or enforce the law was a breach of their oath of office.  Four of the five members of that commission are very conservative Republicans (and it was those four who voted for the resolution).  Jay Bozievich signed the resolution on the commission's behalf.  Lane County residents were overwhelmingly FOR Senate Bill 941, so Mr. Bozievich was going against the wishes of his constituents.  Oh, how OFF crowed about that little victory (even though it did nothing to stop the law from being enacted)!

Well, there was a vote by the Lane County Commissioners this week, to decide if Hoyle would fill the Senate seat, or if it would be filled by another Democratic candidate named Jim Manning.  OFF lobbied hard to flood the commission's email with anti-Hoyle emails, with the usual name-calling (they called her a "Bloomberg stooge," "Bloomberg's handmaiden," "anti-gun zealot," and other names, in part because Michael Bloomberg had given her a campaign donation).  In the end, Manning was voted into the position instead of Hoyle (the vote was 3-2 for Manning), so OFF celebrated and claimed the victory as their own.  Jay Bozievich was one of the two votes for Hoyle.  According to an article, very few of the deluge of emails from the gun guys were from constituents who actually lived in Hoyle's district, and the emails didn't affect the commissioner's decisions.

But, as usual, the extremist comments from OFF and its supporter soured their own reputation with the politicians they inundated.

The reason I'm laughing is because OFF posted a statement from Jay Bozievich on their Facebook page, in response to the recent vote against Hoyle.  See a screenpic of that posting, to the right.

That's right:  the very Republican far-right commissioner, who signed a resolution against background checks on their behalf, is sick of OFF's extremism and has let them know, in no uncertain terms, that they are a "non entity that does not have any real power."

Bozievich was correct.  OFF is destructive to their own cause.  Every time they send out their email alerts or open their mouths in hearings, OFF proudly displays their extremism for all to see.

.

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Oregon Firearms Federation Attempts To Slander A Legislator's Family And It Backfires

Screenpic from the OFF Facebook page.
The most outspoken "gun rights" organization in Oregon is the Oregon Firearms Federation, which bills itself as "Oregon's only no compromise gun rights organization" and considers the NRA to be too weak and compromising!  This is the same organization that is responsible for allowing concealed guns on university grounds and has, among other things, pushed to legislatively mandate that school kids get hands-on training with guns as young as kindergarten, allow felons to get their guns back, and trying to abolish background checks being performed by the state police.  The organization and its Executive Director, Kevin Starrett, have routinely harassed legislators and gun violence prevention advocates.

But they tried to push the personal harassment up a notch by posting on their Facebook page what they felt was a scandalous picture.  In what could only be called a juvenile attempt worthy of some schoolyard bully, they posted a photo of a relative of a legislator (Chuck Schumer), whom they oppose, in the hopes of embarrassing that legislator and his family.

See the screenpic to the right.   The caption that OFF posted (most likely by Starrett) with the picture reads:
I bring you... Amy Schumer. Foul mouthed, anti-gun militant and cousin to gun grabber Chucky Schumer. Of course, she is a vocal feminist and opposed to the degrading of women. But here she is in a tire calendar. Sorry I know it's hard on the eyes, but you cannot make this stuff up.

See their posting HERE before they take it down in shame.

Some OFF Supporters, cued by OFF's caption, responded in kind with even worse comments:

So, the Michelin Man(Schumer) finally put out a calendar? 
Soooo, she oposes degradation of women, and poses semi nude? Her hypocrisy knows no bounds. 
I wouldn't take her to a shit fight as a shield 
What a tramp 
I think she has a dam sexy body, I would love to try to FiretrUCK the liberal out of her. 
She looks like a spare tire... 
Skank hoe 
Jeez ...well there goes dinner. Some things you just can't unsee

My first thought upon seeing the image was one of skepticism.  It's the standard practice of OFF to distort the truth or outright lie to get their way.  Did they Photoshop her face on another picture?  Or is this a photo taken out of context?  So I did a reverse Google image search of the picture.  What it led to were a number of art and photography blogs celebrating the picture.  When I followed the links back to the original image, I was floored by what I found...

