Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 04-08-26_WEDNESDAY_7AM

Episode Date: April 8, 2026

Great news from Kevin Starrett, HB4145 is signed into law, Dr. John Lott - YES, military bases are no longer gun free zones. Your calls, former Commissioner John West calls - problems with budget committee dismissals?

This hour of the Bill Meyer Show podcast is proudly sponsored by Klauser Drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for more than 50 years. Find out more about them at Klausurrilling.com. Now more with Bill Meyer. So great to bring you some great news from Kevin Sterrett, Oregon Firearms Federation, Oregonfirearms.org. Been printing pretty quiet about HB 4145 for a few weeks because Governor Kotech had not signed it. And that has changed. Isn't that right, Kevin? Welcome back.

Thank you, Bill. Yes, it has changed. And we have been quiet because, you know, given co-text behavior in the past, I wasn't going to make any assumption that the bill wouldn't get vetoed. And it wasn't until yesterday that she actually signed it. So that is really good news for gun owners. And for me, it's an indication of something, you know, we've been talking about for a long time. this was obviously the result of some activity that the Republicans took, obviously largely behind the scenes, to turn a very bad anti-gun bill in an anti-gun legislature into something that benefits gun owners. And as far as I'm concerned, that's an indication that, my gosh, it can be done.

Was there any scuttle-bought behind the scenes of why she dragged her feet on this one? Do you know? I haven't heard anything, but I would tell you, because, I check that constantly. You can look and see every day what bills the governor has signed. And she didn't sign, you know, she doesn't sign things very quickly. So whether she dragged her feet on this specifically or she just is too busy, you know, taking trips with her girlfriend, I don't know, but I was concerned about it. You know, we saw what she did with the gas tax initiative, where she took every, she made every effort to derail that. We saw what happened when she made that

horrible cold deal with Christine Drazen where Drazen got the football yanked out from her. And look, Kotech is a committed leftist and I was not going to make any assumptions. So, you know, we reported when the bill passed out of the legislature, but I wasn't going to take a victory lap until it actually became law. And that didn't happen until yesterday. Now that it has become law, this is great. But could you explain what essentially 4145 does for firearms owners in Oregon? Well, the most important thing it does is it delays the implement. Remember, 414 is a ballot measure, measure 114 was a ballot measure that passed with less than 1% of the vote, which essentially ends the legal transfer firearms. It'll become virtually impossible to buy a firearm in the state. House Bill 4145 was an effort to supercharge that and make it even worse. And what happened was it was amended at the last. minute. Initially, Governor-Candidate Ed Deal had offered an amendment that essentially neutered it. And being a Republican amendment, of course, it went nowhere. And then late in

the session, after whatever deal was made, then the Senate president offered almost the identical amendment with some added benefits. And of course, that's sailed through. Now, exactly what the Republicans gave up to get that, they're not talking about it. But as far as I'm concerned, when you look at all of the issues that basically the Republicans lost on in this past session, the fact that they were willing to do whatever they had to do to fix this says a lot about the input of gun owners. And, you know, as I mentioned in the alert we did yesterday for so long, I think gun owners have been feeling completely ignored by the legislature, by the Republicans, who make all kinds of promises, but then fold.

this case, I am, you know, quite comfortable that the constant efforts on the part of gun owners to remind Republicans who hire them, you know, compel them to step up and do something that really benefit us. And so what 414 does is delays, see, the measure 114 is still in the courts. So it's sitting in the Supreme Court with no decision and an interesting comment from a friend today who suggested that it could be being delayed until after the election, because, you know, if they do want to implement that that would not look good for Democrats. But in any event, no matter what happens, the bill delays the implementation of the worst aspects of 114 until 2028. And while it doesn't eliminate the bill, what it does is it adds time for people to respond to it. And as you'll recall,

you know, it's the Oregon Supreme Court that has it right now sitting there having still deciding it. But our federal case is still in the Ninth Circuit. And while the Ninth Circuit is in no hurry to make any decisions, if the Oregon Supreme Court decides against gun owners, then that still gives us until 2028 for the Ninth Circuit to take some action, whatever it might be. And if it's anti-gun, which is typically what they do, then at least we then have the option, you know, to attempt to get it into the Supreme Court. But no matter what happens, any delay on, you know, an elimination of people's rights is a good delay. Okay. So this is good. It's bought some time.

