"Licensing" of Rights

[Botte Hork]

Some argue that increasing requirements to qualify for a firearms purchase will help keep guns out of the hands of non-US citizens.

I am a non-US citizen, licensed to conceal carry and legally able to purchase firearms. Is that an issue?

 

[Partsproduction]

In the 1920's people could (And did) buy fully automatic weapons without special notice, and no one went into crowded places like the Mall to shoot people randomly. Our society has lost it's moral base. When a people will not use it's freedoms with responsibility they will lose them.

We see that a very small minority can and will take the rights of the majority away. But I see no option beyond fighting for our constitutional rights. The second amendment says nothing about concealed weapons, so I believe it's correct to assume that citizens have a right to carry concealed.

Evil men presume to tell us what the constitution means, we are told that they can dribble the bill of rights out to us. That's a farce!

 

[DireWolf]

Simple progressives like to bend the rules to let illegals and dead people vote which apparently you don't care about that infringes on my right to a fair election.

You have proof of that? That argument has lost recently in court, and the Republican National Lawyers Association completed a study before the election showing that vote fraud is really a non issue. That would include double voting, illegal immigrants, and dead people. The argument that does have weight is that it disenfranchises the poor and minorities, and that's what recent courts findings also concluded, as I understand it.

A driver's license will do?

Are those free? If not - that arguably equated to a poll tax.

And if you respond, try it without the hyperbole.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

I am a non-US citizen, licensed to conceal carry and legally able to purchase firearms. Is that an issue?

OK now...I smell a trick question. By "non-US citizen" you mean.....

 

[oknow]

OK now...I smell a trick question. By "non-US citizen" you mean.....

exactly what he said.
how is it a trick question?

 

[DMax]

You have proof of that? That argument has lost recently in court, and the Republican National Lawyers Association completed a study before the election showing that vote fraud is really a non issue. That would include double voting, illegal immigrants, and dead people. The argument that does have weight is that it disenfranchises the poor and minorities, and that's what recent courts findings also concluded, as I understand it.

A driver's license will do?

Are those free? If not - that arguably equated to a poll tax.

And if you respond, try it without the hyperbole.

No proof and an activist judge does not count, just liberal progressive taking points that mean nothing other than to the low information voter.

"No one cheers more for a tyrant than the ones he enslaves"

 

[Botte Hork]

OK now...I smell a trick question. By "non-US citizen" you mean.....

Being not American. On the path to naturalization though (I-551 holder), but still not a US citizen.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

exactly what he said.
how is it a trick question?

Sorry, I guess that was kind of rude. I said that to find out if Botte Hork was aware that there are actually three kinds (forms) of citizenship in this country. This is another one of those things that we don't get to learn about in public schools. There are three legally-recognized meanings for "United States". See De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1; 21 S. Ct. 743; 45 L. Ed. 1041; 1901:

"In the Pinckney draft of the Constitution, evidently with a view to make clear one of the meanings of the term ‘United States' as used in the Constitution, appears the following: ‘The United States shall be forever considered as one body corporate in law, and entitled to all the rights and privileges which to bodies corporate do, or ought to, appertain.'

That it has, however, a third meaning, is also evident. It means not only the States united and the body corporate or governmental power which represents them, but it means -- and this is its ordinary meaning in the language of the day -- that whole portion of the earth's surface over which the flag of the United States flies in sovereign dominion.

It is clear, therefore, that we are not restricted to the meaning of the term as it appears in the Articles of Confederation."


It turns out that it's because of this that we have three forms of citizenship in this country. There is State Citizenship and two kinds of federal citizenship (territorial citizens and DC citizens). Each form of citizenship has its own specific brand of rights protection under the Constitution. But Congress is generally generous enough about giving and allowing rights for federal citizens that most people have the impression that the Constitution protects everyone the same way...but this is not true:

see Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244; 21 S. Ct. 770; 45 L. Ed. 1088; 1901

"There is a provision that ‘new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.' These words, of course, carry the Constitution with them, but nothing is said regarding the acquisition of new territories or the extension of the Constitution over them. The liberality of Congress in legislating the Constitution into all our contiguous territories has undoubtedly fostered the impression that it went there by its own force, but there is nothing in the Constitution itself, and little in the interpretation put upon it, to confirm that impression"


