Oregon Another 2A Sanctuary Proposal Bites The Dust

[arakboss]

Gun sanctuary proposal misses target

Read More

 

[billdeserthills]

Too bad they didn't think to put it into the hands of the people 5 months ago

 

[arakboss]

Too bad they didn't think to put it into the hands of the people 5 months ago

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."

 

[arakboss]

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."

Here is another paper covering the story. I think be rewriting Sanctuary law they might be able to get this to the voters:

"Umatilla County Counsel Doug Olsen reports to the board that the initiative, as it is written, does not meet the constitutional requirements to be placed on the ballot.

There may be need for additional protections for the Second Amendment, but the proposed sanctuary ordinance does not meet the requirements to accomplish it," he wrote in an opinion to the board.

Olsen told the commissioners that a similar measure was submitted in Columbia County and its clerk refused to put it on the ballot for not meeting the requirements. He said that the circuit court there agreed with that decision. The full text of the proposed initiative is available by clicking on Initiative Second Amendment Sanctuary link here: Agenda - January 16, 2013

Source: Commissioners tackle Second Amendment initiative

 

[The Heretic]

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.

 

[arakboss]

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.

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.

 

[Camelfilter]

...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...

Massachusetts is an exception State, sadly, least ways the Eastern part of the State. There Sheriffs are absolutely nothing like out here. That area they are primarily jailers, transporters with minor warrant service duty. Zero patrol/enforcement.

That said, let's all remember to keep personal politics off of the board. Hard stop.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

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.

 

[arakboss]

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.

Sorry, I will give the next post a more upbeat title. You are right though, it could likely be fixed with some creative amending.

 

[WoodsPlinker]

There is a rural vs urban divide and at least it sends a signal to lawmakers to hopefully keep that in mind when they are proposing gun control.

So far it hasn't, which is dissapointing, maybe there are other things that can be done.

Hard to get the state split when it's the minority that is unhappy. The only thing I can think of is minority protection laws.

Iike if any state law attacks a minority of the population it can be overturned on the local level.

That is one area most agree on that discrimination against a minority is a bad thing. Since a lot of people believe all gun control is racist it would doubly apply to a racial and firearm community minority status.

That is if you could prove we are in the minority. Probably would be easier to prove in Washington state. Since nothing tracks gun owners we really don't know if we are in the minority. (And I prefer it that way)

Yeah I dunno....

 

[The Heretic]

I am a realist, especially with regards to how the powerful in government act with respect to people's rights and the futile gestures people make when they want to fool themselves that those gestures will make a difference when the goon squad comes to their neighborhood.

But rant on about the law, sheriffs, etc.

FWIW - my sheriff Pat Garrett, is pro Second Amendment.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

FWIW - my sheriff Pat Garrett, is pro Second Amendment.

I'm curious, what's your source (that he's pro-2A)?

 

[The Heretic]

I'm curious, what's your source (that he's pro-2A)?

His statements.

Sheriffs Start Stepping Up - Oregon Firearms Federation
Washington County Sheriff Pat Garrett says he won't enforce federal law 'that will infringe' on Second Amendment rights
County Sheriffs Unite to Defend 2nd Amendment Rights - STL - Campaign For Liberty (Saint Louis, MO) | Meetup
Gun control talk boosts sales

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

His statements.

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.