NO ON
Measure 5

Vote your conscience, but know the facts!

Why do they want to retain records on law-abiding gun owners when the criminal has already been eliminated from these purchases by the instant background checks?

Measure 5 has been presented to the Oregon Legislature as three different bills in the last two sessions and always been defeated. The major objection to these bills has been the registration element. Proponents of these bills have always refused to drop that element, even though the removal would almost certainly have ensured passage. This strongly suggest that firearm registration is their goal, not background checks.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

When attempting to sell the public a "bill of goods", what is not said is frequently more significant than what is. Ballot measure 5 is a perfect example.

What proponents of measure 5 are not saying:

The vast majority of firearms sold at gun shows are done by licensed dealers not private individuals, and per existing law, all dealer transactions require background checks.

Information measure 5 would collect, in addition to the identity of the buyer, is: (a) the name, address and phone number of the seller; and (b) the make, model, caliber and identification number of the firearm being transferred. None of this data is necessary to conduct a background check of the buyer, and all data collected would be retained by the Oregon State Police for up to five years. Over 90% of these records would be on individuals who passed the background check. The result would be a government data base on law-abiding citizens and their private property, and a covert form of firearm registration.

Measure 5 has been presented to the Oregon Legislature as three different bills in the last two sessions and always been defeated. The major objection to these bills has been the registration element. Proponents of these bills have always refused to drop that element, even though the removal would almost certainly have ensured passage. This strongly suggest that firearm registration is their goal, not background checks.

Most gun owners are responsible people and do not want to sell a firearm to a criminal. They would welcome a number they could call, give the name of a potential buyer and instantly verify his/her integrity, provided it ended there.

Measure 5 is not about background checks or public safety, it's about government control. Vote your conscience, but know the facts.

Richard Graff
President-OSSA

(This information furnished by Richard Graff, President, Oregon State Shooting Assoc.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Measure 5 requires private sellers of firearms at gun shows to obtain from the Oregon State Police instant background checks of purchasers. We do not object to instant background checks of firearms purchasers, but this measure goes far beyond that.

The bill would require private sellers to charge a fee for background checks. The fee would be set by the State Police. Federally licensed dealers get instant background checks from the FBI with no fee charged and the FBI is only allowed to retain the purchase records for a short time.

This bill allows our State Police to retain complete records of the make, model and serial number of the firearms and the names and addresses of the sellers and purchasers for five years. We object to the five-year retention of these records. It is a form of registration of all firearm purchases since it includes rifles and shotguns as well as handguns. Why give the State Police more authority than the FBI? Why do they want to retain records on law-abiding gun owners when the criminal has already been eliminated from these purchases by the instant background checks?

If preventing criminals from obtaining firearms is the goal, the instant check does this. Why then is this bill requiring the registration of the firearm purchased by the legal, law-abiding citizen of this state? In country after country throughout history, registration of firearms and their owners has been followed by firearms confiscation. This has most recently occurred in England, Australia, and South Africa. Canada is well along in this process. It has already happened in the United States in New York City and the state of California with so-called assault rifles.

Someday U.S. politicians may want to confiscate all guns from the U.S. citizens. The records mandated by this bill would make it easy to do so.

We urge you to Vote NO on measure 5

Vern Schmidt, President
Willamette Valley Arms Collectors Assoc.

(This information furnished by Vern Schmidt, Pres., Willamette Valley Arms Collectors Assoc.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

It was the early 70s. A military coup seized power in my homeland, Greece. Quietly in the night they closed down the newspapers and cut off the telephones. They took over the radio and the television stations.

When the people arose the next morning they were ordered to bring their remaining guns to the nearest police station. By that time the only guns the people were still allowed to own were registered hunting rifles.

Anyone who chose to disobey was secretly arrested the next night. Many were never seen again. Those who survived were beaten horribly and forced into internal exile without their families even knowing whether they were alive, or where they were. When family members searched for their loved ones they were harassed, threatened and also beaten.

Neighbors were afraid to talk to neighbors. People knew that being seen with the family of someone who disappeared was dangerous.

Our Founding Fathers were aware that tyrants and their horrors were not political accidents. Dictators rise up when they realize that they need not fear the people. For this reason the Declaration of Independence states we have not only the right, but the duty, to throw off such evil. And for this reason the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantee us the means to defend our freedoms.

Alexander Hamilton, one of the authors of our Constitution, said that great danger came from those who claimed to fight for "the people" while pursing their hidden agenda. Ask yourselves, what hidden plans are being laid by those trying to force you to register your guns?

