Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 03-13-25_THURSDAY_7AM

Episode Date: March 14, 2025

Responses and reaction to the Maureen Steele Interview on CPS, also response from the last week talk on homelessness and the media and NGO influence. Measure 114 declared constitutional, now what? That story with Kevin Starrett at Oregon FIrearms.

It's kind of funny. Not a funny haha, sort of a funny irony sort of thing. I was talking about the Child Protective Services racket according to Maureen Steele who was on just a few minutes ago from the American Made Foundation. And what she was talking about was starting to rhyme quite a bit with what happened to me 25 years ago in my divorce when I fought for custody of my son Will. And you know, ended up having a spouse at that time who was having some real problems, but the court and the Guardian had lied him. Everybody bent over backwards to say, you

know, she was just having a rough night. It was a bad night when you got clocked with a crowbar. They didn't say that specifically but that's kind of what happened in the situation. I know had it been reversed there would have been no doubt of what would have happened. I probably would have been charged in jail and all the rest of it. It was an interesting experience. Jeff Soren Selma, Jeff, kind of rhyme for you too, I guess. Tell me what happened with you. Well, my ex-wife was bipolar and I come home from work one day and there's a coffee-steamed shirt of our son's laying on the kitchen table and she had done some crazy things like she'd used the brand new towels to clean up spills and

use the old ratty towels to put in the bathroom, things like that. So I said, well, you want to explain this? You promise you won't be mad at me? Well, no. She says, well, he made me mad. Well, what do you mean he made you mad? Well, he wouldn't need his breakfast. So I threw my coffee at him. Yikes. Okay. So you've got a choice. You can either go to the hospital or I'm taking you, which one do you want to do? So, uh, once that took place, then her family declared war on our marriage. And then going into court, I didn't know how evil I was until her attorney opened her mouth. So there I am

in a room full of women. I'm the only guy in the place and I'm going to be going for custody of my son. Well, she did have to go back to the hospital, and when that happened, the court saw fit to grant custody to the grandmother, which by New York state law, the other parent has to have custody. So my attorney advises me, just let it ride because if we go to appeal it, it's possible and likely that the same judge will be the appellate judge. The game is rigged, Bill. Yeah, it does seem that way. I ended up having my divorce case going. I appealed it to the Minnesota Supreme Court and I lost it

was an unpublished decision but it was it was like an inversion of reality and I was I have to tell you I can't I can't tell you how depressed and frustrated that I was for a good year or two after that. Well I imagine so I didn't even want a divorce I just wanted my wife to get the help that she Well, I imagine so. I didn't even want a divorce. I just wanted my wife to get the help that she needed and I was running against opposition with her family who couldn't have the family name be smirched, right? We can't put a label on her. Well, you see, that's kind of what happened too. That was the other part which was really interesting is how even exes and family that were involved with her exes ended up

getting involved. And it astounded me the ability to lie on the stand and just effortlessly, just effortlessly. It was really a plan. You know, the thing is though, after I lost the battle, but I think I ultimately won the war on that situation. And I got sane, not that I was insane, but like I say, I was so freaked out, you know, by there for a while. I finally had to put the sword down and just come to a peaceful place with this and get my son back in my life and that ended up happening and ended up being really good in the end. But I can understand the frustration that you must have felt on something like that.

I get it. Well, my son has been turned against me so there's no relationship there. Now that's a crime. In the beginning, it was, you know, you'd have all these dreams about how you're gonna go do stuff together and things like that. Well, that's all gone. But anyway, gotta hit the road, Bill.

All right, Jeff, thanks for sharing the story. A sad one. More common than I would like to admit. Town Hall News coming up here in just a moment and then we will continue with your calls. We have some open phone time here on Conspiracy Theory Thursday. Kevin Sterritt is going to update us on the Measure 114 debacle. What is next in this?

And let's talk to you then. Wake up your garden. Spree is here. PureTalk.com for details. This is the Bill Meyers Show on 1063 KMED. Call Bill now. 541-770-5633. That's 770-KMED.

13 after 7. Yeah, Open Phones on Conspiracy Theory Thursday. Got the Facebook Live up. Kind of had some sort of screw up there and it just dumped out. Hopefully it's back in there and you're able to watch too if that's what you're doing. Facebook.com slash Bill Meyers Show. I'd like to do some commentary on there now and then and always appreciate hearing from you, even if you don't like me.

It's always nice to hear from you. I'm Bill Meyers Show. I'm a big fan of Bill Meyers Show. I'm a big fan of Bill Meyers Show. I'm a big fan of Bill Meyers Show. I'm a big fan of Bill Meyers Show. I'm a big fan of Bill Meyers Show. I'm a big fan of Bill Meyers Show.