The image is indeed of Amy Schumer...  by renowned artistic photographer Annie Leibovitz!  You may know her best for her celebrity pictures, such as the ones of John Lennon and Yoko Ono taken in 1980 that landed the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.  HERE is a photo gallery of a sampling of other celebrity photos she has taken.  

The photo of Amy Schumer is one of a series taken for the 2016 Pirelli Tire Company Calendar.  According to CNN, the calendar focuses on female celebrities who are breaking down sexist barriers.  Other celebrities in the project include Serena Williams, Yoko Ono, and director Ava DuVernay.

Amy Schumer, by the way, is a well-known comedian, writer, actress, and producer.  Wikipedia states that "her father is second cousin to U.S. senator Chuck Schumer."

Here is a link to the official Pirelli Calendar homepage and behind-the-scenes video, which includes a quick statement by Schumer, saying, "I felt I looked more beautiful than I've ever looked in my life." -- http://pirellicalendar.pirelli.com/en/the-cal-2016/home

Wow.  So this isn't some "skank" pin-up photo, as implied by OFF... This is an honor and a statement on realistic feminine beauty taken by a renowned photographer!

The true meaning of the image seems totally lost to OFF, naturally, who can't seem to see past their own sexism and their hatred of a legislator who has supported commonsense gun reforms.

And the image is backfiring.  Quite a lot of OFF Facebook visitors are calling them out on their childish attempt at slander, particularly women.  Here are some of their comments on that posting:


When you degrade and insult her for her physical appearance you lose the credibility and integrity of your argument. Point out her hypocrisy or make a case against her views that oppose yours. Don't roll in the mud with everybody else who resorts to personal attacks 
Somebody didn't get the point of the photo. She posed for this to show people that you don't have to be "perfect" to be comfortable with who you are and how you look 
Wow, what a bunch of a-holes some of you are! Take on her politics not her appearance. Jerks! 
Quit posting childish bullshit like this if you want to keep getting my money. 
Wow. As a 5th generation Oregonian, commercial fisherman, country girl who loves her guns and everyone else's right to own them - you lost me here. To you "grown men" calling her fat and gross: let's see your abs. Fucking ridiculous. I'm out. 
She is a beautiful Mature Woman and you guys are ignorant of true beauty if you cant see that!!!! 
Apologize and remove or I will never support OFF again. Screen shot taken to shame you if this is not removed. 
Poor taste, OFF, you're better than this. 
I will no longer be supporting OFF. Shame on you. 
what a bunch of asses...i'm deleting this page now...no longer following..
 I know and have worked for a few businesses that promote OFF. I'm getting the feeling that a lot of fliers, stickers, and pamphlets are going to be coming off the counters today. 
I guess you could say that OFF really dropped their pants on this one.  Or rather, Amy Schumer did it for them!

Leave it to OFF to make a fool of themselves in their ever-present push to harass and intimidate those who want to protect our society from gun violence.  Just another reason to stop supporting them, and another reason for our legislators to turn their back on such a horrible organization.

.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Extreme Pro-Gun Sheriff Arrested for Violent Assault And Strangulation

Back last spring, when Oregon legislators were working to pass Senate Bill 941 to require background checks for all gun sales in the state, including private sales (which passed in May and was enacted in August, much to the relief of most law enforcement), a small number of rural sheriffs said that they would refuse to enforce the law (against the oath that they took), and a number of county commissions in rural counties said they would not fund the law (also against the oath they took).

The extremist group, Oregon Firearms Federation, led the charge in encouraging these sheriffs and county commissions.


Sheriff Skrah speaks against keeping
guns out of criminal hands (source)
One of those sheriffs was Klamath County Sheriff Frank Skrah.  Klamath County commissioners condemned the background check law by passing a resolution.  O.F.F. was happy to report that Sheriff Skrah testified in support of the pro-gun resolution.  From an article:


“I will not be taking away guns from anybody. I will not be going out and confiscating guns,” said Klamath County Sheriff Frank Skrah. “People have the right to bear arms, and I will not abridge that right to bear arms. Ever. I’ll say it again: ever.”
Just to be clear, Sheriff Skrah is saying he will refuse to uphold his oath and enforce a law that he, personally, doesn't like, and won't be "confiscating guns" -- even if the person purchasing the guns has failed a background check!  Yes, you read that right.  If a person purchases a gun in a private sale, and fails a background check or refuses to have a background check (such as if they were a felon or dangerously mentally ill), Sheriff Skrah would refuse to arrest them or take their gun away.

