[garyk]

I’m well aware of what state we live in and how little the constitution matters these days to many who live in this state/country.

Post #60 in this thread definitely confirms that belief.

 

[garyk]

Here is a thought I have. In the short term we can not win this, so we put forth 'common sense' proposals. No one likes a complainer without an alternative. If you have a current CWP, a hunting licence, passed hunter safety, have filled a (maybe) multiple hunting tags, are a member of a gun range for over a year - you get a license.

There's no way the State is going to take lots (insert big $$$ number here) from priority budget items to fund 'the permit' project to comply with a measure that ultimately may be found unconstitutional. Remember, the Oregon Legislature did not enact this. The legislature has its own priorities. And what M114 proposed hasn't been one of those legislative priorities. Which in fact gave rise to this citizens' initiative.

So what's Magic 8-ball say? It says, through various judicial stays and appeals up the judiciary ladder in both the State and Federal courts, M114 will be in limbo and the status quo of current Oregon statutes governing firearm sales will continue for quite some time.

 

[garyk]

I guess we’ll see if the courts say permitting is unconstitutional. I think the fact that we have background checks and they’re not considered unconstitutional is going to be bad for permits being considered unconstitutional.

Seven states already have permit-to-purchase requirements. But I don't know how those states' laws compare to what is in M14.

 

[garyk]

Fix the mentally unstable tweekers that illegally obtain the guns to commit these crimes.

I hate M114.
But it's the entirely predictable blowback from the mass shootings that have galvanized Americans.
It's not "tweekers" doing those massacres - while they (tweekers) are certainly are responsible for most of the property crimes.
To sell more stuff, the firearms industry made a fetish out of AR platform. "Tacti-cool" and all that rubbish.
So here we are....

 

[garyk]

Gary, more than 50% of the murders are not tw-eakers.

I do not disagree and was replying to post #348

 

[garyk]

Should we require training and licensing prior to utilizing the right to vote?

Not a very good example since advance registration and various "proofs" are required depending on the locale.

 

[garyk]

I think it is more disturbing/telling, that the AG's office, and Secretary of State's office both pushed to get 114 in its entirety (permit to own especially) implemented before there was infrastructure. Neither one will ever explain themselves. They are either so incompetent's, they don't know what the law was actually asking, or they KNOWNINGLY tried to shut down all gun-sales in this state for the foreseeable future. Either one should be an impeachable offense IMO.
..

Another example of why civics classes need to be taught in Oregon schools.

 

[garyk]

If you own a semi-automatic rifle, Lift Every Voice of Oregon wants to collect it.

Since I own a few, I looked into this claim. Didn't find it. Maybe you have inside information? Please share. Thanks.

 

[garyk]

How about the AG showing us how this is NOT a violation of the constitution?

In America, that is the role and jurisdiction of the courts. Not the Attorney General.

 

[garyk]

A very weird turn of events in so many ways.... from OFF's Mr Starret (and or the OFF Board) selecting a criminal defense lawyer - who's claim to fame is defending sex abuse cases - rather than a constitutional law attorney. Selecting said attorney whose fees are significantly above market rates (paralegal $250/hr !!!). And then their selected counsel quickly sues them for non-payment. I cannot recall an attorney suing their client in so short a time period. This ain't normal. Just plain weird.

Oregon Firearms Federation owes thousands in legal fees for challenge of Measure 114, lawyer says in suit

Attorney John Kaempf this week filed a lawsuit against the nonprofit federation in Clackamas County Circuit Court, alleging it failed to pay $66,161.82 in legal fees.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[garyk]

I saw that as well. Strange indeed. A lawsuit would suggest an adversarial relationship between OFF and Kaempf which is not at all what gunowners need right now. Fortunately, OFF's lawsuit is not the only lawsuit in play.

$500 an hour for attorneys and $250 an hour for paralegals. Donating to OFF may not be the best "bang" for your donated bucks at those rates.

-E-

Not confirmed but a friend involved in firearm issues told me that OFF has now hired a sole practitioner attorney who's specialty is intellectual-property. There are good, well respected constitutional law attorneys in Oregon, making OFF's choices puzzling. I'm sure Mr. Starret has his reasons.

 

[garyk]

01.20.2023

By now you may have heard or seen stories in the media claiming that the firm "representing" Oregon Firearms Federation in our Federal lawsuit is owed thousands of dollars in legal fees.

This allegation is false.

Maxine Bernstein ([email protected]; 503-221-8212) a "reporter" for the failing "Oregonian" who made these allegations (which were parroted by others in the cartel media), knows it's false.

Even though she undoubtedly knew it was false when she wrote it, she has not corrected it. She did add one sentence to the online version of her story after it was published, and after being reminded that her allegation was false, but even that "correction" is misleading at best, as it was intended to be.

OFF's legal team is intact and paid. Bernstein's allegation is false, period.