I'm a big fan of Bill Meyers Show. I'm a big fan of Bill Meyers Show. I'm a big fan of Bill Meyers Show. I'm a big fan of Bill Meyers Show. I'm a big fan of Bill Meyers Show. I'm a big fan of Bill Meyers Show. I'm a big fan of Bill Meyers you're doing. Facebook.com slash Bill Meyers show. I'd like to do some commentary on there now and then and always appreciate hearing from you even if you don't like me. It's okay. All right. I wanted to kind of go back to what Maureen Steele was talking about from the American-Made Foundation in which advocating for juries, the juries of maybe five people, five- person jury involved in family court decisions rather than

the administrative state professionals, which is the way things are right now, judges and guardian ad litems, which is what I had to deal with in Florida, not Florida, in Minnesota 25 years ago. And it's a long, sad story. I don't want to necessarily redo that, but it did seem as a man I was up against just impossible odds against a troubled former spouse. I think she's fine now, but was not good in that particular time. Just a long, long story. And everybody kind of circled the wagons in the opposite family and

there were just all these lies we were supposed to believe. And of course, I was the most evil person that ever walked the face of the planet. That's just the way it was presented. Ended up going bankrupt, taking it to the Supreme Court. Father helped me fight that suit back at the time before he passed away. And it was just, yeah, I think back to. And then Maureen is talking about how everything about whether it's child protective services and just family court in general just seems to be designed to take people to the poorhouse and enrich the parasite class, essentially is where I think she was going with a lot of that.

What would you think about that? Would you be okay with a jury on family court in child custody decisions? That was kind of personal, right? One could argue that the courts aren't necessarily an unbiased group. I don't know. You might be able to talk about that if you want. 7705633, 770KMED, we could do that. I wanted to back and revisit a topic we were having a lot of conversation on last week because I had some follow-up. We were talking about the media here, how the media portrays homelessness in Southern Oregon and how Channel 5 and channel 12 will always put the thumb on the side of, gosh isn't this horrible what's being done to these poor, totally innocent human beings drinking and drugging and shooting up in public parks and you're trying to make them move along and it's not a thing. And one came from Jim. Jim wrote me and I was talking about one report that had one guy

that I couldn't remember his name. He was one of those, they're just doing these horrible things to us. We're not all bad people. And it's true, we're not all bad people, but you got a lot of people that are having problems. I think we can agree that if you're drunk at 7 in the morning and being held up by a couple of homeless guys for the NewsWatch 12 camera, there's an issue, right? We've got some problems and just giving someone a house is not going to help. But yet this is what Governor Brown's plan is. Housing first. That's just what Barack Obama was all pushing a number of years ago. Housing first for people who are totally irresponsible and can't handle even taking care of their own lives, right?

It just doesn't work. But, you know, we're thinking about this logically and the other political side is thinking about this, oh man, you know, we're thinking with our heart and gosh, isn't this wonderful and hey, we get to pay a lot of our democratic friends to run recovery centers and homes and whatever. I think that may be part of it. You reward your friends through the NGO process. But what Jim wrote said, Bill, the guy who you couldn't remember is Jeffrey.

He is the same guy that lived with my family for five years. He was homeless for three and now another six. It's been nine years. And yes, he was too drunk to stand up for that stand-up on the TV. We got him counseling appointments that he never went to. Finally had to tell him to leave. He stole many things from us and like I said before, he has a brother about one mile from his camp in town. He's drunk from morning through the night. He gets SSI. He gets food stamps and he gets free health care. We helped him get those things to aid him in getting

put back on his feet. Even found an apartment for him, but they wouldn't take him. He doesn't have a mental problem. He's just a full-blown alcoholic. Period. Jim, I appreciate your writing. And thanks for refreshing my memory on that. And that's what I was kind of getting at here. It doesn't matter how nice a home you give someone, it is a full blown alcoholic. Chances are they're not going to be able to keep it and not be able to get back on their, on their feet. You got to treat the, you know, that problem or get rid of that, that malady first. Right. And I had another person who wrote me who asked to remain anonymous because I interviewed

some people, the pastor of Calvary Chapel, about a meeting they were putting together. And let me just pick up what they said. I'll leave their name out of this. The other week you interviewed Pastor Kevin Dahr and Jeremy Ford. Kevin is the pastor of Calvary Chapel on Harbeck and Grants Pass. They were telling you about the Built for Zero initiative that they are pursuing to help with the homelessness crisis that we are having in Grants Pass. You specifically asked Kevin how this initiative is being funded. He oversees and is director of U-Turn for Christ, which is a non-profit

organization. Now he told you that U-Turn for Christ only accepts donations. They don't accept money from the state. However, they are planning on collaborating with Built for Zero. What does that mean exactly? Well, Built for Zero is an NGO. It is an initiative which works for homelessness and the conditions that create it. More than 80 communities nationwide are active in Built for Zero, which is facilitated by Community Solutions.