For State Citizens, Constitutional protection is automatic, because State Citizens and State Citizens alone were and are the lawfully recognized parties to the contract that we all call the Constitution. And the Constitution IS a contract. State Citizens sent their agents (delegates) to make sure that THEIR rights and interests were being secured and provided for in whatever emerged from the Constitutional convention. When the Constitution was ratified, there were no other kinds of citizens. But shortly after, DC was ceded to federal jurisdiction by Maryland and Virginia as the Constitution authorized at Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 17:

"Section 8. Powers of Congress. The Congress shall have Power ....
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings: And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This provision was put in place because the original Congress had no place of its own and was allowed to use State space to do its federal business. Well, some revolutionary soldiers got so pissed off about not getting paid that they stormed Congress and the State (Virginia or Maryland, don't recall which right now) was so unable to protect them from the mob that Congress members had to flee. The provision above was created to give the federal government the autonomy it needed to protect itself on its own ground.

By State cession of this land (DC), its State jurisdiction status ceased. DC came into existence under a federal jurisdiction that is exclusively and eternally federal. DC is unique for this reason because it is the only city that is literally a national city. This is why DC license plates have the words "taxation without representation" printed across the bottom. DC citizens do not vote for representatives. They are governed by laws passed by representatives from the States, i.e. Congress. Congress, under the language of "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" cited above, has Constitutional discretion to decide which rights DC citizens get and to what degree they get to enjoy them. This is why DC citizens are always groaning about having to suffer from laws that other citizens don't have to. See De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1; 21 S. Ct. 743; 45 L. Ed. 1041; 1901

"But whatever be the source of this power, its uninterrupted exercise by Congress for a century, and the repeated declarations of the court, have settled the law that the right to acquire territory involves the right to govern and dispose of it. Congress has full and complete legislative authority over the people of the territories and all the departments of the territorial governments. It may do for the territories what the people, under the Constitution of the United States, may do for the states. It is an authority which arises, not necessarily from the territorial clause of the Constitution, but from the necessities of the case, and from the inability of the states to act upon the subject. Under this power Congress may deal with territory acquired by treaty; may administer its government as it does that of the District of Columbia; it may organize a local territorial government; it may admit it as a state upon an equality with other States; it may sell its public lands to individual citizens or may donate them as homesteads to actual settlers. In short, when once acquired by treaty, it belongs to the United States, and is subject to disposition by Congress."

When territories get admitted into the Union, territorial (federal) citizens become State Citizens with full bloom protection of the Constitution. As referred to in the cite above, Congress can do the same things to territorial citizens, that it does to DC citizens. That power comes from a different provision of the Constitution: Art. 3, Para 2:

"Section 3. Admission and formation of new states; power of Congress as to United States territory or property.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Notice how the words above say "...shall have Power to..." This is where the case language above was coming from when they said "It may do for the territories...". Congress literally has the Constitutional discretion to treat federal citizens (territorial or DC) differently than they are allowed to with State Citizens.

Since the distinction of which legal identity one has as a "citizen" clearly decides what standing you have to exercise and demand your rights, it seems very clear that we need to be much more careful about calling ourselves a "citizen of the United States". THIS is why it might be important to make sure you know what lawful version of "United States" is being used when you are asked if you are a "citizen of the United States". For example, as I cited in post #12, regarding Oregon's general purpose definition of "United States":

"The definition of "United States" is found at ORS 174.100(9) cited below:
'174.100 Definitions. As used in the statute laws of this state, unless the context or a specially applicable definition requires otherwise:
(9) "United States" includes territories, outlying possessions and the District of Columbia.' "

Are you a citizen from one of these places?

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Being not American. On the path to naturalization though (I-551 holder), but still not a US citizen.

I'd be curious to see if you can find out what definition for "United States" is being used for the laws that deal with the I-551 form.

 

[Botte Hork]

I'd be curious to see if you can find out what definition for "United States" is being used for the laws that deal with the I-551 form.

