01.28.16

As we  have told you, the Democrats are racing through the anti-gun bills as quickly as they can.

The two worst gun grabbing bills have already been scheduled for hearings in the first days of the session. These are some of the most dangerous bills ever introduced.

SB 1551, Prozanski's Soviet style, secret accusation bill is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb 3 at 8am in Hearing Room 343 in the Capitol.

Under this bill a person with no mental health credentials, who may have never even met you, can take away your  right to acquire a firearm with an anonymous call to the State Police. You are not informed your rights are gone, you are not allowed to know who made the accusation and you are not allowed to know how long your rights are suspended.

You have no true, practical way to have your rights restored and your accuser can renew their accusations against you as often as they want.

This committee is controlled by Floyd Prozanski, the person responsible for the bill. Contact info for members of the committee can be found here.

On the House side, HB 4147 will be heard in the House Judiciary Committee on Feb 4 at  3pm in Hearing Room 343 at the Capitol.

This bill prohibits transfer of a firearm without the approval of the Oregon State Police, removing the only safeguard against errors made by the OSP during background checks.
Currently a dealer may transfer a firearm to a buyer after three days if the State Police issue a delay. This bill will prohibit that and allow the OSP to delay you literally forever.

The background check system is a total failure. We recently learned of a buyer who was approved for a gun transfer in January while still being delayed for a gun he tried to buy last November. Qualified people are routinely delayed or denied with no cause as a result of the OSP's faulty system.  This bill will eliminate the one small safeguard they have.

We cannot stress enough how dangerous these bills are. After the passage of SB 941 the Democrats are now trying to screw down the vise on gun owners and only you can stop them.

The fact that HB 4147 is being heard in the House Judiciary Committee is especially alarming since the chair of that committee has always been pro-gun and chairs usually do not schedule bills they don't plan to vote for.

Contact info for the House Judiciary Committee can be found here. Please call or email the members of both these committees as many times as you can.

Tell the Senate Judiciary Committee "NO on SB 1551" and the House Judiciary Committee "NO on HB 4147" or use our automailer to send a pre-written message to any or all legislators.

Act now, they are ramrodding these liberty smashing bills through to limit public input. Please make your voice heard today.

For updates and changes on committee schedules use this link.

 You can support Oregon Firearms Federation and help us battle for your rights here.  If you are not already a member, a donation of any amount will make you one. Thank you.

Thanks Coos Bay councilmember Daily for your 16 December guest Editorial.  This Coos Bay citizen was not disappointed when reading that you and former councilor Muenchrath are demanding greater transparency by the Bay Area Hospital Board.
 
Councilor Daily, if you accept the challenge, this is your next battle for transparency; this time by the organization of which you are a part. 
 
During early 2014, then Coos Bay councilor Muenchrath requested a legal opinion of the proposed South Coast Community Foundation (SCCF) concept from the city of Coos Bay legal counsel (lawyer).  The mayor or city manager may sign the employment contract but the lawyer is employed by and paid by the citizens of Coos Bay; not employed by or paid individually by the city manager, mayor, or any councilmember.  This is the proposed SCCF (inclusive of Community Enhancement Plan) being pushed by county commissioner Sweet where we tax paying citizens will lose all control of what will be significant tax monies to a small group of unelected people who do not report to the citizens.  This is the proposed CEP that many of us believe is good for Veresen / JCEP but will yield significantly fewer dollars to the people as fees in lieu of taxes.  We’re talking control of potentially hundreds of millions of the people’s money here.  Much has changed in the past two years; and, at a minimum, before this CEP is next endorsed by any local professional politician, it’s time for the county assessor to go before the people and assure us that fees received and distributed to the people will be not one dollar less than the money to be received as tax during the next 20 years.
 
Councilor Muenchrath received that requested (written) legal opinion – acknowledged by the city manager to be on file with the city.  Rumor circulated that the legal opinion did not support the SCCF.  In writing, Dr. Muenchrath stated that he has no objection to the document being released to the public.  During June 2014, with assistance from the county DA, a copy of the lawyer’s opinion was requested to be released to the public.  This request was rejected by the city manager.  It’s the people’s document, paid for with the people’s money.  In your editorial words Councilor Daily, “What do you (council members) have to hide?”  Please release the document in its entirety (currently relevant or not) now.
 