What is a Community Solution? Great question, says the anonymous emailer. Community Solutions is an NGO that works to achieve a lasting end that leaves no one behind, and it's green. These people are for pushing the Green New Deal in smart cities. They are globalists, and the money they get with grants from the government the taxpayers is used to push this globalist agenda, under the guise of helping the homeless. It's truly sickening that a church would jump on the bandwagon to get money to actually

perpetuate homelessness because if these NGOs were really serious to stop homelessness, they wouldn't dole out needles to shoot up. They wouldn't hand out sleeping bags in tents only to be left as garbage for the residents of Grants Pass to clean up. These NGOs have an interest to keep people drug addicted, out of their minds, crazy, because they make money from it. And to know one of our local churches is jumping on the bandwagon to make money on these people because the people supporting that church are all leaving and they need money, it's beyond disgraceful. Just wanted to enlighten you on the truth as hard as it is to know. Follow the money. Thank you for keeping this confidential. It saddens me to even have to write it, but I know you'll do your own research and verify everything I said.

Maybe you'll have Kevin on again. You can address the issues with this. Thank you, Bill. I appreciate that. And I will invite Kevin back on to perhaps clarify what was said. I just think that's pretty interesting. We'll give both of those emails of the day, sponsored by Dr. Steve Nelson and Central Point Family Dentistry, centralpointfamilydentistry.com.

If you don't have dental insurance, you might try them out because they have a dental plan that works a lot like insurance, but it is less expensive and better benefits too. Central Point Family Dentistry is on Freeman Way. It's right next to the Mazatlán Mexican Restaurant in Central Point. Drake's Paints, your locally owned Benjamin Mordea. Welcome to the Bill Meyer show on 1063 KMED. Give Bill a call at 541-770-5633. That's 770-KMED. Back on the family court child protective services, and some people criticizing that,

we have a parent that wrote me this morning. I said, Bill, did I hear you right? You're going to be talking about DHS? Wanted to listen and I told him about this. I would love to hear your thoughts on it is if we had a DHS case, a child custody case open since July 29th of 2023. three kids, seven years, eight years, 12 year olds, removed out of our homes, Saturday July 29th, 2023. And when asked why the kids were being removed, we were told by the two caseworkers that they don't know why. Okay?

What could go wrong with a system like that? Now I'm just taking this parent's email at their word, okay? I'm not going to go and investigate them, but Monday, July 31, 2023, we went to court and the judge ordered the children back into the home by the end of the day. February of 2024, we went to trial and the judge said the kids will remain in the home in our care, but will leave the case open because my mother got her feelings hurt 16 years ago before the kids were even alive. Oh, so mom getting even through the family court system making some claims. Is that the the allegation here? Hmm. As of this email, the kids are still in our care,

but there is still a case open hanging over our head and we still can't get a reason other than my mother's feelings being hurt 16 years ago after the case is even open. Other than another way for the state to make money off of our kids by being involved, I'm not understanding how someone's feelings being hurt 16 years ago is a valid or active safety threat to be a valid reason to be involved. It was appealed and sent back to Jackson County Court with no explanation as to why they denied the appeal. Thanks. That's an interesting story.

You know, think about that though. If you did have jury trials then in child protective issues, and if you had jury trials in even divorce courts, everything's about a jury. They wouldn't be primed then to kind of see it through the trained professional's point of view. You know what I'm getting at here? Through the people who make a living out of making sure that there's lots of miserable people within the child and family court systems there.

I don't know. Maybe that is the way to go around it in which... How about this? How about a permanently impaneled jury? Maybe a couple of jury panels that are actually paid in which your job is just to decide to divorce courts and family court kind of stuff. That would be interesting. You get used to hearing a lot of BS and then you become an expert at seeing through the BS and doing the best thing for the kids and for the families involved.

That would be interesting, wouldn't it? Probably something to rule against it, I'll bet. Just musing, it's Conspiracy Theory Thursday. Let me go to your phones here. Hi, good morning Line 1, who's this? Good to have you on. Hey Bill, it's David. David, how you doing this morning?

Good to hear from you. Good man. I got, again, I want to talk about the biggest conspiracy of all time, which is, you know, you talked about the homeless and you read that letter about the alcoholic guy. And so, the really deep conspiracy is in how we perceive, like this is just one example of it, but how we perceive these people, you know, they, they are individuals that are not existing the way they exist of their own free will. Their free will has been usurped. And so a lot of them are addicts. A lot of them have been through childhood trauma or whatever. You know, if you ask them, they'll say, well, of course, I don't want to be stuck in my addiction. I don't want to be on the street. I hope you're right about it. Some are definitely that way. And some, though, I don't know, some do appear to love the drinking and

the addiction more than they love being sober. I could be wrong, but what do you think? Well, I think the Scripture says we're made in the Creator's image, and so you know, I think when we judge them and perceive them in a certain way, I think the big conspiracy is it actually undermines our faith to think that some creations are walking around wanting bad things. Every person doing a bad thing or in an altered state is there by a usurpation of their own free will through a cycle of trauma and addiction, right? So every person, and I've actually considered that maybe when we're mad at criminals or

homeless, I think we're actually, when people express a lot of anger, I think we're actually expressing fear at the similarities in ourselves. Because one of the big things people love to say about homeless is they love to say, man, my father beat me and I didn't end up a drug addict. You know, that's one of the things people love to say. They love to say that they're different on some real core level than us and I think that judgment undermines our faith when the people who say that and make that judgment actually undermine their faith.

