IFish Fishing Forum banner
601 - 620 of 634 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
17,248 Posts
So what? We’re not talking about the output. We’re talking about the input or function required to achieve desired outcome. Many of those inputs put forth by LEVO require semi-automatic firearms to be removed from private ownership. This is the issue.
All while the majority of these shootings are being committed with handguns. Also have watched the SRO debacle in the Portland schools, they are having shootings around the schools, students even getting injured and some calling for the SRO's to come back................nope MLK day the activists are saying no, they need to all need to sit down and talk out their problems. It must be nice to live in an alternate universe.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
As long as your approach to violence is to go after the means rather than the motivation, you will fail. You c'n quote me on that. A person who is truly bent on destruction of lives, whether it is their own or someone else's, isn't going to be dissuaded by taking away their first choice of tool, they'll just go back to the box and get a different one. It is important to stop and consider how many people Tim McVeigh killed vs how many he shot. 168 to 0. Until you address the motivation, you accomplish nothing.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,632 Posts
Not to digress this thread too much. Just received this email below. Here is what YOUR representatives in Salem have coming down the pipe for 2023 session. I would bet zero of the pro-gun bills will make it through for governor signature.

Yesterday, January 17th, the Oregon Legislature began the 2023 legislative session. In what has become a predictable pattern year after year, anti-gun lawmakers have filed a number of anti-gun bills, seemingly in competition with what their counterparts in California and Washington can think of. Gun owners and sportsmen throughout the state must stay actively involved to defend freedom.

Among the anti-gun bills are:

Senate Bill 527 exempts the firearms industry from the state’s anti-discrimination law to allow them to deny services to adults aged 18-20 years old.

Senate Bill 551 requires school districts to provide specified information related to secure storage of medications and firearms. It directs the Oregon Health Authority to make this “information” available to school districts, with nothing to prevent them from simply distributing anti-gun propaganda.

Senate Bill 686 and House Bill 2007 weaken Oregon’s preemption statute, which gives the state legislature the primary authority to regulate firearms. This allows localities to pass their own restrictions against law-abiding citizens carrying firearms for self-defense in publicly owned or operated, taxpayer funded buildings.

House Bill 2005 and House Bill 2874 restrict home-built firearms and raw, unfinished parts for building them far beyond what federal law and regulations require, with violations punishable by up to ten years imprisonment.

In addition, pro-gun lawmakers have introduced some bills to roll back anti-gun schemes and improve Second Amendment rights in Oregon for the benefit of law-abiding citizens.

Senate Bill 650 and House Bill 3077 increase the penalty for felons in possession of firearms to hold criminals accountable for their actions.

Senate Bill 739 exempts participants in the Address Confidentiality Program from certain requirements for private transfers of firearms.

Senate Joint Resolution 3 proposes an amendment to the Oregon Constitution affirming the right to carry concealed firearms and refers it to the people at the next regular general election.

House Bill 2579 exempts transfers of curio and relic (C&R) firearms from the state background check requirement when transferred to federally licensed collectors of C&R firearms.

House Bill 2704 requires school boards and higher education governing boards to install metal detectors if they adopt a policy prohibiting carry permit holders from carrying firearms.

House Bill 2936 reduces the application and renewal fees for carry permits, reduces gun-free zones, and repeals a number of one-size-fits-all firearm laws.

House Bill 2968 repeals the prohibition on carrying concealed firearms on the person or possessing concealed, readily accessible handguns within vehicles and authorizes entities that control public building to adopt policies prohibiting possession of firearms within building by persons other than those exempted from prohibition under current law. It also maintains exemptions from prohibitions and defenses to offenses for concealed handgun licensees under current law.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,217 Posts
So what? We’re not talking about the output. We’re talking about the input or function required to achieve desired outcome. Many of those inputs put forth by LEVO require semi-automatic firearms to be removed from private ownership. This is the issue.
Not poking at you, but could you direct me to where on the website or publications that LEVO is advocating for semi-automatic firearms to be removed from private ownership. To me 'removed' means 'taken'? LEVO sent me over a lot of written info.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
618 Posts
Not poking at you, but could you direct me to where on the website or publications that LEVO is advocating for semi-automatic firearms to be removed from private ownership. To me 'removed' means 'taken'? LEVO sent me over a lot of written info.
Ban the sale of semi-automatics. I’m sure they’ll be happy with you owning them and never removing them from safe storage or selling them or willing them to loved ones.