I am proud and thankful to be an American. Please join me in shouldering the responsibility of defending America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

For our children's future, vote no on Measure 5.

Ourania Yue, MD

(This information furnished by Ourania Yue, MD.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Here is what's wrong: lawmaking ought to be founded on principle. The principles are found in the state and federal constitutions. Examples: citizens may say what they think; they may defend themselves and their families; and there is a limit to police power.

To illustrate: some may argue that the passage of Measure 5 will make it easier for police to solve crimes. In other words, it will be more convenient for police. But, in good law-and-order fashion, it would also be convenient for police to be able to beat confessions out of suspects. Yet we don't permit that. We don't pass laws based merely on how much more convenient it will make the job of police work. We adhere to the principle that there is a limit to the police power.

The principle that people have the right to defend their families is deeply embedded in this nation's culture. Even those who don't exercise this right recognize they are benefited by those who do, as criminals cannot distinguish between them. This right is exercised frequently. Citizens use guns over two million times a year in defense, most times simply by showing they have one. They kill more than twice as many criminals in justifiable homicides, as police do.

Measure 5 violates the principle that citizens have the right to self-defense. Here's why:

It is foolish to hand government the one tool it needs to confiscate guns and destroy that right, in the simple-minded faith no future government will ever use this tool. There is extensive history around the world, and recently in this country (New York, California), of governments doing just that.

Legislators may find it hard to stick to principle when making laws, but that's no excuse for the rest of us to abandon it. Make the principled vote: NO.

(This information furnished by Paul J. Bonneau.)

Gun prohibitionists are pushing this back-door registration because they know laws passed in other states specifically to register guns have had extremely low compliance rates. They also know gun confiscation laws, such as New Jersey's, did not work without registration. If you want guns confiscated, then this measure is for you. But if you value your right to defend your family and want to preserve that right for your children, VOTE NO!

Vote your conscience, but know the facts!

There is one thing we do know for sure: no government can confiscate its citizen's firearms, if it doesn't know where those firearms are.

Passing Measure 5 would get them a step closer to having the one, crucial tool they need to make confiscation work. It then remains only to wait until a government is elected, with the will to use that tool.

    This proposition presents several troubling, unacceptable provisions. The bill's author and co-sponsors clearly wish to shut down gun shows as we know them in order to "close legal loopholes." They claim this is needed despite the fact that most collector organizations include and welcome sheriff and police personnel in their membership.

    It is obvious that this whole proposal is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to establish gun registration in our state. Registration has been a necessary prerequisite for later ultimate confiscation and there is abundant proof in other states and other countries of this final consequence.

    The definition of a "Gun Show" in this proposal is poorly written, deliberately loose and vague. As written, it could prohibit trade or purchase among citizen collectors in a private home unless registration of the sale or transfer occurs.

    Currently, Federal law that applies to dealer transfer of firearms, (NICS) or National Instant Check Service, involves retention of records for 90 days. Yet Measure 5 requires that State Police retain records of a firearm transfer for a minimum of five years. The State Police have requested this. Why the insistence on five-year (or more) retention of records unless de-facto firearms registration is contemplated for the near future?

    In addition, although the State benevolently would absolve a citizen from possible charges arising from a firearm transfer if it is registered with State Police, they require that the citizen transferor keep a record of the transaction for at least five years!

(This information furnished by Dr. Fred J. Schuster.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Sheriff-Elect Jim Main Douglas County, OR

A Law Enforcement Officer Explains Why He Is Voting Against Measure 5.

Measure 5 expands state record-keeping on law-abiding citizens and the firearms they have a right to own under the Oregon State Constitution and the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Measure 5 promotes government intrusion into the private lives of honest citizens who are simply exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

I am also concerned that this measure will have little, if any, impact on violent crime. According to a National Institute of Justice study released in December 1997, very few guns used in crimes come from gun shows. The majority of guns used by criminals come from theft, dope deals, or the black market. These sources will not be affected by Measure 5.

Lastly, Measure 5 does not pay for itself. Departments such as mine will be charged with enforcing this measure should it become law. It will impose more responsibility on local law enforcement and additional costs will be incurred. A panel of state officials charged with assessing the fiscal impact of Measure 5 determined it would impose no costs on local government. Baloney! Enforcing laws DOES COST TAX DOLLARS.

Measure 5 diverts taxpayer dollars and police manpower from serious crime and is unlikely to impact violent crime. Let's spend our tax dollars where they do the most good, like putting child molesters away for a longer time.

Join Me and Vote NO on Measure 5.

(This information furnished by James Main.)