Okay, hold on just a minute. Hold on just a minute. Yeah. All right. Okay. I have never met anybody who would ever say such a thing like, my dad beat me and hence, you know, he should be able to get over it too. I kind of call BS on that because I will agree with you that there are people that suffer deep trauma. In fact, I even know someone who is not a fan of mine, who has written quite a bit over the time, who was beaten mercilessly by his father, and he told me about it. And I always try to run through my mind how he has been twisted by that trauma. So I will agree with part of what you're saying, alright?

But I still can't excuse the imposition of their problems on the society, the greater society as a whole though we still are Responsible for our behavior are we not? We are responsible. I'm talking about the energy that we are projecting and first of all, I just want to say no Absolutely tons of people will tell you if you talk about the homeless on your show You have people calling up with the same exact tone talking about the homeless, you know I had it rough and I didn't end up homeless that's extremely common. That is a common attitude But but what you're saying that's what you're saying

Yes, we are responsible. I'm talking about our perceptions I can't I don't have any input nor do most people on our tax code or how many food stamps they get or how many services? They get but I'm talking about when we walk by Salvation Army and we perceive those people in a certain way, right, and we misconstrue them, we are perpetuating a cycle that both undermines our faith and it also inhibits healing because these people, just because some people are unable to pay their bills and they're on the street and they're addict,

there's a lot of people paying their mortgages that are really, really screwed up. And actually, Bill, you know, I talk to you in person about this. And I think whenever you're ready, I'm ready to do a longer talk about this, that I believe that these misperceptions about the nature of people are the biggest conspiracy of our time. Okay. That's a pretty big conspiracy. I don't know if that necessarily, you know, affects how we have to deal with the issues because you said, you know, when we see these people, homelessness, that sort of thing, we have a preconception. We have a preconception based on experience with individuals that are afflicted with similar problems and so I don't think that's a prejudging It's just acknowledging of you know, what is and so I might disagree with you some on this

All right If you want to look at a problem and you want to see clearly how to fix it You know Jesus had removed the moat from your own eye We can't clearly analyze any of these policy topics that, like, for instance, we love talking about policy, government, tax codes, stuff like that. We cannot clearly see these issues while we have misperceptions about the nature of human behavior. Well, I don't know if it's a myth, that it's a myth, to say that, you know, if you've decided that you're going to, you know, engage in in in vibing with with tons and tons of alcohol and or tons and tons of fentanyl

that you're going to be responsible enough individual to to get a free home for the taxpayers. Can you agree with me on that? First of all, you, well no, because this is the conspiracy, Bill. This is the deception. You just said if you decide, I was an alcoholic for many years though and and a lot of behavior associated alcoholism and go into the bar and stuff and I will tell you for as a matter of fact no one has decided of their true free will as the person who was born a child right and then grows up there was not a free will decision made to be in that miserable wretched afflicted state.

Okay, all right. Yeah, we could probably chase our tails on this conversation for a while, but I don't know, are people being held down and force fed? Energetically, they are. And then so that's why we need a longer show about this sometimes. Okay. All right. I don't have that right now, though. I appreciate it, though. Thanks for the call, David. All right. We go to line two. I appreciate it though. Thanks for the call, David. All right, we go to line two. Hi, good morning. Who's this? Good morning, Bill. This is Ann. How are you? I'm fine, Ann. What are you thinking?

You know, the older I get, Bill, I used to ride with a girlfriend, horses, and the older I get, I understand. She used to tell me a little thing and I always stayed with me. And it follows the fellow on the phone just before. Everything in this world is run by sex, power, or money. And if you take every situation and think about it, it will relate to one of those three things, sex, power, or money. And you look at the people that stay drunk, that's power, because they don't have to be a good upstanding citizen. Sex?

Where did all the kids go? 300,000 kids? Where did they go? Mm-hmm. You guess. Think about it. I will think about it and thank you, horse lady. Good to hear from you. See you, bye. All right. I've got a lot to think about and now I'm going to shift gears because I'm going to be thinking about Measure 114. Speaking of power, the courts have decided the power to eliminate Second Amendment rights in Oregon is something which is perfectly okay as long as more than 50% of the people supposedly voted for it.

Kevin Starrett standing by. We'll talk about what is next on that on Conspiracy Theory Thursday. Ready to upgrade your roof to a durable, sleek metal option? Look no further. For by Oregonians for Democracy. Hi, this is Lisa, the used lumber girl, and I'm on 106.7 KMED. Yep, Oregonians for Democracy because we know that all conservatives are really big on democracy. We do that all the time.