It's almost like a little bit of suppressing fire, you know, giving us a little bit of protection for a little bit. That's about all you can say about it right now. Because if I understand correctly, just leaving your home with a 17 or 18 round magazine that may have come with a pistol that you purchase straight for the factory, that would be considered illegal, right? And you'd be in trouble. You don't have to leave your home. You see, you just have to possess it. And here's what people need to understand. While most people, while Measure 114, theoretically, allows you to own standard capacity magazines if you purchase them prior to the implementation of the law, the way it actually works is it says, if you have those magazines, you are presumed to be guilty

of a crime. And your only response to that is what they call an affirmative defense, which means you're presumed guilty, and then it is your job to prove your innocence. And the mistake that so many people have made, including sheriffs and some lawyers, is suggesting that people keep receipts for their magazines or take pictures of them. But that doesn't mean anything. A picture dates can be, can be fake. You can change that. And there are no serial numbers on magazines. Right. You can't connect a magazine to a receipt to a specific magazine. And years ago, you know, I remember having conversation with a sheriff who was telling people, take a digital picture of your magazines because there's a date on it. Oh, yeah, because, no, well, nothing can ever be done with a

digital picture. It's like, hey, man, take it to court, right? I took three identical pictures of a box of T-Mags in their original packaging. One was dated 10 years ago. One was dated the date I took it, and one was dated 20 years in the future. And I posted them on the website, so that's obviously absurd. And as you pointed out, you can't connect a receipt to a magazine because there's no identifying marks on a magazine. And so the whole thing is just patently absurd. I don't see how there's any affirmative defense. So essentially, mere possession is illegal. Now, the bill says you can leave your home with them if you can prove when you got them if they're unloaded and not connect to the firearm, and if you're on your way to arrange. But clearly, that's ridiculous.

And the whole concept is ridiculous. It's like, okay, I can have 10 rounds, but at 11 rounds, I've become a dangerous killer. And the courts who have made these decisions saying that, yes, we can limit how many rounds you can have are, I can't believe they're this delusional. I have to believe it's purely politically motivated, because let's face it, if it's legitimate, if it's lawful to say that I can, the state can determine that you can't have more than 10 rounds. You've established the principle that they can determine how many rounds you can have. And once you've determined how many rounds you can have, it's almost like they decide what your right is, essentially. Well, it's not just that.

It's just that if they can say you can only have 10, they could say you can only have two. Sure. Oh, they could say you can only have one. Or they could say that, well, sometimes the, you know, the typical person only needs three bullets to put. put somebody down, right? They'll use that kind of stat. That's the argument that the idiot judge in our federal case said, well, look, statistics say you only

need 2.5 rounds in a gunfight. Now, that is on its face absurd, right? Like, who came up with that number as though an average in a gunfight is what you need? But if that's the case, then you can certainly legitimately say you can only have a two-round magazine, because

let's face it, there's one in the chamber. And since some guns will fire without a magazine, why not bad magazines altogether? And so that's the problem with going into court is that you can't make logical arguments like that. All they want to that, well, give me a precedent or give me some what other court decided, or give me, you know, and now after Bruin you have to prove things have some historical basis. Well, this wouldn't have an historical basis because it's so ridiculous. So obviously the good news is that this has been delayed once again. And for me, the good news is is a demonstration that where there's a will on the part of the Republicans, there's the ability

to do it. Yeah. As long as you apply the right pressure. Do you have an idea which deal was cut to do this? I was wondering if it was moving the tax vote to May instead of November. What do you think? You know, nobody I've spoken to has been willing to, I mean, actually, you know, I've spoken to numerous legislators who all say, oh, we don't know.