Well, maybe they include the 51st and 52nd states (Canada & Mexico, all tongue in cheek of course) , but I don't think the Netherlands are part of it. I'm what in general consensus is known as a legal permanent resident alien.

I would assume the definition from the 14th amendment is followed (basically: Anybody born in the US or naturalized. I am neither).

In the firearms discussion, my biggest nuisance is the OR CHL legislation, which appears to say "no" to me. Sheriffs can waive the county residency requirement for 166.291 1(c), but not (explicitly at least) for 1(a)(B).

 

[DireWolf]

No proof and an activist judge does not count, just liberal progressive taking points that mean nothing other than to the low information voter.

"No one cheers more for a tyrant than the ones he enslaves"

Ah.

If a judge agress with you, he/she is a constitutionalist.

If they disagree with you, they are a progressive activist.

I see.

I need to reorganize my values so I can never be wrong, I guess.

 

[Misterbill]

Firearms rights are delightfully clear here in the PNW. If you think cops HERE are ignorant of the law, try living in states like Mass. where you are essentially a VIOLENT FELON if you possess so much as a BB gun. THOSE laws are vague. Ours, on the other hand are pretty clear unless you're a willing douche.

Look, other than in Spokane, I'm not aware of lawful CCW-holders being proned out and treated like felons for merely possessing a weapon. AT WORST, you may have it confiscated for the duration of an otherwise legal stop.

Police here in WA, EVEN Seattle, are rather well-known for leaving us the F alone. There are always going to be the jerks. Get used to it. You work with jerks, I used to work with jerks when I worked for someone else. Your local Pd is no better and no worse.

I've seen a real, consistent effort on the part of LE in this state to acquaint their officers with OC laws etc. That's a lot more than I've seen from most other states.

If you have an issue, then post the ENTIRETY of what happened. Like others have. If you're right, I'll back you to the hilt. If you're tying to make the cops out to be criminals because they obeyed currently existing, long standing case law, I'll call you out as a wanker.

But generally, our WA LE are outstanding on civilian carried arms. FAR better than they are in most of the country, even where that treatment is explicitly maintained by law.

 

[Misterbill]

I don't have a problem with a VALID system of identification of being a US citizen, being a pre-requisite for identifying CITIZEN rights, like RKBA. Other than that, any further qualification is inherently subjective.

TRUST me, you do NOT want MY STANDARDS to apply to voting rights. 1/4 or more of the people on this forum would fail MY test. This is the problem with ANY qualification for the franchise beyond citizenship. It's so subjective that there's no way to really quantify it. Lot's of plenty-bright people just fail tests. We KNOW this. Lot's of idiots can PASS tests, we know this too.

But if you're a citizen, you get to vote. And it doesn't matter what an illiterate jackass I happen to think you are. TRUST ME, you WANT it this way.

I feel the same way about gun rights.

Permit? WHAT?

Special permission for something that should be a an automatic "GIMME" under the constitution? You get a permit for building something that may hurt other people. You get a permit so you pay taxes. You don't get a "permit" for free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, even as a NON-citizen. WHY is it that as a CITIZEN, you are granted the right to Keep and Bear Arms only as PERMITTED?

Americans would never put up with this for one second if it applied to the right to write a letter to the editor or to vote. Why is it we allow this restriction on the fundamental right of self-defense?

 

[CounterOfBeans]

I don't know what everyone is so outraged at lic and fee for rights. After all did not 51% of American just vote for huge taxes and fees on a dem fake right of healthcare? Really your all worried about voter ID Please the way we are going thier is no voting required for a king and tyrant. Mute issue

"No one cheers more for a tyrant than the ones he enslaves"

If you could only put your first sentence and last sentence next to each other, you might be able to see the forest for the trees. If you haven't read my other posts yet, I would like to encourage you to do that (yeah, I know they're long'ish). Wichaka is an LEO who started the "The Direction of Law Enforcement" thread in the "Firearms Discussion" forum. He has been very helpful in providing insights he has gained during his 25 years on the force. Among those are that "knowledge is power" (post #130) and "some people don't know, what they don't know" (post #106). I'm not a uniformed authority figure who enjoys a ready-made audience on matters of the law, so maybe it's because of that that it's hard for you to see the points I'm making in my posts on this thread.