Fred Kirby
Coos Bay

Related Posts:
Coos Bay School District Contract w/Superintendent Dawn Granger March 2014
LTE ~ Coos Bay School Board Ignoring Parents & Students
LTE ~ Leshley Still Uninformed
BOC ~ County Dog Board, Prisoner Release, Public Meeting for October 13, 14, & 15
Board of Commissioners Op-Ed for Measure 6-152 Transient Occupancy Tax
Coos Bay Alternative Location for Waste Water Treatment Plant Oct. 6, 2015
Bandon Cheese Factory Receives Private Financing & Still Pays No Property Taxes
LTE ~ Leshley Don't Know Dick About the JCEP Work Camp
Jody McCaffree Appeals LNG Road Construction Coos County Planning Oct. 9, 2015
Do Enterprise Zones Work? ~ An Ideopolis Policy Paper February 2011
Educational Enterprise Zone Workshop Roseburg OR Thursday, September 17, 2015
Coos County Planning Decisions on LNG & Effected Roads
LTE ~ CEP appears to be great for Canadian Veresen / JCEP
LTE ~ LNG Pipeline Man and His Bag of Money  
LTE ~ Should We Be Worried Dealing with Veresen and the LNG
LTE~ A Package of Rancor for Coos County Commissioner John Sweet

Hey Patriots,
 
Last month, the city of Bandon enacted the following proclamation to declare December 7, as Washed Ashore Day. 
 
What was the Mayor thinking?
 
The Day of Infamy is now Trash Art Day.  Washed Ashore supports designating half the pacific as a National Marine Sanctuary and this “nonprofit” received money in the form of a grant from NOAA.
 
Way to go, maybe on Veterans Day the city council can proclaim it Bandon Marsh Mosquito Day.   It seems fitting since the Mayor conspirers with The USFWS.     
 
The Mayor and Councilors are selling heritage to purchase the support of special interest, again…..Rob T.  

The following is the Mayor’s reply. 

Related Posts:
TNC Benefits from States Loss & $450 Million More from Taxpayers for LWCF
Bandon Cheese Factory Receives Private Financing & Still Pays No Property Taxes
Lottery Proceeds Spent on Eco/Devo Voo Doo Instead of Schools 
LTE ~ LNG Pipeline Man and His Bag of Money  
BOC ~ Releases Coos County Strategic Plan
Sweet admits that community service fess are derivatives of tax dollars ‏
Port Orford Joining the Religion of Eco/Devo with Sacrifice to Enterprise Zone in 2015
BOC ~ Coos County Joining the Tri-county Consortium December 16, 2014
MGX---CEP/SCCF will Impact ALL of Oregon
Letter to Editor---SCCF Should pay for Coos Bay Sewer Upgrades 
Letter to Editor---Promises in the Dark with the Jordan Cove Project

01.15.16

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee formally introduced Floyd Prozanski's LC 250 which we told you about earlier this week. The bill was introduced as a "Committee Bill" which means Prozanski won't have his name on it.

As you know, this bill will allow totally unqualified people to make anonymous accusations against others and claim those people are experiencing "mental health emergencies."  

These accusations will not be investigated, the accused will not know the accusation has been made unless they try to buy a gun nor will they be allowed to know who their accuser is or how long their rights will be suspended.

If they choose to challenge the accusations, they assume the full burden of proving they are not guilty and all of the expense.

The Committee approved the bill on a 1 to three vote. All Democrats voted yes, Senator Thatcher voted no and Senator Jeff Kruse was recovering from surgery and was not present.
 
The Democrats are:

Floyd Prozanski [email protected]
Sara Gelser  [email protected] 
Diane Rosenbaum [email protected]

The Republican who voted to protect your rights is:

Senator Kim Thatcher [email protected]  

Today's vote was not a vote to pass the bill out of committee. It was to formally introduce the draft as a bill.  The next step will be actual hearings on the bill during the coming session in February.

We will continue to monitor this legislation as it moves through the system. Be prepared to take action and contact your legislators who can be found here.

You can support Oregon Firearms Federation and help us battle for your rights here.  If you are not already a member, a donation of any amount will make you one. Thank you.

