Oregon Could We Have Statewide Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance (SAPO)?

Discussion in 'Firearm Legislation & Activism' started by arakboss, Feb 8, 2019.

  1. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,179
    It would essentially be the same language as the county level second amendment preservation ordinance but would be adapted to be Statewide.

    Edit: It would prohibit the State from using it's resources and agencies to enforce laws that violate the 2A.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
    SparksFly, bbbass and Flymph like this.
  2. Stomper

    Stomper
    Plata O Plomo....
    Platinum Supporter Platinum Supporter Gold Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    23,696
    Likes Received:
    73,771
    The rub from that would be the “opinion” of what “violates” the 2A, which is essentially the argument and reason there’s so many gun laws (over 20k nation-wide) on the books now.... add mealy-mouthed lawyers and big-money to the mix and it’s just another layer of what we already have going on.

    :rolleyes:
     
  3. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,179
    It could be crafted more along the lines of prohibiting the State from using its agencies and resources from enforcing any firearm related laws period.
     
  4. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,179
    This would leave it up to each county to decide if they want to enforce the state gun laws.
     
    Herb g likes this.
  5. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,179
    It might be a long shot getting the votes for it but it could restore our gun rights back to what federal law is, in the counties that have SAPOs right now. The State's agencies and resources could then be redirected to enforcing and prosecuting other crime and providing security training and assistance for schools. I doubt the State agencies enforce or prosecute many gun laws now but it's the threat that we would be eliminating.

    Example: Guy is otherwise legally hunting deer in a SAPO county forest with a 30rnd mag. An ODFW agent or State trooper runs in to him and sees the violation. Under current law the guy is busted for the 30rnd mag.
    Under Statewide SAPO type law, the guy walks away free.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
  6. Unka-Boo

    Unka-Boo
    Milwaukie
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,249
    Likes Received:
    806
    Except its not legal to hunt deer with a 30 rd mag already....
     
    Flymph and surevaliance like this.
  7. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,179
    That's the point. The ODFW agent or trooper would not be able to enforce the law under my SAPO type law idea. Now if somebody was poaching deer they could nab them for poaching deer but not for anything related to the firearm or ammo.
     
  8. WasrNwarpaint

    WasrNwarpaint
    Portland
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    2,988
    why ask? many of these gentlemen already said we were wasting our time on a county level, yet the anti's cant turn "some of us" into a felons for non compliance now without a major court battle....we the people voted
    sadly it would have been a far better tactical maneuver if all the counties voted individually had the NW firearms enthusiasts formed ranks when we called to arms:oops:

    thats a federal decision and the only gun laws we will lawfully adhere to..
    same federal laws that many of you choose to adhere to but choose the "scream mulon labe" course of action as opposed to our voting a protective law

    If the over reaching infringements come into law it will go to court regardless by one of our pro gun advocates like SAF, OFF maybe nra (wont hold my breath)

    we will certainly take it all the way to the supreme court if word game/opinions are played & violating our existing laws voted on by "we the people" of ourselves strictly adhering to FEDERAL LAW and the 2nd Amendment Constitution only.

    I dont want to sound like a ghoul but I dont think Ginsberg has more than a year, she just had lung cancer tumor removed and they did not say if the cancer had metastasized or not, people are always happy to announce it has not metastasized!
    Ginsberg also has a history of cancer and maybe a different type, 2 types of cancer for a non smoker isnt a good prognosis
    additionally the fact that the statement says the nodules are indeed malignant means that at least a preliminary pathology report has been done, but this crucial detail—what type of malignancy?—was either unclear or withheld from the statement.
    just sayin
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
    bbbass and Flymph like this.
  9. Mark W.

    Mark W.
    Silverton, OR
    Silver Supporter Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    7,126
    Likes Received:
    9,072
    We already have this read the Oregon Constitution

    Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

    And see how well that works?
     
    spookshack, bbbass, BSG 75 and 2 others like this.
  10. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,179
    These are some of the Oregon Attorneys General office views on our 27th Amendment of the Oregon Constitution:

    The Oregon Constitution currently protects
    “arms” similar to those used for self-defense in 1859, including some
    firearms.

    The court concluded that semi-automatic firearms are not within the
    protection of arms for self-defense encompassed by Art. I, section 27.
    It follows that such weapons could lawfully be banned in Oregon, at least insofar as that
    provision of the constitution is concerned,...

    These advanced weapons (semi-autos) of modern warfare have never been intended for personal possession and protection. When the constitutional drafters referred to an individual's “right to bear arms,” the arms used by the militia and for personal protection were basically the same weapons. Modern weapons used exclusively by the military are not “arms” which are commonly possessed by individuals for defense, therefore, the term “arms” in the constitution does not include such
    weapons.

    I believe the Oregon's AG's office views on our 2nd Amendment rights are equally limited. It is clear to me that unless the SCOTUS changes the government aniti's minds, that we can not rely on the correct interpretation of our constitutional rights to be applied.

