It sounds like a paperwork problem if I am understanding the situation right. Maybe they need to break up the 2A Sanctuary law in to multiple votes to cover all aspects of what they are trying to achieve.Too bad they didn't think to put it into the hands of the people 5 months ago
Here is another paper covering the story. I think be rewriting Sanctuary law they might be able to get this to the voters:It sounds like a paperwork problem if I am understanding the situation right. Maybe they need to break up the 2A Sanctuary law in to multiple votes to cover all aspects of what they are trying to achieve.
"That is the recommendation of county counsel Doug Olsen, who explained the law in Oregon requires measures to include the full text, but the proposal does not itemize all it would do.
“So by doing that, you don’t know what you’re voting for,” he said. “It’s not sufficient to know what you are adopting.”
That is the primary reason the Columbia County Clerk’s Office in January rejected an initiative petition to put the sanctuary ordinance on the ballot there.
The petitioner, Chris Brumbles of Deer Island, then filed a request in circuit court for a review of the county’s decision. Judge Ted Grove on April 12 ruled the clerk was right to reject the proposal.
The measure would nullify any state or federal laws restricting the use or possession of guns, Grove found, and lacks a full list of the prohibitions it would establish, thus a voter would not know what other laws the measure would curtail. This ambiguity, Grove stated, violates the constitutional requirement."
I agree but it would be helpful to test this out at county level, in case we want to replicate it at a state level. Plus it's a moral booster but not if we can't make it constitutional so we can place it on the ballot.They all miss the target.
If there is a state law, and a sheriff or county chooses to not enforce it, then the state will enforce it. When it comes go confiscation/etc., they will send in the state police, not sheriffs.
It is a feel good thing.
...In almost every state in the United States (with a VERY few exceptions), voters elect a sheriff every two or four years. The county sheriff is almost ALWAYS recognized, by statute and the states constitution, as the "chief law enforcement officer" in the entire county. They have jurisdictional authority over ALL OTHERS in their county.
In contrast, STATE POLICE OFFICERS usually work on their respective state's highways, tollways and on state owned properties. A sheriff's authority is supreme, and they almost always have the authority to assume or otherwise take over ANY investigation anywhere in their county...
Sorry, I will give the next post a more upbeat title. You are right though, it could likely be fixed with some creative amending.The title of this thread, “bites the dust”, sounds too negative. Seems like they only need to make a few changes to the proposal, after which there’s a good chance they could get it passed. After all, voters in this county just passed a SAPO last November.
I’m curious, what’s your source (that he’s pro-2A)?
Those are some good, albeit older references. Glad he’s our Sheriff. I would imagine (hope) his position hasn’t changed in the meantime, but nonetheless, maybe we in Washington county should send some letters his way letting him know we are not happy with the OR legislature’s current attack on our 2A rights.His statements.