Just another way that the pro-gun forces were willing to encourage criminal behavior.  Sadly, Oregon is no stranger to pro-gun, insurrectionist rural sheriffs.

Skrah released a statement railing against the background check bill and intrusion by "Big Brother."  Excerpts from his statement:


While I, as Sheriff of Klamath County, support keeping guns out of the hands of “CRIMINALS” this legislation (SB–941) appears to be nothing more than a further infringement upon those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment Rights.  
"Some may disagree with me, but I feel “Big Brother” need not know who owns a firearm. 
"We don’t need new laws to check the background of those who have the legal right to own a gun. We conduct background checks on those who “carry” (Concealed Carry Handgun Permits) and we do a very good job in that endeavor.  
"Upping the ante and requiring more Government Intrusion is not needed and not wanted by the vast majority of good hard working folks.  
"If I sell or give a gun to my neighbor should I or my neighbor be subject to a background check? My answer to that rhetorical question is a very firm NO! 
"Typical of government is to stack another law upon us!   Folks in Salem: ….. We have that little obscure document called the United States Constitution.  
"It might be good for those in the state Legislature (as well as Washington D.C.) to look at that document.   Read down to the Second Amendment: The right (our right) to keep and bear arms! ….. Without bureaucrats trying to make more decisions for us. I, as the Sheriff of Klamath County, will use the laws that are presently on the books to do my job.

Sadly, his love of guns has clouded his judgement.  He says he "supports" keeping guns out of criminal hands, but how is a gun seller to know if the buyer is a criminal without a background check?  And not all buyers have conceal carry permits or are a neighbor of Skrah.  And though he purports to be an expert in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has already stated in the Heller decision that background checks and other regulations are not unconstitutional (and Skrah, as with most pro-gun zealots, seems to forget the "well-regulated" part of the Second Amendment).  It is also not the role of sheriffs or county commissions to determine what is constitutional or not.  That's for the courts to decide.
Well, that was in April.  Flash forward to this month....
Now Sheriff Skrah has been charged with nine counts of violent crime by a grand jury, including assault and strangulation.  From an article:
A Klamath County grand jury charged Skrah with a total of nine counts, including three counts of harassment, three counts of official misconduct in the first degree, one count of attempted assault in the fourth degree, one count of assault in the fourth degree and one count of strangulation. .... 
The charges came after the Oregon Department of Justice launched an investigation in April into allegations Skrah had used excessive force against a suspect. Seven of the department's 30 deputies asked to be placed on paid leave after they were questioned about Skrah by state investigators. ... 
Sheriff Skrah's mugshot (source)
The charges stem from Skrah's dealings with three men, James Johnson, Kenneth Bragg and Jason Charles. In three separate incidents, Skrah allegedly held a flashlight against Johnson's throat on Feb. 11, 2013; he allegedly hit Charles on Jan. 14, 2014; and prosecutors claim he choked Bragg on Feb. 27, 2015. 
The Oregonian first reported the the Skrah investigation involved reports he had used excessive force, including hitting a handcuffed suspect, on Aug. 25.
The indictment also alleges Skrah failed to notify and compensate a local resident after one of his deputies had damaged their property.

Of course, Skrah denies all charges, like criminals often do.  

There is also a concern about him "for workplace harassment and retaliation by the Sheriff."

Should we be surprised?  Based on his pro-gun testimony, I'm guessing that Sheriff Skrah owns a great many guns.  According to a Washington Post report, those who own a large number of guns are significantly more likely to have explosive anger issues.

Well, he may not be able to own his guns anymore, after this.  Will the next Sheriff allow Skrah to purchase guns without a background check, too?

Let's hope that Klamath County has learned its lesson and will replace Skrah with a more reasonable Sheriff who is more peaceful and is willing to uphold the law, including enforcement of background checks for all gun sales.