Alright, Democratic representation we're okay with. It's 739 and joining me right now Kevin Sterrett, Oregon Firearms Federation. Kevin, not exactly surprised at what happened in the courts yesterday with Measure 114. Is that pretty much a fair way to start off our talk? Morning. I think that's an absolutely fair way. What did the judge actually say? You had had a chance to digest it and parse it and talk with attorneys involved with this on what kind of amazing sleight of hands? And just to kind of preface this, early this morning I was talking about the way that the

Oregon judiciary does when it comes to gun rights usually is they get the memo, they're all appointed by governors who are Democrats. We know that. That's the way all these judges are. And it's like there's the Constitution about six inches off the ground, like a limbo stick, and they always find a way to craft some piece of baloney to limbo under the Constitution. At least it seems that way. I could be absolutely wrong, but it feels that way.

What do you think? Well, I think if you actually look at the decision, this appeals court, so it's multiple judges involved, of course, the decision is really kind of tortured. I mean, it's exactly true. You really have to have some mental gymnastics to come up with this kind of stuff. But one of the best examples is, of course,

Measure 114 Outlaws standard ammunition magazines. Yeah, magazines that came with my firearms. They came with them. They came with them, right? And ones that you may have owned for 20 or 30 years now subject you to criminal penalties. But in the decision, they say basically that there's no question that these magazines are

protected arms, and then go on to say, yeah, and we can restrict them. And which is you know that the logic here is that you don't need more than this many rounds to defend yourself. Like like you can tell ahead of time what you actually need but if the concept is sound that you can in fact limit a magazine to 10 rounds then why isn't the concept sound that you can in fact limit a magazine to ten rounds then why isn't the concept sound that you can limit it to three rounds I mean in our federal case. The judge said well you

know most defensive shootings are two point seven five rounds. Well of course it's absurd we don't we don't know how many most are but if that's the case and that's the rationale. With a justification for limiting max to 10 rounds which is some magic number that came out of nowhere then let's limit it to three rounds or limited to

one round it basically that the concept is exactly the same if it's in fact constitutional do that if you need a magazine to operate the gun you only need a magazine that holds one round. So, there is that. I mean, one of the other things is, as you know, this legislation, this ballot measure and the coming bill, House Bill 3075, require that you have a permit to purchase a firearm. To get a firearm, you need a permit to purchase, which as you know, doesn't allow you to buy a firearm.

No, the permit to purchase is just you have the permit then to be able to then go apply for another background check. It specifically says this does not allow you to buy a gun. It allows you to ask to buy a gun. But before you can get that permit, you have to take a class that doesn't exist and nowhere in the decision did they address this. And so they're essentially saying that look, a permit, even if it takes 30 or 60 days to get it, is not some undue restriction on

your rights. Completely ignoring the fact that you can't get the permit until you've taken a class that doesn't exist and it'll all likelihood won't exist. But the judge made a statement in there decision that says that, well, it's kind of assuming that the state will do the right thing, that they know that there's going to have to be classes. There was something that kind of alluded to that, wasn't there, in the decision? Well, there was a comment in there when our position, meaning gun owners' position, was that this delay, which currently is 30 days, the legislature's trying to make it 60 days, is a lengthy delay.

The court's position was, well, wait a minute, it isn't 30 days, it's a maximum of 30 days, and there's no reason to think it's actually going to take that long. When in fact, currently, the law requires a response from the state police within 30 minutes. And people wait two years. So the rules are consistently ignored. The court knows that. The rules will be consistently ignored.

Ultimately, it is not possible to comply with this measure. It can't be done. And I would imagine that the attorneys on this state case were making this case in... Wasn't to ILO? Saying that there is no way to comply with this, right? Well, you know, here's the thing is when you sit in front of the legislature, you can say,

look, this is stupid. This makes no sense. You can't do that in court. Court doesn't care if it makes sense. And in fact, the court in this decision said, facts don't matter, that all that matters is law. Which means basically, and if you have lawyers listening who think I'm wrong, please have them call in.

But basically it's like saying, okay, the law says you must wear a brown bunny suit. The facts say, hey, I'm allergic to brown bunny suits. That's a fact. But the court doesn't care about that. The court just wants to say, what does the law say? And in this case, the law says that you cannot purchase a gun without first requesting permission to ask for permission to purchase a gun without first requesting permission to ask for permission. To purchase a

gun and you can't do that before you have a class which doesn't exist they also said that in spite of the fact that both the measure and the upcoming legislation which will make it worse. Says the permitting agent has to do an

