Lincoln County Oregon attacking landowners rights to shoot on private property. READ!

[Morpheus]

Thanks for the updates from people.

It seems that there are a facts which aren't being presented on either side. For example, it is interesting that the county commissioner stated they never requested a land use permit, yet I seem to remember that some of the articles claim they did.

So I'm a bit confused by all of this.

 

[pokerace]

I also heard from a gun instructor who is well known in LC, and do not have his permission to reprint the email he sent me on this issue, but he basically supported the story as told by Mr. Hall .

Personally, I support the OFF's position on private land rights that are not a genuine safety, nuisance issue for others. I haven't heard from the principles in this case and not sure why I would. I am just a concerned gun hobbyist and like to help if someone is truly being abused or picked on. I don't really know enough details not having heard all the arguments pro and con. If that makes a fence stradler, then so be it. Fairness, honesty and facts considered with common sense are needed to resolve this question .

My 2 cents folks.

May the right party win this hot button issue !

Have you ever seen or heard of a goverment using common sense..

 

[Morpheus]

Have you ever seen or heard of a goverment using common sense..

I think someone cut it out of the budget, it cost to much to maintain.

 

[retiredgal]

I think someone cut it out of the budget, it cost to much to maintain.

Uh oh...........you got me guys! LOL.. . Poor choice of words will haunt me I am sure? Have your guffaws, I deserve it!

 

[Morpheus]

Uh oh...........you got me guys! LOL.. . Poor choice of words will haunt me I am sure? Have your guffaws, I deserve it!

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll go back to my troll cage!

 

[Silky]

I also heard from a gun instructor who is well known in LC, and do not have his permission to reprint the email he sent me on this issue, but he basically supported the story as told by Mr. Hall .

Personally, I support the OFF's position on private land rights that are not a genuine safety, nuisance issue for others. I haven't heard from the principles in this case and not sure why I would. I am just a concerned gun hobbyist and like to help if someone is truly being abused or picked on. I don't really know enough details not having heard all the arguments pro and con. If that makes a fence stradler, then so be it. Fairness, honesty and facts considered with common sense are needed to resolve this question .

My 2 cents folks.

May the right party win this hot button issue !

well, I think with the post that I quoted a couple posts up originally posted by ncgreggory with the email reference in it, that that would prove that the Nuisance part isn't a issue Especially if they were shooting the whole time that they said "We have had a quiet summer with no audible shooting coming from Mr. Conrady's property." so that knocks one of the two of the issues off the table. Am i correct?

 

[fred c. dobbs]

1. All men are more easily inclined towards evil than good.
2. Preach Liberalism
3. Use the idea of freedom to bring about class wars
4. Any and all means should be used to reach the Illuminati Goals as they are justified.
5. The right to lie in force.
6. The power of our resources must remain invisible until the very moment it has gained the strength that no cunning or force can undermine it.
7. Avocation of mob psychology to control the masses.
8. Use alcohol, drugs, corruption and all forms of vice to systematically corrupt the youth of the nation.
9. Seize property by any means
10. Use of slogans such as equity, liberty, fraternity delivered into the mouths of the masses in psychological warfare
11. War should be directed so that the nations on both sides are placed further in debt and peace conferences conducted so that neither combatant obtains territory rights.
12. Members must use their wealth to have candidates chosen and placed in public office who will be obedient to their demands and will be used as pawns in the game by those behind the scenes. Their advisors will have been reared and trained from childhood to rule the affairs of the world.
13. Control the press.
14. Agents will come forward after fermenting traumatic situations and appear to be the saviors of the masses.
15. Create industrial depression and financial panic, unemployment, hunger, shortage of food and use this to control the masses or mob and then use the mob to wipe out all those who stand in the way.
16. Infiltrate into the secret Freemasons to use them for Illuminati purposes.
17. Expound the value of systematic deception, use high sounding slogans and phrases and advocate lavish promises to the masses even though they cannot be kept.
18. Detail plans for resolutions, discuss the art of street fighting which is necessary to bring the population into speedy subjection.
19. Use agents as advisors behind the scenes after wars and use secret diplomacy to gain control.
20. Establish huge monopolies that lean toward world government control.
21. Use high taxes and unfair competition to bring about economic ruin by control of raw materials. Organize agitation among the workers and subsidize their competitors.
22. Build up armaments with Police forces and Soldiers sufficient to protect our needs.
23. Members and leaders of the one world government would be appointed by the directors.
24. Infiltrate into all classes and levels of society and government for the purpose of fooling, bemusing and corrupting the youthful members of society by teaching them theories and principles that we know to be false.
25. National and International laws should be used to destroy civilization and enslave and control the people.

