Oregon 8 Oregon counties pass pro 2A measures

[NW Backpacker]

Militia groups help gun rights measure pass in 8 Oregon counties

Read More

 

[shooter777]

oh damn, they're all on lists now. GulagPostponement.Org

 

[Certaindeaf]

oh damn, they're all on lists now. GulagPostonement.Org

I'd click on it but my gulag doesn't allow it.

 

[arakboss]

Militia groups help gun rights measure pass in 8 Oregon counties

How will the measures effect the FFLs operating in those counties. Can (or will) they ignore state gun restrictions?

 

[arakboss]

Militia groups help gun rights measure pass in 8 Oregon counties

How will these SAPOs change the way we transfer firearms at gun shows in the protected counties? It seems like these ordinances are mostly symbolic. I'm holding out hope that they have some above board benefits in protecting our gun rights. But it's difficult to see how they will protect our gun rights when the state has it's own police and prosecutorial powers that seeminly have no boundaries with in our state. Am I wrong here?

 

[Jonnyuma]

My decision to move back to Umatilla county was all but cemented before last night... this adds another brick.
No, it isn't insulated from Salem's malpractice, but its further away, and that's a start.

I was born and raised in St Louis, MO and have always moved west.... this time I overshot tbe mark, time to back it up a bit.

 

[JeremyK]

Too bad the big fat bad one in WA passed by a HUGE margin.

 

[JeremyK]

Thanks Seattle, for making me a criminal!

 

[Who The F R U]

ORS 166.170 - State preemption - 2017 Oregon Revised Statutes

2017 ORS 166.170¹
State preemption


(1)Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

 

[Who The F R U]

How will the measures effect the FFLs operating in those counties. Can (or will) they ignore state gun restrictions?

We are still under Federal Rules.
So no we won't Ignore restriction's. But we also have the Preemption clause .

 

[arakboss]

We are still under Federal Rules.
So no we won't Ignore restriction's. But we also have the Preemption clause .

ORS 166.170 - State preemption - 2017 Oregon Revised Statutes

2017 ORS 166.170¹
State preemption


(1)Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.

(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

We are still under Federal Rules.
So no we won't Ignore restriction's. But we also have the Preemption clause .

Wouldn't the Preemption clause make the SAPO's pretty much fruitless. I am trying to imagine where gun rights would be protected by the SAPO's.

 

[Who The F R U]

As of TODAY private sale's are legal in Columbia County without a BGC.

https://www.oregonfirearms.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/SAPO-.pdf

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

hope something like this comes to marion county soon

 

[tkdguy]

And Washington County too.

 

[CamoDeafie]

@arakboss ; the City Councils of Portland and Salem, and possibly Eugene, had been wanting the Legislative Assembly to do away with State Preemption law, so that they could pass more strict regulations/ordinances related to firearms. The fly in their ointment is that by doing away with State Preemption, they open up the possibility of these 8 counties not requiring to follow current State Law, if the Preemption law is repealed
But because the current Legislative Assembly is now a Democrat Supertrio; they can make State laws as asinine and restrictive, if not more so than California and New York, thereby getting around State Preemption. However, an interesting court case could come come in which the Counties may argue that State Preemption only refers to Counties and cities not being allowed to pass more restrictive regulations related to firearms than that of the State laes, so a County/City ordinance that simply states that the Federal Constitution is the only authority to regulate firearms; thereby falls under a Federal Preemption/Supremacy clause and not under the State Preemption clause/law?
In short, the Counties are affirming that they recognize a Federal authority for gun rights as opposed to a State authority. Seeing as the Federal Courts have ruled that commerce and supremacy clauses grants the Fed authority to regulate firearms in States... for example see Firearms Freedom Act of Montana, 2009 in which the Federal Courts have ruled as null and void, because even if it were limited to firearms manufactured within Montana; the Federal Government have the authority to regulate such items in accordance to Federal regulations (NFA/CGA/FOPA).

 

[CountryGent]

How will the measures effect the FFLs operating in those counties. Can (or will) they ignore state gun restrictions?

Can they? No. Will they? No. At least no one in their right mind that is so licensed is going to risk jail time.