Saturday, September 12, 2015

All Four Vengeful Recall Efforts By Pro-Gun Forces Fail In Oregon

In May of this year, after at least a couple years of work by concerned legislators, gun violence prevention organizations, public health organizations, faith organizations, and members of the public, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 941, providing for background checks for nearly every gun sale in the state of Oregon, including private sales.  It was a tremendous victory for public safety, and one that had the support of up to 90% of my fellow Oregonians.  The bill went into full effect on August 9.

Unwilling to be bothered by a 5-minute, $10 background check at one of the many hundreds of licensed dealers around the state, the sort of which was already required for any gun purchased at gun shops or gun shows, the gun guys howled in anger, led by the extremist Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF).  They responded with openly-criminal responses.  OFF sent out angry email alerts to its followers, urging them to "defy" the law and spreading disinformation about the law (get the true facts, HERE).  Pro-gun county commissioners (including the sister of OFF's executive director) and a rural sheriff or two penned angry statements saying that they would not fund or enforce any background check efforts.  In their usual, treasonous way, local militia groups even vowed "armed civil disobedience."

And then, in an act that could only be called a political tantrum, OFF and its followers decided they would try to recall four of the state legislators who co-sponsored the bill:  Senator Floyd Prozanski, Representative Val Hoyle (House Majority Leader), Senator Chuck Riley, and Representative Susan McLain.  (Hoyle had previously received "A" and "B" ratings from OFF.  Now, suddenly, it was an "F").

I say it was a political tantrum because the entire purpose of a recall is to remove politicians who have demonstrated some form of malfeasance or scandalous conduct while in office.  SB941 went through all of the official committees and channels, with amendments and votes as befits any bill.  It was voted through committees, through votes in both the Senate and the House, and ultimately signed into law by the Governor.  There were no scandals involved in its passage, nor are any of the legislators involved in any political scandals.  In short, the entire process was normal and acceptable.

So why do the recalls?  Vengeance, plain and simple, with no regard for the democratic process.  Staging a recall attempt simply because they disagree with a dutifully-passed bill is an abuse of the process.  But when have gun nuts ever cared for democracy?

Well, the first recall attempt, against Riley and McLain, fizzled in July.  The petitioners had failed miserably to get anywhere near the number of signatures they needed, and no financial or volunteer support from any organizations other than OFF.  These legislators were relieved:

Riley and McLain both expressed their relief at not having to face a recall election.
"I think that's great," said Riley, reached while hiking on Steens Mountain in eastern Oregon.  "I've always said that recalls are really only for people who didn't do what they said they would do, and I wasn't one of those people."
Riley said he campaigned in favor of the expanded background checks and won election last year.
McLain said she was "pretty excited" she doesn't have to spend the next several months fighting a recall election.
"I'd like to be working in the interim on projects that I started during the session," she added.

Imagine that:  having our legislators work on improving our state instead of expending their energy fighting useless recall efforts!

Meanwhile, Val Hoyle prepared to fight the recall.  She started an  "I Stand With Val" campaign, complete with yard signs -- I had one in my yard, too -- and began asking for volunteers and donations.

And then the recall effort against Val Hoyle started to unravel.  A complaint was filed against the recall, demonstrating that the petitioners, which were mainly gun shops (the chief petitioner was a gun shop owner, no less), were using gun shop paid employees to get signatures without registering them as paid petitioners, and were leaving the petitions unsupervised with customers.  It was basically racketeering.  The effort was failing to get enough signatures, and then the recall was dropped entirely when Representative Hoyle announced that she is leaving her post as House Majority Leader to explore running for Secretary of State.

But the gun guys continued to harass Rep. Hoyle with angry and threatening phone calls and messages after the director of OFF shared her personal cell phone number.  Hoyle responded with a campaign to ask her supporters to respond to each threat with a $25 donation, to be used to pay off the cost of fighting the recall.  Her supporters responded overwhelmingly in support.