Originally they stated semi-autos but added “assault” in an apparent effort to obfuscate. Feel free to openly share their communications to clear up any misinterpretations of their intent.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
16,920 Posts
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.

 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,693 Posts
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.

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-
 

· Registered
Joined
·
16,920 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
So it sounds like the lawyer (Kaempf) might be doing some fraudulent billing, then suing OFF? I wonder if he is being compensated by LEV for his efforts. These seem to be things the Oregon Bar Association should be looking into.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,693 Posts
So it sounds like the lawyer (Kaempf) might be doing some fraudulent billing, then suing OFF? I wonder if he is being compensated by LEV for his efforts. These seem to be things the Oregon Bar Association should be looking into.
Source?....edit....never mind, I just read OFF's email. If any of OFF's allegations are true, I can't imagine Kaempf's lawsuit gaining too much traction. If the allegations from OFF are true...what a petunia.


-E-
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7,240 Posts
In Portland they should sit the criminals down and ask them what they want. Seem's to be a lot of them there!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,693 Posts
Can anyone post the OFF email?
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
16,920 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,632 Posts
I just read this. NRA suing Illinois over semi-auto ban. When this gets rescinded then that will provide good precedent when Oregon tries to pull this crap. NRA still getting my money. So is OFF. So is GOA. Pretty sad state America is in these days...

 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,976 Posts
In the early reporting on the Monterey shooting, the gun used was described as a “semi-automatic assault pistol with an illegal extended magazine”. I was thinking, if this was just a Glock or something my head is going to explode- if they are now calling semi-auto pistols “assault pistols”. Well, no, it was a MAC10.

Not seeing the MSM point out that CA’s strict laws against things like magazines, uh, didn’t work. And will never work. Nope, it’ll just be used as fuel for calls for even stricter laws... because THAT will work, dammit!

Here’s a true fact y’all can use next time you lower yourself to argue with someone wanting to take our gun rights:


How has the rate of U.S. gun deaths changed over time?

While 2020 saw the highest total number of gun deaths in the U.S., this statistic does not take into account the nation’s growing population. On a per capita basis, there were 13.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2020 – the highest rate since the mid-1990s, but still well below the peak of 16.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1974.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
618 Posts
In the early reporting on the Monterey shooting, the gun used was described as a “semi-automatic assault pistol with an illegal extended magazine”. I was thinking, if this was just a Glock or something my head is going to explode- if they are now calling semi-auto pistols “assault pistols”. Well, no, it was a MAC10.

Not seeing the MSM point out that CA’s strict laws against things like magazines, uh, didn’t work. And will never work. Nope, it’ll just be used as fuel for calls for even stricter laws... because THAT will work, dammit!

Here’s a true fact y’all can use next time you lower yourself to argue with someone wanting to take our gun rights:


How has the rate of U.S. gun deaths changed over time?

While 2020 saw the highest total number of gun deaths in the U.S., this statistic does not take into account the nation’s growing population. On a per capita basis, there were 13.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2020 – the highest rate since the mid-1990s, but still well below the peak of 16.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1974.
13.6/100k vs. 16.3/100k sounds like a horrible argument to make. That’s a sh-ton of people annually. Probably just better to stick to constitutional rights, both federal and state. Or, if the information is available, how many crimes stopped or lives saved. Maybe the point was to say something dumber than the person being argued with, since the argument was dumb to begin with? Searching for context....facetious?
 
601 - 620 of 634 Posts
Top