Now, I have to know. Come on. Well, you know, Bill, you spoke to Noel Robinson, who. who claimed he didn't know. And he was, you know, he's in the Senate. Yeah, yeah, you're right. He did say that. If the deal, if the deal, obviously the deal was made in the Senate,

the Senate Republican leader is Bruce Starr. Somebody on the Senate side made the deal. Okay, so Bruce Starr knows. But Noah said he wasn't in on those conversations, though. Right? You know, I hope somebody knows. But if the Republican caucus isn't even sharing anything with their members, I think that's a problem.

But certainly I will say this, that if I were in the Republican caucus and I saw all this happen, I sure as heck would be asking somebody, you know, what happened? It obviously wasn't a result of, you know, a change of heart on a part of the hardcore left Democrats. I mean, when you look at it, they took a bill they loved, a seriously anti-gun bill. They allowed it. The amendment was actually offered by the Democrat Senate president. The amendment was adopted. Yeah, they gutted and stuffed. own bill, essentially. Right. Then the bill was carried on the floor by Lisa Reynolds, who was a screaming leftist. Now, that didn't happen out of the goodness of the Democrats' hearts. You know,

that didn't happen because somebody went to them and said, let's be friends. It just simply doesn't work that way. So the Republicans, based on the input of gun owners, were willing to step up and say, you know, we're not going to allow this to happen. And my feeling is, is that fantastic, let's Make sure this continues to have. Well, take the win, all right? Yeah, absolutely. I like one in the W column, for sure. Kevin Starr at Oregon Firearms Federation, Oregon Firearms.org.

Kevin, always appreciate the take, and it's great to bring you on when there's texting, hey, we won something. Yay! Absolutely. Good for that. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you, Bill. Take care. Same to you.

It is 728 at KMED, 993 KBXG. Did you know that SISQ pump service does much more than service pumps. News Talk 1063 KMED. This is the Bill Myers show. Vivian writes me this morning and says, good morning, Bill. Are you going to talk about the commissioner's race in Josephine County today? Oh, I hadn't thought about it, but if I was going to say anything, Vivian, this is what I would say. Do not vote for Spurlock, okay? That's at least the first thing I would say. Do not vote for the indivisible guy. That's what I will say. And I would also advocate that maybe about three candidates drop out of each position, right? That's what I would say.

That's what I would say, because as it is going, if things don't play right, you could end up having a crazed leftist in the county commission. Just my opinion, you know, about this sort of thing. And the other thing I would say about the Josephine County commissioner's race is that they need to change it to Jackson County. And this whole nonsense about nonpartisan voting, nonpartisan voting for what ends up being a very partisan position in a very partisan county. It's just total nonsense. This whole concept that known partisan will make it, will keep it clean and will get. Bullstein. It's just a, it's total nonsense the way your charter is set up with nonpartisan voting on this one.

Pick a team, plant a flag, stick with it. All right. Tell us at least where you're coming. from other than, well, yes, I am an independent and I will reach across the aisles. Okay. It just makes my teeth hurt. Yeah. It's, you know, that jungle primary system that they have in Josephine County.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. There. Now I've said it. All right. So I've talked about it. There's a change. Now, see, there's a charter change that I could live with in Joe County. Not the five commissioners.

Just be honest about the partisan. Everyone's partisan. Everybody has a point of view. All right. All right. Good morning. KMED. Hi, who's this?

Welcome. This is my here, Dave. Yes, Dave. Don't make me yell at you, too. What's on your mind? By the way, Vivian, I love you. I appreciate the call. Can you hear me?

Yeah, okay. Hang on just a second. I was talking to the last emailer. So Vivian, love you. Okay. Now then, what's on your mind today? Hello, Dave. Earth to Dave.

Dave going once. Dave going twice. Gone. Until next time. Sorry, Dave. Butler Ford has X plan pricing. What is X plan pricing? X plan is a special partner pricing program that gives buyers access to a pre-com.

CCB number 32787. Hi, I'm Deb with Father and Son Jory and I'm on KMED. Dr. John Lott Jr. Economist, World Recognized Expert on Guns, founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center, is with me right now. You can find out more, crime research.org. Great group. And when we're looking for the crime stats, we always go to Dr. Lott. Dr. Lott, it is a pleasure having you back on.

