Think of these courses as a suit of armor that will help to shield you and your family from danger and add security to your life.

Here is a sample letter to present factual and legal based objections to the pending legislation in Oregon, and with some modification, it is also useful at the National level. There is something new every week! Please read it,  update and edit as needed, and send it ASAP.

Previous Posts


Today the House Committee on Health Care heard HB2510, a bill to hold gun owners liable for the violent crimes of thieves.
As expected, the deck was strongly stacked in favor of gun grabbers and the technical failures that have become the hallmark of Oregon Legislative hearings seemed to occur almost exclusively when opponents of the bill were attempting to testify. 
One of the strangest testimonies came from a Washington County Commissioner Pam Treece who supported the bill because she had been attacked by a rapist with a gun, the implication being that violent rapists are dissuaded by trigger lock laws.
The usual suspects trotted out the usual disproven cliches. One supporter of eliminating self defense claimed to be a teacher who, in an effort to demonstrate that gun owners don’t understand the 2nd Amendment, made the laughable and ignorant assertion that the word “regulate” in that amendment referred to guns. (Another reason to want to keep your kids out of schools.)
A long time anti-rights activist testified against the bill because it did not punish gun owners harshly enough.
Meanwhile, Oregon Senate Democrats have doubled down and introduced a rule change to punish Senate Republicans should they refuse to participate in these attacks.
The rule would fine any Senator who walked away from this dangerous charade $151.00 every day they were not present to help the Democrats ram through dangerous and rights destroying legislation.
This rule could be voted on as early as next week.
If the Senate Republicans are on the floor when this rule is voted on, their ability to stop any outrageous legislation will be effectively ended. It’s not complicated.
House Republicans already made this mistake and were on the floor when a similar rule was passed in that chamber. That is now being used as an excuse for their unwillingness to walk out. 
If the Senate Republicans make the same mistake, there will be nothing to prevent the Democrats from ramming through extreme restrictions on gun rights along with a vast host of other demented ideas like banning diesel fuel and legalizing pimping.
So now, the future of gun rights in Oregon is in the hands of one person. That is Senate Republican Leader Fred Girod. Girod has made no secret of his reluctance to stand up to the Democrats and lead a walkout even though other Republican Senators are determined to fight back. 
It is imperative that he hear from you loud and clear. Tell Fred that if the Republicans are on the floor for a vote on the rule change by the Democrats, you understand that he just handed your rights away to the far left.
Please call Girod at 503-986-1709 and email him here:
Oregonians are very close to losing everything. It’s time to remind the Republicans what they were elected to do.

Dear Representative,
I am writing to strenuously object to the concepts you are exploring in HR127 and the proposed amendments.  The ideas, if enacted into law, would not only violate my constitutional rights but would not have a single positive impact to make me or my family safer.  Study after study has shown that gun laws such as you are proposing would only have negative effects on law-abiding citizens with no corresponding positive effect to reduce crime.  I encourage you to suspend your efforts in this direction and study the impact of what you are proposing more thoroughly.
The following describes more clearly your duty to defend my rights as provided under both the Constitution of the United States and the Oregon Constitution.

To the Oregon State legislature

Notice and Demand to Cease and Desist

This Notice and Demand to Cease and Desist limits in no way the extent to the scope of the subject matter covered. This Notice and Demand does not limit any summary and plenary remedies available to anyone but serves as the beginning of the lawful process necessary by the acts and omission to act of the various principles or those accessories, in an effort to arrest the irreparable and immeasurable harm to the actual Public or People of the State of Oregon in acts committed by The Oregon State Legislature and other third part interest.

By this Notice and Demand to Cease and Desist you are made aware and in the knowledge of the wrongs and continuing wrongs of which you have a sworn Duty, Obligation, and Responsibility to Protect the Public or “the people”.

For the Public record, as Preparatory to and Requisite of remedies, and for other purposes To the Oregon State legislature in the Consideration of SB 978 and Dash 1 Amendment

“Some of the worst things imaginable have begun with the best of intentions”
The Fiduciary Obligation and Duty of The Oregon State Legislature is to assure the People of the perpetuity of a constitutionally mandated “Republican Form of Government”. The proof of this is the constitutionally mandated “Oath of Office” that each Representative of both House and Senate is required to take. The following passage is from the Constitution of the State of Oregon, specifically referred to as “Section 31 Oath of Members. The members of the Legislative Assembly shall before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation; I do solemnly swear (or affirm as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oregon, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of Senator (or Representative as the case may be) according to the best of my Ability, And such oath may be administered by the Governor [sic], Secretary of State, or a judge of the Supreme Court.----” The pathway for purpose and need for this “Oath “ is in the 1859 Admissions Act which in its preamble states “Whereas the people of Oregon have framed, ratified, and adopted a constitution of State government which is republican in form, and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States, and have applied for admission into the Union on an equal footing with the other States; Therefore---” As Oregon Constitutionally mandated “Oath of Office” lists an order of priority of support for the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oregon it is clear to “the people” that our elected Representatives cannot make war on the Constitution and Laws of the United States.