FBI background check now in the past the FBI said we're not doing those checks. But in the measure and now in in the new bill it continues to say that there. The permitting agency does it has to do with FBI background check. And the and the court

said well if the FBI refuses to do it it doesn't matter. Well I don't know of any sheriff who's going to look at the law where it says you must conduct an FBI background check and then there are certain things you have to do about fingerprint fingerprint cards and reach the conclusion

that he doesn't really have to do it or they don't really have to respond. There's so much in it that makes no sense that it's impossible to get to all of it in any amount of time. It's just really bad reasoning. And of course, on top of all this, the Supreme Court said if you have a Second Amendment issue, you cannot do a balancing test. In other words, you can't either... Yeah, this is what the United States Supreme Court said, right? There's no balancing test on your constitutional right, is what they said. Exactly. In other words, if you say, magazines are dangerous,

and therefore we have the right to restrict them, you're not allowed to do that. Either they're protected by the Second Amendment, or they're not. End of story. And in this case, the court agrees that they're protected, and then goes on to restrict them, saying that they're dangerous because people can shoot

a lot more people and of course one of the other things here's another fact that the court simply doesn't want to address. Under this law. A law abiding person not only cannot buy it meant that matter of fact you're subject to criminal penalties

if you bought one of these magazines anytime since December of twenty twenty two bought or sold one you you have you've now broken the law. It's retroactive. In addition to that, any magazines you've owned for 30 years subject you to criminal penalties if you cannot prove when you got them, which you and I both know is impossible. It is impossible to prove when you picked up a magazine. There are no serial numbers on magazines. There's no background check required to purchase a magazine.

Anybody can purchase a magazine. You can purchase a magazine at a gun show that's sitting there in a pile with other used magazines. Nobody knows. Nobody can tell. Once again, impossible to comply with. You can't comply with it. But the additional fact here is that their justification for banning standard magazines

is that it's a public safety issue. Therefore law abiding people are not allowed to have them. But any non-law abiding person, be just a run of the mill gang bang or a criminal, or somebody intent on a mass shooting, has infinite access to these simply by crossing the state line and buying them where they're unregulated. And so those kind of facts which. In a normal environment you could say look

this makes no sense. The courts are not interested in that and it sounds it sounds ridiculous that you would think that if you're sitting down. With a person we even if they're liberal you would think it's mildly rational okay that's a

stretch. But the fact is. Is that these will continue to be available for anybody who wishes to break the law which puts the the safety of the public in much greater jeopardy. Because now you basically said we will isolate the use of these magazines to criminals and that anybody. Trying to defend themselves you know somebody who lives. Far in a

rural part of the state where hours away from police. And possibly have a highly dangerous situation will not be allowed to protect themselves. And nothing prevents a criminal from having access to the things that they claim they're controlling. And

this is all for a ballot measure. That passed. By such a small fraction that it was well within the margin of error for the voter fraud that Oregon admits to. That's right, it was less than half a percent, wasn't it? Had it passed by? Yes. Kevin Starr on Oregon Firearms Federation,

we're talking about the appeals court saying that measure 114, perfectly constitutional. Kevin, let's grab a call here. Maybe someone has a question about that. Hello, caller. You're on with Kevin. Morning. Good morning, Bill and Kevin. Three things to note. I one time was trying to explain to somebody about the 10 round mag bill. I said, well, what if I have one in the pipe? Because they were pro 10 rounders. He said, what are you talking about? I said, well, if I have one in the pipe and I stuff a fully loaded 10 round magnet,

now I have 11. So shouldn't it be a nine round mag? And he looked at me like a mule looking at a new gate. And another note is I asked a door gutter and nom one time back in my California days, what happens when, uh, when they, what happens when they ban what you have? And he said, well, when they come to my door, the results can be the same. And number three, we only have one box left and you know which box I'm talking about.

Thank you much. All right, appreciate the call. You know, since we got this news yesterday, I've gotten a bunch of communications from people who are saying, we're just not gonna, or the cops should just not enforce this. Well, the one thing I would add to that, though, is that, okay, you don't comply, and you take the... I mean, just leaving your house, apparently, with the above 10-round magazine is a crime, according to this Measure 114, correct?

Correct. above the 10-round magazine is a crime according to this measure 114 correct correct all right all right so we know that that is that part will be violated with impunity I can assure you of that there's absolutely no doubt about that but what it does not do what not complying with that does not do is forces gun stores to stay open and transfer firearms. Am I right about that? Yeah, precisely. So all of these people have said, well, just, I mean, I got two emails from someone who was railing at me because I'm an idiot and we just have to not comply

and the people have to stand up and all that stuff. Okay, fine. But the fact is, is what this bill has done is the same thing they did during the COVID lockdowns is they made the store owners, the police, and put them at risk if they didn't act like cops so a gun dealer. Will not have the ability to

transfer a firearm because he will not have the permission from the state police because the purchaser does not have the required permit which they couldn't get because they couldn't get the non existent class. So essentially I see no way that legal gun sales

could take place once this goes into effect. Now, the legislation, it's interesting, because yesterday, the Senate Republican caucus, I don't know if you saw, put out this press release. So this is a terrible decision. This has to stop. Not that they said we're going to do anything about it. You know then obviously they're just going to complain about it legislate by press release not