Related Posts:
OFF ~ Update On The Most Dangerous Gun Bill Ever
Senator Whitsett Explains ~ Second Amendment & Due Process Rights Under Attack
Jury Nullification, or Jury Discretion and The Second Amendment
Former North Bend Resident's Positive Response to Second Amendment Ordinance
Coosville Chooses to Preserve the Second While Rejecting Another Tax
Media Reports on Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance Measures 6-151
OFF ~ Stop the EMERGENCY (clause) ‏~ Sign the Petition ~ Defend the People's Right
The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance Wins the Election in Coos County
Cease Oregon Gun-Control Nazi’s Call County Voters Fringe Wing of Gun Lobby
LTE ~ VOTE YES on 2A Preservation Ordinance
OFF ~ OR Legislature Possible New Laws & COURT RULES on GUN BAN
ACTION ALERT ~ Coos County Vote YES ON measure 6-151 ~ November 3, 2015
Senate Republican Responds to Questions About Preventing Firearm Tragedies
Resistance to 941 Grows ‏Especially Here in Coos County ~ Time to Rally
Coos County Second Amendment Rally Friday August 28, 2015 5 pm to 7 pm 
VOTE YES!!! ~ Measure 6-151 The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance
LTE ~ The Second Amendment Preservation Petition Submitted to County Clerk
Download The John Sweet Recall Flyer & The Second Amendment Preservation Flyer
Cribbins & Sweet Snub Second Amendment Supporters Again
History of the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance

01.14.16

The Soviet style, false accusation bill we told you about Tuesday has been updated.  Clearly this draft is being "worked" and almost surely will be introduced in February. A copy of the latest version can be seen here.

We have been reliably informed this is actually Floyd Prozanski's bill, although Ginny Burdick had previously announced her intention to introduce legislation of this type.

As we told you Tuesday, this bill would allow a laundry list of unqualified people to make a secret report and accuse you of "experiencing a mental health emergency" at which point you lose your right to purchase a firearm.  You would not be told this report was filed against you, you would not know who filed it or when it expires.

A few changes were made from the version we shared with you Tuesday.  

First, they have changed the definition of one class of "reporters" from "family members" to "immediate family members." The bill also now has vague language about a misdemeanor penalty for "knowingly" making a false report . The worst a person faces for stealing your rights and your good name is a misdemeanor.

They have also added a standard duration for the hold that would be placed on you. Under this second draft, your rights would be stripped from you with no due process for 30 days.  Nothing in this draft would prevent your accuser from simply requesting another hold after 30 days.

Included in the list of people who can make a secret accusation against you are school personnel who have "had direct contact with you." It does not say "recent" direct contact. They could have had "direct contact " with you ten years ago.

It also allows any any doctor, "health care provider" or "licensed mental health professional" to make a secret accusation against you. As with family members, those "reporters" are not required to have direct contact with you.  So, for example, a person like Senator Elizabeth Hayward, who is a doctor but also openly admits to having severe mental health issues, could initiate a secret report against anyone she wanted even if she did not know him.

Imagine coming to the Capitol to testify against an anti-gun bill like this. Hayward, who has been a vocal, anti-gun extremist, could pick up the phone or simply go online, report that you are experiencing a "mental health emergency" and, without your knowledge or a right to face your accuser, your rights evaporate.

If you find out that this has happened to you because you attempt to buy a gun and are denied, it's up to you to prove you are not a danger to yourself or others. You would either have to find a "health care provider"  who would provide "documentation" that you are not a danger, or you would have to go to court, at your expense, and "demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence" that you are not a danger to yourself or others. Good luck with that.

This new version comes the same day we have received the latest statistics from the Oregon State Police on background check denials. (Keep in mind, the OSP does not make public information on their, far more common, delays.)  Once again their own statistics prove what a farce this system is. In December of 2015 OSP denied 226 attempted transfers.

Of those, OSP claims that 174 were denied because the buyer was a felon.
11 were denied for "mental health" reasons.
24 people were denied because the OSP claims the gun in question was stolen and 17 people were actually wanted by the police at the time of the attempted purchase.

The number of arrests made? A grand total of ...zero.

So according to the OSP, 191 people who were felons or wanted by the police were trying to buy guns, and exactly none were arrested.

Clearly adding this new category of "prohibited" persons will only increase the complexity and failure rate of this monstrous system.

If you don't know who your local reps are, now is the time to find out. You can find their contact info here.

Call or email them and tell them you expect them to do everything in their power to stop this outrageous attack on your privacy and liberty from even getting a hearing.

You can support Oregon Firearms Federation and help us battle for your rights here.  If you are not already a member, a donation of any amount will make you one. Thank you.