Your statement, "I don't know what everyone is so outraged at lic and fee for rights." is great input for me. It tells me how successful our public schools have been over the decades in destroying Citizens' capacity to see the forest for the trees when it comes to defending, or in your case apparently, even appreciating their "rights".

As noted above, "knowledge is power". I.e. "knowledge = power". If you don't have "knowledge", you don't have "power". If you don't have "power", you don't have "control". If you don't have "control", someone else does and they can control you. If someone controls you, you are defenseless. The slaves from the old south knew all about that, and one of the worst crimes they could commit, in the eyes of their masters, was to try learning how to read. Because why...."knowledge is power" and knowledge can spread.

When you went to high school, did you get a minimum of 5 years of a class time that was devoted to studying the US Constitution? Did you get any class time at all that was for studying the State Constitution and laws? My guess is that the answer is NO. Are you likely to fully appreciate something if your exposure to it is superficial? NO And in a society that is governed by "the rule of law", under the Constitution (the same society that holds us accountable to "ignorance of the law is no excuse"), isn't it odd that our public schools spend so little time on something as important as these subjects, but still find the time to teach us about the emerging role and importance of international thinking?

Here's the FACTS about our public schools in Oregon....FACTS that I didn't know about until a few years ago....FACTS that I'm guessing most Citizens still don't know about, including yourself. I am not trying to talk down to anyone here. I am just trying share information with my rights-loving community, so they can benefit from it and use it to make more informed decisions or build more informed perspectives. It is true that Oregon "...law..." does require a minimum of 5 years of "courses" that are for studying the Constitution, and the same requirement applies for "courses" on US History. See ORS 336.057:

"336.057 Courses in Constitution and history of United States. In all public schools courses of instruction shall be given in the Constitution of the United States and in the history of the United States. These courses shall:

(1) Begin not later than the opening of the eighth grade and shall continue in grades 9 through 12.

(2) Be required in all public universities listed in ORS 352.002, except the Oregon Health and Science University, and in all state and local institutions that provide education for patients or inmates to an extent to be determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. [Formerly 336.230; 1977 c.226 §1; 1999 c.1023 §1; 2011 c.637 §114]"


Regarding the State Constitution and laws, see ORS 336.067:


"336.067 Topics given special emphasis in instruction. (1) In public schools special emphasis shall be given to instruction in:

(a) Honesty, morality, courtesy, obedience to law, respect for the national flag, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oregon, respect for parents and the home, the dignity and necessity of honest labor and other lessons that tend to promote and develop an upright and desirable citizenry.

(b) Respect for all humans, regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, religion, age, sex or disability.

(c) Acknowledgment of the dignity and worth of individuals and groups and their participative roles in society.

(d) Humane treatment of animals.

(e) The effects of tobacco, alcohol, drugs and controlled substances upon the human system.

(2) The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall prepare an outline with suggestions that will best accomplish the purpose of this section, and shall incorporate the outline in the courses of study for all public schools. [Formerly 336.240; 1975 c.531 §1; 1979 c.744 §13; 1993 c.45 §75; 2005 c.209 §22]"



So if 336.067 literally requires "special emphasis" to be placed on instruction in subject areas that "promote and develop an upright and desirable citizenry", subject areas like the federal and State Constitutions and obedience to laws, then what does logic say about the fact that, in practice, our public schools come nowhere near these standards for the 336.057 federal Constitution studies and utterly fail the 336.067 standards with regard to the State Constitution and laws?

Pure logic says that since those who carry out education laws are presumed to be informed about and trained to properly carry them out according to legislative intent, then the fact that they aren't says that curriculum planners are in effect preventing or opposing the promotion and development of an upright and desirable citizenry. And when we look around us, the decline of our society bears the evidence of this influence by our public schools. People are afraid to think they can know what the law means. They constantly say things like "I'm not a lawyer", as if that's an excuse to not be curious about the law or to pre-emptively disqualify themselves from opening up a law book.