Morning. Well, thanks for having me on. It's great to talk to you again. All right. Well, I had some great news earlier for firearms owners from Kevin Starrant at Oregon Firearms Federation. I wanted to kind of book at it with you because I didn't realize that military bases are no longer the gun-free zones that they once were. And it's been that way for quite some time. And you have this over on, what is it, real clear politics or which are, where is that?

Oh, real, yeah, real clear politics. You put this up on that. What's up? Yeah, well, I'm sure a lot of people would be surprised to know that soldiers on military bases are generally banned from being able to go and carry guns with them when they're on base. military police obviously have guns, but they're very limited and small group of people. I mean, I don't know whether your listeners have been on military bases, but they're essentially cities that are there, the likelihood that you're going to have a police officer next to you in Medford, one of the crimes occurring is about the same as having a military police officer next to you

if a crime is occurring on a military base. And Dr. Lott, I understand that there was a... Remember, I forget the name of it, the crazy Muslim soldier who ended up attacking the one military base. Yeah. Fort Hood. Fort Hood, yeah. But there's been a number of Muslim attacks on military bases, but that's probably the most famous. It took them a while to respond, though, military police.

It took them a while to get there, didn't it? Oh, yeah. No, in each of the cases, it's taken a while. In the second Fort Hood attack, General Millie, who at that time, before he was chief of staff for the military under the Biden administration, he was commandant for Fort Hood. And he was saying that everything had worked out the way it was. They had plenty of MPs around that they had been able to arrive only eight minutes after the attack had started. You know, a lot of harm can happen in just a couple minutes, alone eight minutes. I know eight minutes. Boy, a lot of bullets fly. In that particular case, it did because didn't two or three people die at that one.

Right. And quite a few were injured. My son, who was serving in the army at the time, was actually stationed in Fort Hood. And he was about a block or so away from the attack when it occurred. But even though he was an expert marksman, he was disarmed and wasn't able to go and help the people that were there. You know, the irony is that when he and others were stationed abroad, when he was stationed in Afghanistan, for example, at Fort Fort Base Fenty, he was mandated to have his gun with him at all times when he was in the mess eating or when he went to work out in the gym or when he was in military intelligence when he was at his desk going through data. In all those cases, he had to have his weapon with him.

When he slept in his bunk, he had his weapon next to him. But as soon as he got back to the United States, he was banned from having his gun with him on base. Now, Dr. Lott, was there some law or military rule which made that happen? What was the actual chain of authorities take on this? Maybe there was something Congress passed. I don't know. That's why going to you on this.

Right. Appreciate the question. Well, the big change occurred at the end of the George H.W. Bush administration. He wanted to make the military more like a business. And he said the businessman that he knew didn't carry guns. And so he didn't see any reason why soldiers should be carrying around guns. And then the actual drafts of those rules were implemented during the first year of the Clinton administration. So it's not something that's been around forever.

You know, the problem that you create is that when you create these gun-free zones, you go and create magnets for people to go and do these attacks. So we had an attack earlier this year at an Air Force base. We had an attack last year at Fort Stewart. We've had a number of other attacks in Chattanooga. You had the two Fort Hood shootings. And there are other attacks at military bases that have occurred. And here's the problem.

when you go, if a soldier right now were to go and carry a gun in a base, or at least before last Thursday, what would happen is that they would either at least be dishonably discharged and very likely have to serve time in prison. No kidding. I didn't realize it was that severe. That's pretty severe penalty there. Right. But let's say you're somebody who's going to do a terrorist attack. at a military base and you're going to kill, you know, five people or whatever.

You're going to be already facing, you know, five life sentences or five death penalties. And, you know, taking the notion of taking five years, let's say, away from your sixth life, doesn't represent a real penalty. Yeah, yeah, the penalty is already going to be paid. You already know going in there that it's serious. So you're going in there. Yeah. Yeah, you're not, yeah, you're willing to. to commit to the cause, I guess, as it were on this one.