And then the Prozanski effort started to crumble, too.  Just as with the Val Hoyle recall, a complaint was filed against the Prozanski recall effort, alleging the same sort of mistakes by the gun shops who were collecting signatures.  But this time the gun guys were able to get around it by throwing out those petition sheets, and the Secretary of State ruled, just yesterday, that the other petition sheets could be used.

When the recall against Floyd Prozanski was announced, the supporters of this popular senator immediately jumped to his defense, soon forming a campaign of their own called "Stop Reckless Recalls."  Senator Prozanski later wrote an opinion piece in the local newspaper, stating his case:

The purpose of recall is to hold accountable an elected official who has committed an ethical violation, committed a crime or breached the public trust. According to the Secretary of State’s office, this recall will cost taxpayers $100,000 to $134,000 if it goes forward.
Do taxpayers really want to spend that amount of money because someone disagrees with my legislative votes?
Michaelson-Duffy is upset with my support for Senate Bill 941. The bill closed the last remaining loophole in Oregon’s successful 25-year-old background check law. But people’s rights to own and purchase a gun remain intact under SB 941 unless they are a felon or suffering a mental health crisis.

But the gun guys didn't care, of course.  Just over 10,000 unverified signatures were turned in, well-above the 8,415 that were needed.  It seemed that the $51,000 spent on the recall campaign, $45,000 of which came directly from OFF, was well-spent.

And then, later in the day, the Secretary of State announced that nearly 2,000 of those signatures were invalid.  Yes, 2,000!  Says a lot about these people.  They were either repeat signatures, or they could not be validated as registered voters in Prozanski's district. The last of the recall campaigns was officially dismissed. From an article:

Needing 8,415 valid signatures, the recall campaign submitted a total of 10,027 unverified signatures last week. Two separate statistical samplings done Friday by the state Elections Division found the recall failed to meet the required 84 percent verification rate, however. One sampling estimated there were 8,208 valid signatures, the other 8,062, the Elections Division said. ....

In a prepared statement, Prozanski said Friday that he was “grateful” for his constituents’ continued support.
“Despite their attempts to distort my record and their personal attacks on me, the political extremists who tried to force a recall vote have been rejected by the voters,” he said.
And so, once again, common sense prevails in Oregon.  If the gun guys had succeeded, not only
would good legislators lose their positions, but it would set a dangerous precedent that anyone who simply disagrees with a lawfully-passed bill of any type could punish lawmakers with a recall vote.  If that were the case, no politician would willingly take a stand on any hot-button topic.


Instead, the democratic process in Oregon remains secure, the gun guys don't get results from their political tantrum, and we retain commonsense background checks to help keep guns out of dangerous hands.

Thank you, Floyd, Val, Chuck, and Susan, and all those other legislators who sponsored or voted for SB941, for standing up for public safety and for continuing to face down the pro-gun forces.  You have protected the welfare of your people.


Addendum (9/13/15):  Oregon Firearms Federation released an alert wherein they blame their failure to recall Prozanski on interference by "Bloomberg lackeys" and "Bloomberg flunkies," a "Prozanski and Bloomberg cabal," and a conspiracy by the Secretary of State (with no evidence to back up their statement, of course).  I'm shaking my head at their utter refusal to accept the facts, and their conspiratorial, paranoid thinking, so typical of OFF and the gun nuts.
From the OFF webpage (red underlining added)

OFF posted the letter that was sent to the chief petitioner for the Prozanski recall, along with the statistical results, HERE.

In their typical, pro-criminal and violent fashion, OFF has told their followers to "Be prepared to resist and defy" (see screenshot from their homepage).

Monday, June 15, 2015

Oregon Is Taking A Decisive Step In Protecting Women Against Domestic Violence Shootings

(UPDATED -- See below)

Guns and domestic violence go hand-in-hand.  Here in Oregon, 55-71% of domestic violence murder victims are shot, and 44% of women murdered with guns in the United States were killed by a current or former intimate partner.

And yet, Oregon is one of the states with most lax gun laws regarding protecting women from domestic violence shootings.  Here in Oregon, convicted stalkers can still keep their guns, as can those who have a restraining order.  And though a felony domestic assault can stop a husband from owning a gun if he abuses his spouse, boyfriends and domestic partners with misdemeanor domestic assault convictions don't count; they can still own a gun.