Willful disinterest in reading the law is willful contempt for your own interests. In a world, where the Constitution and the laws were a fundamental, prioritized part of core public education curriculum, this attitude could only be blamed on the one holding it. But in a world where decades of young impressionable minds have shared a common experience that places such a low priority on these subjects, is it any a wonder that so many of us find it so easy to flippantly dismiss the charging of "license" fees as a condition to enjoyment of a right? It's called social engineering and we would be fools to think our society is immune from the influence of people who have studied psychology and human behavior enough to know that they can use government to suit their own interests if they exploit our intellectual defenselessness by manipulating our emotions and biases and pride.



One of the things that a lot of conservative types like to rattle their sabers about these days is the encroachment of socialism and socialistic sympathies. That observation is commonplace, especially concerning the current "president". There is a 1976 Oregon case called Wilson v. Chancellor that dealt with Citizens in Molalla suing the school board for allowing a socialist to be invited as a guest speaker for a high school function. Based on Judge Burns' words below, in his opinion of Wilson v. Chancellor (418 F. Supp. 1358; 1976), it appears that his faith in the dutiful carrying out of ORS 336.057-067 by public schools was "ill-founded" and a little premature:


"And I do not malign the defendant board members. Their position is sensitive, at once both a challenge and an opportunity. They serve a community in which many persons equate Communism with violence, deception, and imperialism. Yet violence, deception and imperialism have occurred under many flags and in the name of many creeds....... It seems these same residents fear that young Molallans will become young Marxists and Maoists, virtually overnight. Because Oregon law, ORS 336.057-067, requires the schools to specially emphasize our form of government, respect for the flag, and obedience to our laws, this fear seems ill-founded. Moreover, today's high school students are surprisingly sophisticated, intelligent, and discerning. They are far from easy prey for even the most forcefully expressed, cogent, and persuasive words."

In his preceding words in the opinion, he said:

"Political subjects invariably will arise during the course of study required in Oregon schools by Oregon law. ORS 336.057 requires public and private schools to give instruction in the constitution of the United States for a minimum of five years. ORS 336.067 requires "special emphasis" on instruction in obedience to law, respect for the flag, and the federal and state constitutions, ans "other lessons which tend to promote and develop an upright and desirable citizenry"

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

"‎A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body."


― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

 

[DMax]

COB: If this is the law when did it stop being inforced? By who? Why no lawsuits to get it back started again? My only point about my post was its a matter of prioities how many battles can you fight when current law is not enforced for politcal reasons we have seen that many times in the last 4 years. What you say just proves that when you don't fix the big and important stuff you lose it and its very difficult to get it back as too much time is being spent on day to day firefights. So what do you propose to get it going again?. Just for the record I did not grow up in Oregon. I did grow up in WI and when I grew up we were taught lots of US History and the constitution.At that time WI was a Republican state. I started in the schools before the hippies were race rioting, hated America and at the time feminest movement was starting to be part of the dem narative.

 

[DireWolf]

.

More good stuff.

I appreciate the effort and thought you have been putting into this thread. Hopefully it spreads.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

"‎A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body."


― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Well played

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Hey DMax,

Sorry for taking a bit to get back. Been pre-occupied with building a garden for next spring & other projects. You've got some good questions & I'll get back to you soon as I can.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

COB: If this is the law when did it stop being inforced? By who? Why no lawsuits to get it back started again? My only point about my post was its a matter of prioities how many battles can you fight when current law is not enforced for politcal reasons we have seen that many times in the last 4 years. What you say just proves that when you don't fix the big and important stuff you lose it and its very difficult to get it back as too much time is being spent on day to day firefights. So what do you propose to get it going again?. Just for the record I did not grow up in Oregon. I did grow up in WI and when I grew up we were taught lots of US History and the constitution.At that time WI was a Republican state. I started in the schools before the hippies were race rioting, hated America and at the time feminest movement was starting to be part of the dem narative.

OK DMax, I'm back.