actually take any action. But. The reality is is that it's so extreme that it's impossible to imagine any any legal. Transfers taking place now the the as I was about to say the the legislation thirty seventy five has different

implementation dates. But it still requires all of these all of these permits and classes that don't exist. This this was not a constitutional amendment which means that to fix it does not require another ballot measure it just requires

legislators to step up and it interestingly I saw a poll this morning on one of the Portland TV stations is seventy five percent of the respondents said that this thing needs to go back to the drawing board. It's not popular it barely passed and

yet the Democrats are doubling down and making it worse by by doubling the more than doubling the fees doubling the amount of time. That the permitting agent has to respond which they won't anyway. And actually I mean

they're actually making worse and- this shouldn't be much of a surprise. Because we have as you and I have spoken about before legislators like Paul Evans. Who actually said we want to starve out the eastern Oregon counties and even though

we collect their tax money we don't want to give them a dime back. The Democrats are driven by threats and hatred and bigotry, and so of course what the people want is immaterial. It's an open war. It is an open war that Democrats have been conducting against rural states here for quite some time. Now they're just even more open about it and just honest, frankly, I think honest in what they're doing. Yeah, and you know, you look

at it in Oregon where the liberals greatly outnumber rational people. You could put a ballot measure on that was free candy for transsexual dwarfs and it would pass by big numbers. This thing, even in a very, very liberal state, just barely squeaked by. And we don't even know if it legitimately squeaked by because of all the fraud and the ballot titles that were nonsense and all the other games that were played when this thing was put on the ballot in the first place, including language in the measure

that made no sense, referred to statutes that didn't exist. And yet the Secretary of State allowed it, the Attorney general allowed it because they are hardcore anti-gunners. And of course the governor has said, get these bills to my desk once 3075 is passed and she's gonna sign them. Meanwhile-

Well, I'm sure that Republicans will walk out of the house to prevent that, right? Well, you know, there's a hearing this afternoon at three o'clock, which is supposedly informational. And it's invited testimony only. The public is not allowed to speak. It's only people that the Democrats have invited. It's 100% anti-gun.

Nobody who's not anti-gun is allowed to speak. Now, I have seen an email that indicates that Kim Wallen and Rick Lewis plan to walk out of that hearing. That Kevin Mannix, who is on that committee, does not plan to walk out, of course. Well, Kevin, of course, actually has...he's one of those anti-gun Republicans, really, isn't he? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, he's been pushing anti-gun legislation for many, many years. But that's nice to see that. But ultimately Republicans as I said, this issue irrespective

of the court's decision and irrespective of what happens next if the Supreme Court takes it up is still a legislative issue. It is not a constitutional change. Legislature has the ability to fix this. And of course the majority in the legislature. Are extremely anti gun you know when we have people like. James Manning who is who is militia bill is utter gibberish but is a racist anti gun bill in disguise. And a Republican

minority that has the ability to stand up and say you know what things are so extreme. That protecting the constituents is far more important than my cushy office. And no indication that they and say, you know what, things are so extreme that protecting the constituents is far more important than my cushy office. And no indication that they have any intention

of doing that. I mean, press releases, thanks very much for your press release as all the small gun shops go out of business. That's not going to change it. There comes times when you have to protect the constituency and I'm not seeing a big push for that. All right, Kevin, people wrote me quite a bit last night.

We're asking, well, when does this go into effect? Well, I would imagine it's not going to go into effect right away, only because there is likely to be an appeal. Do we know if there's going to be an appeal if the plaintiffs involved are looking to push this up? Okay, so as of last night, Tony Aiello, or yesterday afternoon, Tony Aiello told me that there absolutely will be an appeal. Now, of course, there are plaintiffs involved. There are two individuals who are plaintiffs, so that will require their approval.

He believes that there's no question that they will give it. Now, are these plaintiffs sher uh, sheriffs or someone else? No, no, no. They're private individuals. Private individuals. Okay. Yeah. Um, the Supreme court, my understanding is Supreme court is not required to take this up. Tony believes they will take it up because of all, he doesn't think we necessarily get a better ruling, but he does think that because of all of the procedural mistakes and errors in this decision things that just flat out make no sense. That the court will address it because of that.

But they don't have to so I think we're probably looking at another thirty days or so before we see something dramatic change or something going to affect and I by then I assume 3075 will have passed through the legislature with no Republic no really substantial Republican opposition which then will have those changes like the increase in the fees and the increase in the waiting period and some other changes that that are there to kind of to kind of buy off the police and the fuzz you know like the police are going to be exempted which they aren't now yeah and people would say well you know I don't need a big magazine to go duck hunting doesn't hurt me right that kind of thing right yeah and so they have they have

exemptions for the permit for for certain firearms but only for a small amount of time and even those require the class that you can't get you know so they actually did find a way to make it worse which honestly i thought only kevin manx could find a way to make this worse but the democrats have done it so this afternoon should be quite the show i don't know if i have the ability to sit through that, but it is nothing but anti-gun shills. Then, I imagine sometime next week we'll see 3075 scream through the legislature. And then, I don't know if what the court does will make any difference. It's not clear to me.