This issue touches me personally.  I have one friend whose abusive husband held a gun to her head, execution-style, and threatened to kill her.  Another friend lost her sister in a shooting by an abusive husbandAnd there are other cases that I don't mention due to privacy of the victims.

Here are just a few recent cases of domestic violence shootings in Oregon so far this year.:

  • January 25, Oregon City, Oregon -- 55-year old Timothy Oliver Moffatt's wife had a restraining order again him after harassment and assault. But he followed her in his car, then shot her multiple times before shooting himself.  Both were in critical condition.
  •  April 23, Portland, Oregon -- Police responded to find that 57-year old John Grant Coffey shot his wife to death during a domestic disturbance.
  • May 20, Medford, Oregon -- 28-year-old Charles Perowski shot and killed his 30-year-old wife, Jessica Thompson, before he turning the gun on himself in a suicide.  Their 12 year old daughter and 9 year old son were in the home.
  • June 6, Gresham, Oregon -- 44-year old Gerardo Gomez Ventura shot and killed his wife.
  • June 9, Sandy, Oregon -- 29-year-old Stephen Burlison threatened his girlfriend with a gun.  The woman's father pulled out a gun of his own.  Burlison fled, fired a bb gun at the pair, then was in a chase with police, firing at them, before being captured.
And many more make headlines every week around the nation.  How many of these cases could have been prevented if the state had done a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of violent spouses and partners?

Now Oregon has taken a step in preventing domestic violence shootings.

Things are about to change, thanks to Oregon Senate Bill 525.  This bill has been passed in both the Senate and the House, with bi-partisan support passing the House 51-8, and now goes to the Governor, who is expected to sign it.  It is modeled after the recently-passed California "Gun Violence Restraining Order" law.



What does the bill do? This bill will prohibit possession of a firearm or ammunition by a person with a restraining order protecting intimate partners or children of intimate partners, or people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes against family members.  

And since restraining orders are temporary, so too is the prohibition of gun ownership in those cases.  If they clear their name, their rights are restored.

The NRA, and the GOP leadership they pay, oppose these measures.  They prefer to keep arming the abusers.  Any gun sale is a good one to them.  Follow the money.  This, despite the fact that 68% of GOP voters support these laws, as well as 71% of women.

But I guess it's not surprising that the gun lobby would be out of touch.  They've been supportive of the abusers for years.  

The NRA and the Gun Owners of America have said such laws "stigmatize" those poor, violent, gun-owning wife-beaters. We wouldn't want that, would we?  I mean, the right of a wife-beater to own a gun must surely trump the lives and welfare of their wives, right?

Consider also the Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF), the "no compromise" gun lobby in Oregon, which opposes the bill because people with restraining orders haven't yet been convicted of a crime and have only been charged through "assumptions."  Nevermind that a judge weighed the evidence and deemed that person dangerous enough to tell them to keep their distance.

But then, OFF has never been one to respect women.  Consider, for instance, a recent post to the OFF Facebook page, describing the female representatives of Moms Demand Action Against Gun Violence as "prostitutes of the anti-gun movement" as well as "Stepford Wives," "zombies," and "robots."  (see screencapture above, left).

And in another OFF Facebook posting, they described female members of Ceasefire Oregon as "Bloomberg whores" as well as "liars" belonging to a "coven."  (see screencapture at right)

These sexist, arrogant, and crude attempts to belittle women are part and parcel of the gun rights movement.  

I'm happy, at least, that Oregon legislators have seen past it and done what is right to create a safer environment for Oregon women.  Now, we need to extend that to the rest of the nation!

Ceasefire Oregon would like to thank the thoughtful legislators who voted for this bill.  Now, on to the Governor!

UPDATE (6/18/15):  Governor Brown has now signed the bill in to law!  Our thanks go out to the Governor and all the legislators and volunteers who made it happen.  Domestic violence victims throughout Oregon will be safer now.  The bill goes into effect January 1, 2016.

Addendum (6/19/15):  Get the statistics and facts on domestic violence, here:  http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/us/domestic-intimate-partner-violence-fast-facts/