The lawsuit in question, which Bernstein oddly knew about a day before the papers were even served on OFF and Kevin Starrett, is from John Kaempf.

Those papers were served at 4.30PM yesterday. Bernstein's story was first posted on January 18th at 9.15.AM

John Kaempf is a lawyer who was employed by us for less than three weeks. He was "relieved of his duties" on Dec 8th. All of this is public record, a record Bernstein follows obsessively.

As you know, after our hearing requesting that Measure 114 be stayed, the Federal Judge denied our motions, only allowing a delay in the implementation of the permit process, a process even the state admitted was impossible to put into place.

On Dec. 7th Kaempf, with no consultation with his clients, (which include several Oregon Sheriffs) took actions that were unwise and costly. Kaempf did not inform us that he was planning to take this action or request input or permission before he took it. The action was a hasty and poorly considered appeal directly to the 9th Circuit Court.

On the same day, in a Zoom call with the plaintiffs in the case, (OFF, two gun dealers and several Oregon Sheriffs) Kaempf categorically denied having filed the appeal. He later filed a motion to withdraw the appeal he claimed not to have filed. All these filings are public record.

On the following day, after it became clear that Kaempf had misled his clients and saddled them with additional and unnecessary costs, Kaempf was terminated with a request for a final bill.

When the bill arrived for a total of $66,161.82, (over the $60,000.00 he had already been paid) it included charges that can only be described as "highly questionable". It included thousands of dollars in billing for dates before we even signed a fee agreement with him. It included charges for over 20 hours on a single day.

And, of course, it included billing for the time he claims to have spent preparing and then withdrawing the appeal he claimed not to have filed in the first place and the associated filing fees.

We reached out to Kaempf twice asking for an explanation for many questionable items on his bill. Kaempf refused to answer a single question. In fact, in an email on Dec. 28th Kaempf wrote "And do not take my not responding to your various allegations now and going forward to mean anything."

On January 18th the media was reporting on the lawsuit which was filed for a bill supposedly 3 days overdue. At no time prior to that did Kaempf communicate in any way to seek a resolution. He immediately filed a lawsuit.

As noted, we were not even served until January 19th. In his lawsuit Kaempf claims to have worked on the Federal lawsuit for "several months." In fact, he was employed by us for less than three weeks.

For over 25 years, Oregon Firearms Federation and the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation have a perfect record of on-time or early payments to everyone we do business with. That includes the many lawyers we have had the privilege of working with. However, we do have a responsibility to our donors in the way we spend their money.

In this case, we have made several attempts to get answers from an attorney we were forced to fire because of his behavior. Rather than respond he has chosen to very publicly sue us. That was his choice.

We regret this distraction but will vigorously respond to his lawsuit. We will not blindly write massive checks for bills that will not be explained. Because it's not our money.

Thank you for your continued support.

After I take a break from hunting, nest week I look forward to reading Kaempf's complaint in OJCIN.
With a subscription, you can access it here: (Oregon Judicial Department : OJCIN OnLine : Online Services : State of Oregon)

Mr. Starrett attempts to make a big deal out of the fact that the reporter knew about the lawsuit before he was served with papers. The reason is, the plaintiff, Mr Kaempf, first e-filed the complaint with the court, then papers were served on the defendant (OFF). At least in Oregon, that's how the process works.

Taking everything that Mr. Starrett claims in his statement at face value, it brings us back to question of why the heck OFF hired a criminal defense attorney whose specialty is sex crimes to argue the Oregon Constitution as it relates to the 2nd Amendment?

Mr. Starrett claims there are other plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs had a joint-representation agreement with attorney Kaempf, did OFF agree to pay all the legal fees? And is now being sued for non-payment. (in joint representation, there's typically a fee-sharing provision). Only Mr Starrett can answer that question.

 

[garyk]

After I take a break from hunting, nest week I look forward to reading Kaempf's complaint in OJCIN.
With a subscription, you can access it here: (Oregon Judicial Department : OJCIN OnLine : Online Services : State of Oregon)

I now have Kaemph's multi-page complaint.
Can post this public document here, but what's the trick to posting a .pdf file on IFish?

 

[garyk]

We know you good enough. Can you just give us the Cliff Notes version?

There's so many details in this dispute that it's best if folks can read the complaint verbatim. I'll continue to work at getting the PDF posted.

 

[garyk]

Perhaps this will work?

https://www.ifish.net/attachments/kaemph-law-v-off-kevin-starrett-pdf.1000139/?hash=84c0a4a5f1caa5b77ec4dfd07d5a8321

 

[garyk]

One has to ask why the State has a dog in this fight.

It's the responsibility of the Oregon Dept of Justice to defend laws passed by the Legislature including citizen initiatives.

In the court's words:
“.....it is the role of the judicial branch of government to resolve disputes such as challenges to laws enacted by the legislative branch, which includes the people exercising their initiative power.”