You are further informed of this concept by examination of “U.S. Constitution, Article IV, sec4 The United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government....” and “Amendment IX U.S. Constitution” which states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”. There are in this time in history many frivolous arguments against the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Here only the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States are considered. In the study of these rulings there is no real argument that anyone can mount and only the proofs that the Oregon State legislature is making war on “the people” by trying to fast track and hide from public input, attempts at incremental infringements of granted 2nd Amendment Rights.

The Supreme Court of the United States has reached the same conclusion in each instance of challenge and ruled consistently that the protections of the 2nd Amendment Rights are held. It is suggested that the actual findings of the Supreme Court of the United States be read by the legislative bodies for verification of this fact.

The law mandates a Public Input Process that is well defined though willfully ignored by the Oregon Legislature. Instead, a falsified public input process has been substituted to create a false history of public acceptance.

Involvement by NGO organizations that are financially supported by organizations outside our State is an unrealistic intrusion by a few overreaching into the lives of the entire population threatening granted rights that is in direct conflict of both Federal and State law.

It can only be concluded that the entire process that has been used, constitutes a broad-based scheme of artifice that does not give the actual consent of or allow the ability of “the people” of the State of Oregon to give legitimate public input. Any Consensus-based Public Input Process involvement by third-party beneficiaries or “Stakeholders” and documented as “Consent” to proceed is hereby rejected.

The falsified historical record of NGO organizations funded by national groups and wealthy individuals that provide undue influence upon the Public Input Process is also rejected as no true public consent has been given nor sought. This plan in its conception and further implementation constitute an unlawful infringement and harm besides having no lawful authority to proceed.

This letter provides notice to the State of Oregon. Your decisions cause great concern to “the people” as from all aspects and appearances the attempts at implementing laws that have clear violations of the laws of the United States and the State of Oregon. I will first refer you to “ORS 192.620 Policy. The Oregon form of government requires an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made. It is the intent of ORS 192.610 to 192.690 that decisions of governing bodies be arrived at openly. [1973 c 172 1}”. Official replies and responses that “concerns will be part of the public record” are deceptive and a clear violation of the protections granted all citizens by the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution of the State of Oregon.

The lack of public notice and involvement leads to a strong public perception of an appearance of impropriety. This is pointed out after the discovery of drafts of legislation that have been submitted, approved, circulated, and efforts undertaken to fast track these attempts (gut and stuff), these actions combined with no protective response from any part of the legislative bodies is an unacceptable breach of your fiduciary duty to the people of the State of Oregon. The fact that a direction and attempts to infringe 2nd Amendment Granted Rights have already been made while “the people” were kept out of the Public Input Process and NGO organizations were allowed input. As the public becomes more aware of these intrusions and responds in horror is absolute evidence of gross malfeasance or illustrative of a constitutional due process violation.

The following passage from the beginning of Oregon Revised Statute 183.502 explains the actual illegal usage of any “Consensus Process” to make war on “the people” by attacking constitutionally protected granted rights. “ORS 183.502 Authority of agencies to use alternative means of dispute resolution; model rules; amendment of agreements and forms; agency alternative dispute resolution programs. (1) Unless otherwise prohibited by law,”

The Oregon Administrative Procedures Act section 183.400 (4) (a) specifically addresses the invalidity of any rule by stating “(4) The court shall declare the rule invalid only if it finds that the rule: (a) Violates constitutional provisions;”. Very simply if the “court shall” why must we pursue this matter further than noticing the Oregon State Legislature.

The limitations of impositions and the possibility of potential harms are why laws exist. The Constitution of the State of Oregon states that every man has a remedy. “The people” seek such remedy and thus inform you that if necessary accrued evidence shall be forwarded to appropriate Federal Agencies that exist to protect “the people” from such overt disregards and infringements of constitutionally protected granted rights.
The following is from a recent Supreme Court of the United States decision it is found here: McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 US 742 - Supreme Court 2010

*3050 Third, Justice BREYER is correct that incorporation of the Second Amendment right will to some extent limit the legislative freedom of the States, but this is always true when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated. Incorporation always restricts experimentation and local variations, but that has not stopped the Court from incorporating virtually every other provision of the Bill of Rights. "[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table." Heller, 554 U.S., at 636, 128 S.Ct., at 2822. This conclusion is no more remarkable with respect to the Second Amendment than it is with respect to all the other limitations on state power found in the Constitution

The above statement is not from a fringe source, it is from a Supreme Court Justice of the United States and may allow you to reflect upon the current direction of the Oregon State Legislature, “policy is not law” and a current legislative disparity in numbers does not allow for the destruction of our way of life and infringement of granted rights.

In closing, it is respectfully demanded that this bill not be considered further.