So this changed now. The rule has changed. Where did this come down from? It's a story I haven't heard much about. Yeah, yeah. Well, the Secretary of War last week actually was a promise that Trump had made during the campaign to get rid of this gun-free zone that was there. But Secretary Husses had signed the order. after he made really an excellent speech about it last Thursday.

Good. All right. So this is just a signature on the piece of paper, and off we go then. So this was just always a rule put in place there. I find that interesting that President George H.W. Bush back then would kind of refer to the military as almost like a business. Like it's just a regular old Fortune 500 kind of business. business. It is a different kind of business, I would say, and also with a different kind of threat, a threat level, potential. I don't know why anybody would want soldiers to be able to go

and carry guns. I mean, those are kind of the last people you want to have guns, right? Yeah. Yeah. But also, making the soldiers then a magnet for attack, as you have detailed on this real clear politics on that piece. It's why military bases should never have been gun-free zones. Now, are there any kind of rules or can commanders still say like, okay, if you're a trainee or you're relatively new, that it's, that there's kind of like a stepping stone or stepping stone kind of regulation or is just like no longer gun-free zones and nothing can be said about it? What's the story there? Yeah, well, my understanding is some of the rules are still being fleshed out. Okay. But basically anybody who can get a concealed carry permit.

is going to be able to go and carry on base. Okay. So you can carry on base. Can your commander still then order people to be disarmed under certain circumstances, according to your reading of the rules? No, I mean, unless they go and commit some type of crime or offense that they're going to be arrested anyway. Yeah, that would make sense. Yeah, sure.

Okay. Well, imagine that. If we can trust somebody with firearms overseas in a military base someplace or, you know, out of the field, then we can trust them at home in a military base. That sounds like common sense to me, Dr. Lott. Well, I mean, all the soldiers go through firearms training there. You know, it's not like they're not, as the secretary was saying last week, these are well-trained individuals with firearms.

They wouldn't make it through basic training if they weren't able to be trained with firearms. And so, but yeah, it's just weird that somehow, when they're at bases overseas, we trust them. And, you know, nobody's trying, has tried to change that policy. That policy was under both Republicans and Democratic presidents. But somehow, as soon as these soldiers are back at bases in the United States, we don't trust them anymore to carry guns. And unfortunately, as you just mentioned, that creates these magnets for these attacks,

that these killers, these terrorists might be crazy in some sense, but they're not stupid. Their goal is to go and kill as many people as possible because they know they'll get more media attention, the more people they kill. And the way you stop that is by making it clear to them that somebody nearby may be able to go and quickly intervene. And we just finished a study that looked at all the active shooting attacks in the United States from on 2014 through 2024. And what we found, and I don't think people appreciate, is what an incredibly difficult job police who are identifiable in uniform have in stopping active shooting attacks.

If you have somebody in uniform, it gives real, or identifiable as an MP, for example, you give real tactical advantages for the attackers there. So if they see somebody that they identify that way, they can either wait for them to leave the area before they attack, or the attacker themselves can move on to another target where they don't see somebody. Both of those make it less likely that the officer will be present when the attack occurs. Or if they insist on attacking when they see the officer there, who do you think they shoot first? they shoot the one person that they know for sure as a weapon. And the problem is what we found is that actually more active shooting attacks were stopped by civilians with concealed carry permits than officers. And I would imagine that is because they're unknown or they're not necessarily known to be armed, right?

They're not a target themselves. Right, exactly. I mean, you see somebody in uniform, they're readily identifiable. And the problem is, even though the police stopped fewer of these attacks, they were 12 times more likely to be killed in these active shooting attacks than a civilian with a concealed carry permit. People don't appreciate when, I mean, they're good reasons why we have people in uniform and readily identifiable. But they're real costs of making them have to be readily identifiable. that way you give real tactical advantages to the attacker. And it's, you know, one reason, for example, we have air marshals on plane.

Do you think air marshals ought to be in uniform? I don't know anybody who thinks that air marshals ought to be in uniform. If you have terrorists on a plane and you have an air marshal who is in uniform, who do you think the terrorists would try to take out first before they try to take over the plane? Absolutely. You know, it's going to be the person in uniform. But to your point, this would seem to indicate why, the whole plan in government schools, in public school systems usually.