Measure 5 invades the privacy of Oregonians to an alarming degree. This measure will allow Oregon law enforcement to keep a computerized database of gun owners. 

What happens when a computer hacker or a ring of thieves who use it to steal firearms from the houses of gun owners obtains the database?  

Moreover, what happens when this list becomes available to insurance companies who will use this list to discriminate against gun owners for health, auto, life, and other types of insurance?

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

This November, as Oregon voters mark their ballots, the rights of honest citizens will be under attack, while dangerous criminals stand to be let off the hook for their vicious acts of violence.

Oregon voters will consider Measure 5, a gun-control initiative that greatly expands government regulation and control over the transfer of firearms between law-abiding individuals. At the same time, Oregon voters will decide on Measure 94, which repeals current minimum sentencing requirements for convicted felons and eliminates the existing ban on early-release from prison for these violent offenders.

Law-abiding citizens are sick and tired of being blamed for acts of criminal violence while the perpetrators get off scot-free. Prosecutions for violations of federal firearms laws have declined by 12% since 1992. It's simply wrong to ask honest Oregonians to support more controls on the law-abiding when current laws are not being enforced against the law-breakers.

NRA strongly supports proven, effective crime-fighting measures such as "Project Exile." This program relies on tough, existing federal and state gun laws already on the books which target armed, violent felons and drug traffickers for swift prosecution and certain punishment. "Project Exile" is credited in part for bringing a 46 percent drop in homicides and 65 percent drop in crimes involving guns in Richmond, Virginia, since inception of the program in 1997.

No new laws were necessary to bring about this decline. No new restrictions on law-abiding citizens. Our rights are not what's wrong. Let's enforce existing laws first. Vote NO on Measure 5.

(This information furnished by Charlton Heston, President, National Rifle Association of America.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

    While Measure 5 masquerades as a "reasonable, common sense" measure, in truth it is neither. Measure 5 is a major referendum on "gun control" in Oregon.

    Compare Measure 5 to the work of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. No one would have taken MADD seriously had they promoted a program which targeted law-abiding drivers rather than dangerous drunk drivers, yet the Measure 5 ringleaders expect us to believe that an improperly targeted law will somehow stop criminals!

    Measure 5 was written back east by Handgun Control Inc. The avowed goal of this organization is to eliminate the private ownership of guns in America. An identical measure is also moving in Colorado.

    Their idea is to get a figurative foot in the door in two western states, where people traditionally have some rational ideas about guns in society, and then slowly, incrementally, pursue their real agenda--the complete elimination of guns from the hands of all private citizens. Of course, this program only affects the citizens who obey the law! Criminals will not be affected since they don't obey the law.

    And this is not mere rhetoric! It is 25 years of experience which the "gun control" extremists refuse to acknowledge! Washington DC has come very close to eliminating all privately owned handguns, yet criminal violence, by means of guns, continues unabated. A 15-year-old recently opened fire on some kids he didn't like at the National Zoo and residents--and police--complain of nightly gun fire. What's it going to take to prove to citizens that "gun control" does not work? Do we want to make Oregon as safe as DC?

    We are told, by the supporters of Measure 5, that gun shows are a "major source of illegal firearms." So...why not go arrest the criminals? Why push for more "gun control?"

    Is this common sense? Is this reasonable? You decide!

    Vote "NO!" on Measure 5, send Handgun Control Inc back to California!

(This information furnished by Terry Carroll, Oregon State Coordinator, Second Amendment Sisters, Inc.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

When the most dedicated gun prohibitionist in the legislature creates a ballot measure billed as a background check, it's a safe assumption that something else is going on. Consider:

1) Supporters claim Measure 5 will deny criminals access to guns. This is untrue. No law has ever denied such access, for a good reason: criminals find guns very useful for what they do, and will go to great lengths to get them. Not that they have to go to great lengths--the black market supplies them! Smuggling guns is easy and lucrative. That's why criminals in England are well armed, despite the total gun ban there.

2) Instead of sending information on every law-abiding buyer to be recorded in the state database, Measure 5 could have called for sending information on prohibited buyers to gun sellers; thus eliminating the danger of confiscation. Why was the latter method not used?

3) Measure 5 calls for information on the gun itself to be recorded. If a background check on the buyer were the only concern, the particular gun would be irrelevant. Why record gun information, unless it's needed for confiscation later on?

Measure 5 is not about fighting crime. It cannot deliver on that promise. It can help deliver something much worse, though: the end of your right to defend your family. Don't be deceived by this "Trojan Horse". VOTE NO.

(This information furnished by Paul J. Bonneau.)

Measure 5