 

[darkminstrel]

7) ADvocate
14) FOmenting

One would think the Illuminatus would have a tighter grasp on the mores of linguistics in order to further their agenda.

The game they put out was fun, though!

 

[Silky]

Any more news on this?

 

[Stomper]

Any more news on this?

Yeah... Bueler?

 

[fred c. dobbs]

If you have not heard this, then you have heard nothin at all,Politicians Already Committed to Inflation-Catherine Austin Fitts - YouTube

 

[Sirmohawk]

Neighbors bubbleguming about you going out a couple times a week to pop off a few rounds is a lot different then you having a full time range on your property. I'm very pro-gun but I'd be a bit concerned if my neighbor decided to set up a range next door to me too. Is this really a "War on the shooting community of Oregon" as the original poster puts it. Or just neighbors upset because a range is being set up next door to them without licensing or zoning and being passed off as just some causual back yard shooting?

I don't think it's as cut and dry as it is made out to be.

I agree with this. I don't think any county in Oregon is saying you can't shoot on your land if all conditions are safe. I could be wrong though.
My folks have ten acres and it is bounded by a huge vertical hill, thats where we shoot and even the county sheriff says no problem.

I certainly would not want a range next to my house either. Neighbors popping off rounds that are safe is one thing but not a range.

Just saying...

 

[PARTLYCLOUDY]

the first case "conrady v Lincoln county" is awating a date in the appellate court. the second case "5 neighbors and county v conrady" has been stayed (postponed indefinatly) until the appellate court rules on the first case simply because the second case has to do with the same issue--- does a county have the right to regulate the discharge of firearms on private rural unincorperated property. or does ors 166.170--166.176 preempt countys from any type of regulatory action?

IF you read the documents the county is trying to stop any and all shooting on the conradys 120 acre property. This would set case precedent for the rest of the state.

 

[PARTLYCLOUDY]

Appeals court date has been set: June 6, 1:30pm.

 

[Morpheus]

Appeals court date has been set: June 6, 1:30pm.

Quick question, I'm reading through this but can't figure it out. Is the land owner having to appeal a lower court decision or is the plaintiff having to appeal the decision?

Is there a link to the preceding and appeals filing?

 

[PARTLYCLOUDY]

The circuit court ruled that the county could regulate "shooting ranges". Although the term "shooting range " is undefined by state ORS. Thus county is attempting to make their own definition of what a shooting range is. Example: put up a target on a tree or set up a can (on your own private rural property)and shoot at it and you have just created a shooting range that can be regulated by the county. OFF has been emailed the appeals briefs and responses. You can contact them or you can pm me and i can try and fwd them.

 

[PARTLYCLOUDY]

Quick question, I'm reading through this but can't figure it out. Is the land owner having to appeal a lower court decision or is the plaintiff having to appeal the decision?

Is there a link to the preceding and appeals filing?

Also just to clarify the conradys are the plaintiffs in this case. They elected to sue the county after almost a year of harassment from the county threatening enforcement action yet refusing to explain their rights, or come inspect their property to see no violation exists. Humorously one of the county commissioners stepsons is a friend of and regularly shoots with the conradys. So if they are in violation of any statute why would a commissioner knowingly allow a relative to break the law for 7+ years?

 

[Morpheus]

@Partlycloudy, nope that is exactly what I needed it answered the question I had regarding the case.

Thank you.

 

[USAF Medic]

The land owner should seek help from their ACLU.this is a civil rights case. That is what the ACLU does.

 

[Bealzybub]

ACLU stance as it applies here;

Gun Control Policy #47

The setting in which the Second Amendment was proposed and adopted demonstrates that the right to bear arms is a collective one, existing only in the collective population of each state for the purpose of maintaining an effective state militia. The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms. Nor does the ACLU believe that there is a significant civil liberties value apart from the Second Amendment in an individual right to own or use firearms. Interests of privacy and self- expression may be involved in any individual's choice of activities or possessions, but these interests are attenuated where the activity, or the object sought to be possessed, is inherently dangerous to others. With respect to firearms, the ACLU believes that this quality of dangerousness justifies legal regulation which substantially restricts the individual's interest in freedom of choice.