Well, we're going to have a school resource officer. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, person in uniform. That means a crazy person wants to go into the gun-free zone, except for the officer. They go after the school resource officer first, kill him or her, you know, that kind of thing, or take them down. And then they're able to pretty much have their way where if, and I know it's controversial in some worlds, that teachers be able to carry concealed in, A lot of times they're not allowed to in many cases, even by their labor agreements with school districts here in Southern Oregon. But the whole idea of not knowing who is potentially armed is quite powerful, quite a powerful deterrent, according to your research.

Yeah, no, exactly. Okay. Well, it makes common sense, but common sense is sometimes difficult to get into the news cycle. In this case, we'll make an exception, doctor. And I appreciate so much. why military bases should never have been gun-free zones. Dr. John Lott is a worldwide expert on guns and crime. His website, crime research.org.

Crime research.org. Doctor, it is a pleasure having you on. Thanks so much. Well, thank you very much for being there, Bill. Dr. John Lott, 753. It is open phone time here this morning on Wheels Up Wednesday on KMED and 993 KBXG. We can talk about this or anything else on your mind. at 770 5633.

Have about it next. At two dogs fabricating, we're woofing about our new iron bull dump trailers with new features, including enhanced sidearmor 10-gate steel sides with seven-gate steel floor. That's 770 KMED. Here we are in God's country, Southern Oregon, Northern California, as far as I'm concerned, what is on your mind? Do you think about this ceasefire? Two weeks.

Two weeks ceasefire. I think it'll hold. I'm not seeing a lot of common ground between the 15 points. by the Trump administration and the 10 proposed by Iran, but maybe we can, at least people can catch their breath a little bit. Markets are loving that, by the way. Now up hundreds, if not more than a thousand points at last count of it. All right. What else we got going on? Todd's here. Hello, Todd. How are you? What's on your mind? Excellent. Two points. With respect to Kevin Sterrett, who I would vote for for governor. He's fantastic.

I'm worried that we have won a battle, but we may lose the war. As you reiterate it, where you kind of initiated that one thought about moving the tax repeal from November to May, that was our big chance to unseat Kotech and maybe pick up a couple of seats in the Senate or the rep. Yeah, it would have been a real setup then for discontent at the Democratic control grid. And it would have been another example. It would have been a constant reminder. It's a good point with that. That's kind of where I was going with it, at least.

And it also takes the wind out of the sales of the pro-gun people. Oh, we won something. No, no, not really. Also, with what Dr. Lachner. Well, it's actually a delay of execution, I think, is what we're talking about. You know, the execution has been delayed for a couple of years is what we're talking about here. And the hope is that it's gone, really, within that amount of time. But that's hope.

And let's say a year from now, Cote. ex-governor still, and we have this Democrat supermajority, there's nothing stopping them from taking HB 41, 45, and just throwing it out. But I just wanted to make one quick comment about what Dr. Lott just said. I went to a – this was just after, well, 2005, so not too long after the 9-11 attack, so it was still very fresh in people's thoughts. I went to a anti-terrorism training, was a multi-agency get-together, and it was taught by a guy that had served with the DIA and CIA, and he was a Middle Eastern specialist, but he talked

about all sorts of different terrorist threats. And he asked this to the entire class, everybody was a cop. He says, how many people can carry a gun off duty? Of course, everybody raises their hand. And he said, how many people here do? And I'd say about 50 percent did. He said, do it, because you could be the thing that breaks the link in the chain of a terrorist attack. If they can't identify you, you're just the guy standing in line at a bank or near the airport or in some other sensitive area. They can't factor you into the equation as easily, and you could stop a terrorist attack. So I like to hear what he said. That was a good point.

Yeah. Thank you very much. Appreciate the call. Thanks, Todd. Let me go to Phil. Phil's in Road River. Phil, take it away. Hey, good morning.