    It's also my belief that the county level SAPO's lack the teeth in most cases to prevent the State authorities from stepping in to make examples of those who openly violate the State firearms laws with in a SAPO county.

    We should pursue the idea of prohibiting enforcement and prosecution of firearms laws with State agencies and resources. The counties are in a better position to know what level of enforcement their citizens desire.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
    bbbass likes this.
  11. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,179
    I can't tell if you are in support or not, of a law prohibiting the State from using State agencies and resources to enforce and prosecute firearms laws but I would be happy to engage with you as why I feel it's a good idea.
     
  12. Flymph

    Flymph
    Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    6,721
    I'm pretty sure the hunting regs say your gun cannot have more than 5 rounds for big game and 3 for birds. So let's just change your analogy to target shooting, otherwise legally. ;)

    I'd vote for it, but I doubt that it would pass. We should just keep chipping away until there is two thirds majority county SAPO, then take the bill to state committee.

    PS; We should use SB501 as fuel for our fire!
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
    bbbass likes this.
  13. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,179
    This comment is directed at all those NWFA members who have wished we would go on the offense. Most everything we are doing now is defense. My proposal to vote in a law prohibiting the State from using State agencies and resources to enforce and prosecute firearms laws is an offensive measure. It would allow counties to decide what State firearms laws they want to enforce and which ones they don't.

    What it would do:
    It would remove the worry that the State agencies or justice dept agencies are going to come after you, your LGS, etc criminally and/or civilly, for violating firearm laws.

    It could do away with the OSPs's background check dept or you could provide an exemption to keep it. My preference would be to do away with it. To comply with Federal law, FFLs could use direct background check system like Washington does. And if bg is delayed, the FFL can follow federal law on handling the transfer. This would make Counties immune from the new longer delayed waiting periods that they are trying to pass in Salem.

    This proposed law will not take away powers from those Counties who wish to enforce or prosecute the State firearms laws with their own agencies and resources.

    It would avoid any 2A interpretation BS problems like IP 8 had to deal with.


    What it wouldn't do:
    It would not do away with preemption law.

    It would not prevent State LE and Justice officials from investigating and prosecuting crimes involving firearms if non-firearm crimes were also involved. But it would eliminate them from prosecuting the firearms related crime. At this point in time the State rarely prosecutes firearm related crimes so it is more of a preventive measure to make sure the State respects the counties with SAPO laws.

    I would like to see this combined with a school security element so a title of the law might look like this:
    "The County Independence and School Safety Act of 2020"

    Please engage with me on this to see if this is something we could make work. Besides IP 8 which appears dead, I am not seeing a lot of suggestions for Offense laws here on NWFA. I am under no illusion that this type of law would be easy to pass but I guarantee it would get a huge amount of media attention. Even if it didn't pass if we got a good turn out at the polls it might help fire up the pro 2A crowd.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
    bbbass likes this.
  14. American123

    American123
    Federal Way
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    3,004
    When I first got into hunting I heard that from seasoned hunters, but after looking and looking for a specific statement by a governing agency that says that, in Washington state, I couldn’t find one. Maybe I was looking in the wrong places.

    I checked department of fish and game, and googled it multiple times. Couldn’t find anywhere saying hunting with a rifle was limited to a certain number of rounds, waterfowl and shotgun, sure, but not mammals and rifles.
     
  15. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,179
    You are correct about the hunting regs. What I was trying to explain in the example was that the hunter using a 30rnd mag is violating a state firearm law. My proposal is that we vote in a law that prohibits State agencies from enforcing firearm laws old or new. So in my example if the only law the hunter was violating was having a 30rnd mag then he would walk free.
     
  16. Flymph

    Flymph
    Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    6,721
    In Oregon it is written in the game reg book they give out. Don't know about washington.
     
  17. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,179
    It is the law in Oregon, you will find it in the hunting synopsis along with caliber restricitons
     
    Flymph likes this.
  18. Flymph

    Flymph
    Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    6,721
    Maybe go in with that expecting it to be a concession.
     
  19. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,179
    You said: "
    Concession to whom? I am proposing that this law be voted in on the Ballot using the Initiative Petition process. All we would need is a 1000 qualifying signatures maybe 1500-2000 to get a 1000 good ones and it will be off to the races. We would have plenty of time to get through the draft ballot title process and all that junk and still collect signatures for 2020 election.
     
  20. American123

    American123
    Federal Way
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    3,004
    Huh,

    I’ve heard of that concept from many seasons hunters in Washington, but when I invited them to show me the rule, they couldn’t.

    I’ve peered over the book for Washington regarding modern firearms and big game. Page 87-89 seems like it would be the place to have it, it only references minimum caliber requirement, nothing about magazine capacity except for waterfowl being limited to 3 shells in the shotgun.

    https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01984/wdfw01984.pdf
     

Share This Page