You asked: "If this is the law when did it stop being inforced? By who?"
First of all...there is no "if" about whether it's the law. If you go to the Oregon Revised Statutes website (Oregon Revised Statutes), you can click on the chapter 336 link and see it for yourself. As far as when it stopped being enforced and by whom....I don't know for sure. For me, this is still an unfinished research project. However, I did go to the Multnomah County Law Library and trace ORS 336.057 back to 1923. I have also contacted the lady who is the education specialist in charge of social sciences for Oregon's schools. My entire education is from Oregon's public schools and I know my experience (and that of my classmates from 1989) was nowhere near what 336.057 & 067 requires. So I asked this education specialist what laws govern the curriculum policies for Constitutional subject matter.

She told me that 329.045 is the law that is being used to set curriculum standards, which places no requirement on how much time is to be spent studying any particular subject. Only after my third email, pressing her for more specific information, did she volunteer her knowledge of 336.057, where she said:

"Oregon Revised Statute 336.057 Courses in Constitution and history of United States is another law that deals with civics instruction."

Elaborating on this she said in her fifth email:

"When Oregon adopted the standards-based system in 1997, the standards focused on what students should know and be able to do rather than on seat time or course name. I'm much more interested in students having a strong understanding of the Constitution and of history. If they can reach proficiency to the standards in less time than the traditional course, that's fine.
With the standards-based system, there's more focus on the "instruction" in "courses of instruction."

So in the first quote you see her saying that 336.057 "deals with civics", as if it doesn't have its own specific legislative intent to focus on the Constitution specifically. Then in the second quote, you see her explaining that it's fine with her to adhere to standards that dismiss the "seat time" requirements of 336.057 and that the curriculum focus being applied excludes the notion of "courses" that 336.057 mandates. Meanwhile, in my exchange with her, her emails talk very supportively about the virtues of Constitution literacy and she even has the following quote from JFK cited at the bottom of her contact information:

"Liberty without learning is always in peril; learning without liberty is always in vain." John F. Kennedy"

You asked: "Why no lawsuits to get it back started again?"
This issue needs to have political pressure ready to push it through. I know of only a small handful of people who are aware of what 336.057 & 067 says. In my opinion, that's not enough public awareness to force a correction of the inertia that is already behind the policies that are in place. Like most Citizens, 2nd Amendment fans don't even know it is an issue because they have never even heard of 336.057 & 067 and so I'm posting this information for gun rights advocates to see because I perceive them as being politically passionate and engaged on rights issues. We all know that "knowledge is power" and I hold out the hope that if they recognize the damage that is being caused to their society's ability to defend itself intellectually, by denying young impressionable minds of the opportunity to learn and assimilate Constitutional principles, that they will rally together to put a stop to the non-enforcement policies in public schools. Your words below seem to show your awareness of what I'm saying:

"What you say just proves that when you don't fix the big and important stuff you lose it and its very difficult to get it back as too much time is being spent on day to day firefights."

You asked: "So what do you propose to get it going again?"
You already saw some great support language from Wilson v. Chancellor in post #35, but there is also an Attorney General's opinion from 1980 that unambiguously corroborates what I'm saying about these Constitution education laws. These public records are fertile ammunition for whatever group of Citizens that decide to come together to call the curriculum planners to the carpet for their overt decisions to suppress the legislative intent of these laws.

The office of Superintendant of Public Education was recently vacated and the duties of that position have been taken over by the Governor of Oregon himself. It has been my experience that individuals who try to take causes like this up on their own have precious little hope of making timely progress with bureaucrats who can insulate themselves from accountability behind the public's general ignorance about the matter. So I would first recommend reaching out to family, friends, neighbors, etc to raise awareness of this issue and build enough of a support base to wield effective political pressure. This thread and other commentaries I am making on other threads is what I'm doing to plant the seeds for that support base. Once the base is confident in their prospects for making things happen, many things can be done to turn up the heat and force the correction that has been a long time coming.

Write letters en masse to the Governor and Legislators. Talk to Legislators and have them convene a hearing to begin a legislative inquiry into the non-enforcement policies. Because the existing policies amount to a suppression of the operation of the law, you can base a petition-for-redress campaign (Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Section 26) on Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Section 22, which states:

"Section 22. Suspension of operation of laws. The operation of the laws shall never be suspended, except by the Authority of the Legislative Assembly."

These are just a couple of ideas to look into. There are doubtlessly more than that.

Let me know if I can help.