Hey, thanks for having Kevin on from Klausers the other day. But I was going to ask him, yeah, it's very informative. But I was going to ask him if, you know, if you have a questionable well or your well is already slow and low producing, that it might be a good idea now to put in a holding tank and get her filled up just in case later on down the road, like he was saying in October, November, all of a sudden you don't have any water. It was kind of my thought. Yeah, gave yourself a little bit of buffer, a few days of buffer years. there. You know, that would be very helpful with a holding tank. That makes a lot of sense. Sure.

Well, my other thought was, well, if it's a low water, then where are the trucks going to come to get water? I mean, we're all going to be running low, I would think. I'm not sure. Yeah, I don't know if there's any discussion in the Medford or Water District or any other districts that they would not be selling water commercially this year. I haven't heard about that yet. I would imagine the price will be going up, though, because the rates already have gone up for everybody else. Yeah, well, let's fill it up all you can. Yeah, exactly. Water, there is life. Water and electricity.

Just don't combine water and electricity, all right? Let's see, Lutnik French. Hello, Lutnik. Always happy to talk with Lutniks here on the show. Good morning. Good morning, Bill. What's up? About Major Hassan, the Muslim psychiatrist at Fort Hood,

who had been previously reprimanded several times for advocating Sharia law, killed 13 American service members because they were unarmed and he was finally taken out by a female civilian cop. That's who killed him? Really? Yeah. No kidding. He was not killed. No, no. That's right. He was taken into custody after that. All right. Okay. Female cop. But she was armed, right? Of course, yeah. He was trustworthy, apparently, where the servicemen were not. You know, there was a story I was reading on Revolver the other day, and I have that here, Louis Teak. I'll find it. If I can't find it, I will get it up there.

But I think it was over in Massachusetts. They were advocating, once again, getting rid of police officers and sending out social workers. Great idea. Yeah. Well, they sent one of those social workers out there. and a DV domestic violence kind of situation. And apparently the guy took a sword or a sword-like object and hit one of the social workers with a sword.

I think it's going to be okay. But, yeah, it's always great to bring a social worker to a sword fight. Would you agree? It would be great if they would learn a lesson from that. They will not. Yeah, I'm hoping that they will. That's what even Barack Obama would call a teachable moment. teachable lesson. Appreciate the call,

Levitic. We go to Wild Salmon. Hello, Steve. Morning. Hey, not so wild salmon, Steve here. On the military and carrying firearms, if you're in the military, you have to qualify for any specific weapon. When I got out of basic

training, I was qualified for an M-14 and an M-16. When I was in Korea, we had an opportunity to go to a range and shoot pretty much anything we wanted to. That was kind of a close distance range. And I went there and trained on a 45 ACP. So it's very easy to say who could carry on base would be to say that you had qualified for that specific weapon. Okay.

So whatever you qualified on then, right? Yeah. Does that make sense? You've had training? you know, you know which end of the thing the bullet comes out of and how to load it and do all that stuff, and you're able to reasonably hit a target at a specific range. Of course, the idea, though, of carrying on base is not necessarily carrying an M-14, let's say. Oh, well, absolutely.

But, you know, the armor, the people who have control of the weapons, you know, it could easily have a training session that you could go through and be able to carry. You know, if you had training on any semi-automatic weapon, you would know specifically how they function and what to do. So the question of who could carry is very simply handled by who's got training on that specific weapon or that specific class of weapon. All right, very good. I appreciate the tip, rather, on that. And I just think it makes sense to get rid of that old rule, that's for sure. And it appears it has been done.

Amy D. I'll grab one more before news. Hi, good morning. This is Bill. Yeah, this is Brian Weldon. Hey, Brian. How are you? Hey, Bill, last week you had a guy on your show giving a little talk about voter fraud in the state of Oregon and voter rolls and all that. We, I moved to my fifth different little fixture house in 2019 here in Josephine County. And in 2020, The first Trump election there was coming up, and I got two voter ballots in my mailbox. One was the previous owner that the lady moved to Colorado. Her husband died in 2015 in the shop in my house with a stroke, and so I got their ballots. In 2022, I got their ballots.