Wouldn't the Preemption clause make the SAPO's pretty much fruitless. I am trying to imagine where gun rights would be protected by the SAPO's.

Pretty much. It just means, at least in theory, that the local agency is not going to spend resources on enforcing BS laws passed in Salem or DC. In practice, another agency (state or Federal) can and likely will enforce said.

Kansas had something similar at the state level. Back in 2016, a couple guys posted pictures of themselves on Facebook with unregistered silencers, which is legal under the Kansas law, but not federal law. The ATF arrested them and they were both convicted under NFA34 in federal court.

I applaud the effort made on SAPOs, voted for the one in our county, and was heartened to see it passed in a landslide. But I am under no illusion that it provides much in the way of protection.

 

[CamoDeafie]

It just means, at least in theory, that the local agency is not going to spend resources on enforcing BS laws passed in Salem or DC. In practice, another agency (state or Federal) can and likely will enforce said

Lets look at jurisdictions here.
Oregon State Police has primary on State highways and State owned property. But County Sheriffs havefull jurisdiction in their Counties.
Lets look at resources for repsective agencies
OSP have 406 Troopers at last count, and 514 "civilian" employees
County Sheriff departments far outnumber the Staties.



Now, Federal could send in the FBI to enforce State laws by serving warrants and arrests, (see Malheur standoff), however, what can they do, if Counties say that federal laws such as the Constitution are in full force and effect, and as such, will not enforce State laws that contradicts or go too far relative to the Fed laws?

So it stands, if the County Sheriff departments are the defacto "chief police agency" in Oregon; and the County judge offices can, they could tell the State Police to pound sand and nullify/drop the arrest warrants and cases against citizens in the 8 Counties. Of course the State could try the method of using a different County judge and prosecutors, but that brings up jurisdiction issues especially if the "suspects" do not reside in a liberal County. (And with only 7 Liberal Counties against the 19 others.... they're outnumbered)


Again, look at how the US Federal Court of Appeals ruled against Montana's Firearms Freedom Act of 2009, similarly with Kansas; the Fed court determined that the Federals have the sole authority to regulate firearms transfers and manufacturing, even if they were completey inside State borders... on the other hand, the Oregon State Preemption Clause states that Oregon Legislative Assembly holds the sole authority in regulations of firearms within Oregon... meaning, it could in theory be challenged in a Federal Court on the determination of whether the States have authority under the 10th Amendment (as found in cases of Marylands handgun regulations and Californias regulations), but because the Montana decision contradicts the established case law due to Federal Supremacy Clause and Interstate Commerce Clause; it means there is a case for the USSC to determine one of two ways.
Either the State have the authority, and Montana's FFA law stands, along with the anti 2A laws in several States, or the States do not have authority to regulate firearms, therefore it nullifies and voids the various state firearm laws, but opens up a can of worms because the politicians dont want that to happen

 

[CountryGent]

I really wish the cases in Montana and Kansas would have been appealed to the SCOTUS, particularly with the current makeup of the court. That would have been interesting.

 

[thorborg]

With 36 counties in Oregon, that leaves 28 to go

 

[CamoDeafie]

I really wish the cases in Montana and Kansas would have been appealed to the SCOTUS, particularly with the current makeup of the court. That would have been interesting.

agreed.
It would have been interesting, because if the SCOTUS heard the case, and ruled that yes the Federal have sole authority to create regulations related to firearms transfers and manufacturing, then it means that many of the various Anti-2A laws enacted by the likes of California, NY, Maryland, Mass, Ct, NJ, and so on, would have to be nullified and voided, because of that. It would also put the onus of proposing new Federal laws onto the Federal Congress, which may or may not be a bad thing, depending of course on who's in it . BUT on the other hand, if the SCOTUS determined that yes the States have authority to regulate firearms transfers and manufacture, then it would mean the Montana and Kansas bills would have to be validated, and, also... the Anti-2A laws in other States would also be in effect, thereby stating that States can be either more or less restrictive on firearms transfers and manufacturing, with the Federal laws being applied only on interstate transfers