But then it's another lawsuit against 3075, if we can do it. But once again, people who actually like our rights and we like our rights, that sort of thing, we have to dig into our pockets and then pay for big expensive lawsuits. And then the state screws us more, takes our money to fight against us at the same time. This is millions of dollars that most Oregonians don't even... I mean, at this point, when you consider the tiny margin that's passed by, how many people who voted yes, had no idea what was in it. Just like they frequently have no idea what's invalid measures that wouldn't

have voted for in the first place. It's not a popular issue. And yet the Democrats are like, okay, we're terrified of the Trump administration that may actually hold us accountable for our behavior. Let's damage as much as we can, jack up the taxes, take away people's rights, screw over farmers, and do everything we can while we're here. Yeah. Will there be opposition? I'm waiting. In the part that I'm kind of curious about, I got an email here from Mark. He says, Bill, if Oregon is more than willing to break other state laws by allowing abortion

tourism clients to come to our state to obtain one paid for us, or paid by us rather, what about the other states like Idaho starting a program that paves the way for Oregonians to purchase firearms, perhaps start a dual citizenship program, a gun tourism program, maybe have casino junket bus trips. You think that's where we're headed. I can't help but wonder. In other words, we're just going to engage in firearm anarchy in southern Oregon and say, screw you, we'll go to Idaho and get them. Well, you know, that's a question that I need to have one of the attorneys answer. It's legal for a person to purchase a firearm in another state if it's not a handgun.

Now whether or not that, I mean, you can only buy a firearm that's legal in the state that you live in. Now, whether or not this measure, which requires a permit to purchase, will affect how Idaho dealers, what Idaho dealers, what Idaho dealers can do. To be honest with you, that's not really clear to me. But ultimately, the reality is, is that it's very, very easy to bypass this.

You want magazines, they're available anywhere you want. That's no problem. The problem is, is that the Democrats are determined to make a huge new criminal class. At the same time they empty the prisons of murderers and rapists. You know, thank God we've cleaned out all those jails. Oh yeah. Well, you know, on the other hand, maybe they wish to reap the whirlwind and if they're looking to do that, this might

be just the way to do it, to reap the whirlwind. I don't know. Well, you know, maybe. The one thing, obviously this is not a ruling that we're happy about. No. We're not surprised by it. But my position is, our job is to throw as many roadblocks as possible in the way of this nonsense to give people time to respond.

So far, we've held this thing off for a couple of years now. And Oregonians if you know some people got the message early on that the state is coming for them. And took action I mean I know one gun dealer who put millions of dollars into his business close the place that

down and left the state. Anybody who has the ability to get out of the state. And the means should do it. And businesses that rely on gun sales should have recognized some time ago of the state. And the means should do it. And businesses that rely on gun sales should have recognized some time ago that the state hates them and wants to destroy

them. Now we have like another month or so- I'm not as I said I'm not happy where this is gone but I'm glad that once it passed. Countless new guns were sold countless magazines were purchased we have a lot of new gun owners and we have another month or so to do as much as we can knowing what's

coming one way or the other. All right. Oregon Firearms Federation and Kevin Sterrod. Kevin, we have a caller here holding on. Hopefully it's for you. Hi, good morning. Who's this? Good morning. This is Noratic French. Yes. If you leave the house with a fully loaded 30 round magazine and no rifle, are you still breaking the law? If you leave the house with an unloaded 30 round magazine, you're breaking the law. Simple enough. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Lunatic. And yes, it's a Lunatic law. It's a Lunatic decision. It's a Lunatic court. But we kind of figured this was the way it was going to go. I remember way back in the beginning, you didn't think that they were going to be successful,

you know, at this point in time. But the point is, we got to fight on. We must fight on on this. And you're still collecting money here to go into these lawsuits here? Oh absolutely I mean that that unfortunately you know I don't like that kind of activism you know for years we just rely on people contacting their legislators and leaning on them. Once it gets to the court we can't do that and I wish it were not just a matter of money and unfortunately that's all it is now is how much money we can raise so we can counter the money that's been stolen from us by the state to screw us and take our rights.

All right. Kevin, what section of the website would you do? You donate to the educational or is it something else or the PAC? Every penny that goes to the educational foundation goes directly to lawyers. It doesn't even pay any overhead or anything, off covers all that. So if you're interested in keeping us alive in the legislature, you go to the Federation. If you want to fight the lawsuits,

you go to the Foundation. All right, very good. Kevin, always a pleasure, even though it's not a great message this morning, but it's just the reality, we're keeping people informed on it. Okay, thanks again. Thank you, Bill.

Take care. This is KMED and KMED HD1 Eagle Point Medford, KBXG, Grants Pass.