I took these ballots down to the county clerk and tore them in half, and I said, you need to fix the voter roll. these people don't live in this state, and these people are dead. So stop the ballots coming in 2024. I got two more ballots from them. And again, the clerk says, Brian, this is just too much work? There's nothing we can do, blah, blah, blah. We have an election coming up for a new clerk. Chris Kirby is running for our clerk, and she has promised us she is going to fix this

motor roll problem in Josephine County. All right. Now, I want to be fair to, it's Renee, right? Renee Henkels, right? Yes. Okay. I think there's more to it than just what she said. I believe that there is actually legislation passed by Salem, by the state legislature, that was reducing the ability to clean the voter rolls.

That's the way it's been explained to me. And did she bring that up or not? Or was this a few years ago? No. No, she basically told me she didn't have time. and it took a lot of work to go through all the voter rolls and clean them up. Well, yeah, doing your job does take time, though. Yeah, that's something we need to fix, especially when I listened to your speaker a week ago,

talk about all the different counties in Oregon that have a lot of issues with their voter rolls. All right, fair enough. Appreciate the call there, Brian. Thank you. And by the way, do you agree that the way you guys elect the county commissioners is stupid? Would you agree with me on that? Yes. Thank you.

Yes. and I definitely agree that Spurlock should never be near our commissioner's seat. I knew you're going to say that. You call about Matt all the time. Well, you got to, you're a dog with a bone when it comes to Matt Spurlock over at ORD too, okay? Indivisible. Hi, KMEDE. Good morning.

Hi. Hey, Bill, John West. Hello, John. Hey, I got a, so yesterday, according to KDRV news, the commissioners voted three to zero to wipe out. the three citizens on the budget committee and to re-take applications to put new people on the budget committee. And I just want to, I want to give you a little idea where this is going. Yeah, yeah, why is it? Yeah, why would that be important? I'm just kind of curious. Because we've started budget season. And a few weeks ago on the budget committee,

that citizens voted no and four of the five spending sprees that the three commissioners wanted to go on. They voted yes and the citizens voted no, and so it didn't pass. Oh, so it's in other words, the current board is looking for a more pliable spending permission on the budget committee, right? And I'll tell you where this is going. Last week, Gary Richardson, commissioner caught one of the citizens that are on the budget committee and ask him to resign because he said he's too conservative and they need the makeup of the board less conservative to get stuff passed. Well, yeah, of course, if you wanted to spend more, you would want less conservative people

on the board and or the budget committee, right? Because happy days are here again. Well, on the budget committee, by the way, I'm being sarcastic, John. You don't understand that, right? No, I get it, but it's very disturbing that this board would not want the citizens on there because they're not willing to tax and spend like they want to do. But for a board member, a commissioner, to ask somebody to resign because they need somebody less conservative to pass their agenda.

That should be an alarm bell, don't you think? Everybody. Shouldn't that be an alarm bell for everybody? It should be. But for all three commissioners, because they didn't get their way, by a board member resigning, a citizen resigning, they chose to take their power, which they have the right to. They have the right to appoint, and they have the right to wipe up.

But they did it for a way. reason and this should be alarming to the citizens of Josephine County that this board says they want to hire another 45 more employees. They are growing this government huge. They are going to bankrupt Josephine County. Okay. Well, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, if there are other, if there are other members of the board, the board of the members want to counter you on this, John. I know you're a candidate for a position. Was it 102 or position two, I think? Yeah, position one. Position one. Okay. You're on position. position one. So who is telling you this, though? Who is telling you about the board member saying,

hey, I want you to resign? Who's telling you? That was the citizen who is appointed on the committee. Okay. All right. I can give you, I can say their name if you want. Yeah, go ahead. Joseph Wright. Oh, Joseph. That's interesting. Yep. All right. All right. I'll reach out to Joseph, okay? Yep, you can reach out to Joseph. He was alarmed by it. All right, John, I'll do that, okay? Appreciate the call.

Okay, thank you, Bill. You bet you. This is KMED and KMED HD-H1, Eagle Point, Medford, KBXG, Grants Pass. Translator K-294AS, Ashland, K-290AF, Rogue River. Headlines next. 30 years ago, American Industrial...