Related Posts:
Senator Whitsett Explains ~ Second Amendment & Due Process Rights Under Attack
Jury Nullification, or Jury Discretion and The Second Amendment
Former North Bend Resident's Positive Response to Second Amendment Ordinance
Coosville Chooses to Preserve the Second While Rejecting Another Tax
Media Reports on Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance Measures 6-151
OFF ~ Stop the EMERGENCY (clause) ‏~ Sign the Petition ~ Defend the People's Right
The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance Wins the Election in Coos County
Cease Oregon Gun-Control Nazi’s Call County Voters Fringe Wing of Gun Lobby
LTE ~ VOTE YES on 2A Preservation Ordinance
OFF ~ OR Legislature Possible New Laws & COURT RULES on GUN BAN
ACTION ALERT ~ Coos County Vote YES ON measure 6-151 ~ November 3, 2015
Senate Republican Responds to Questions About Preventing Firearm Tragedies
Resistance to 941 Grows ‏Especially Here in Coos County ~ Time to Rally
Coos County Second Amendment Rally Friday August 28, 2015 5 pm to 7 pm 
VOTE YES!!! ~ Measure 6-151 The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance
LTE ~ The Second Amendment Preservation Petition Submitted to County Clerk
Download The John Sweet Recall Flyer & The Second Amendment Preservation Flyer
Cribbins & Sweet Snub Second Amendment Supporters Again
History of the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance

Once again, Oregon’s Democratic leadership is planning a further attack on our Second Amendment rights to own and bear firearms.

Legislative Concept 250 (LC 250) is scheduled to be introduced as a Judiciary Committee bill this week. It is nothing less than a major gun control act camouflaged as relating to mental health reporting. Moreover, as currently written, the proposal may violate other provisions of our Bill of Rights.

LC 250 would automatically prohibit the purchase of a firearm by any person who has been reported to the Oregon State Police (OSP) Firearms Unit as experiencing a mental health emergency and posing a danger to themselves or others with a firearm. The automatic prohibition would be in force for 30 days from the time the report is made.

The LC Draft requires the Firearm Unit to establish a telephone number or website where the report may be made. Those authorized to make such a report to the Firearms Unit include physicians, health care providers, licensed mental health professionals, K-12 educators and principals, college and university administrators, professors and instructors, the person’s employer or any member of the person’s family.

OSP’s Firearms Unit would be prohibited from disclosing the identity of the reporter and the reporter would be immune from all civil liability as long as the report is made in good faith. Knowingly making a false report would be a Class A misdemeanor.

The firearm Unit is also prohibited from notifying the person that his or her ability to purchase a firearm is “on hold.” The only way for the person to discover he or she is prohibited from purchasing a firearm would be to attempt to purchase a firearm.

The LC Draft offers the person two methods of being granted relief from the firearm purchase prohibition.
Documentation from a health care provider may be obtained and offered as proof that the person is not a danger to themselves or others. The Firearms Unit is required to lift the firearm prohibition upon receipt to that documentation. The potential liability to the health care provider who makes such a determination is not addressed in the LC Draft.

Alternatively, the person may file a petition for relief from the firearm purchase prohibition in circuit court upon payment of the appropriate filing fee. A copy of that petition must also be served upon the Firearms Unit.

The Circuit Court must schedule a hearing for the petition within five judicial days. The person is required to prove to the court by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is not a danger to themselves or others. The judge will decide whether the relief from firearm prohibition shall be granted.

The LC Draft appears to be silent on how a second or subsequent report alleging danger to themselves or others would be processed. It appears that the same or another authorized reporter would be able to simply file another report with the Firearms Unit even if a medical care provider or a judge determined that a previous report was without merit.

LC 250 has an emergency clause that will prohibit any opportunity for it to be referred by the voters to decide.
Both our state and federal constitutions require the prosecution to prove guilt or culpability in a court of law before sanctions or reduction of rights may be carried. As it is currently written, this proposed bill appears to require a person accused of being a danger to themselves or others to prove they are not guilty. While that level of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt, the clear and convincing level of proof required is certainly more difficult to achieve than the preponderance of evidence required in most civil procedures.

Further, LC 250 appears to prohibit the person from access to virtually any remedy to the significant harm caused to them by the implementation of the proposed law. They would even be prohibited by the law from being allowed to face their accuser.

Oregonians’ Second Amendment rights were deliberately targeted during the 2015 session with the passage of Senate Bill 941. This was allegedly done, at least partially, at the behest of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his affiliates after they provided some of the resources to fund anti-gun bills and their supporters’ campaigns.

All indications are that Oregon Democrats will continue to do the bidding of out-of-state billionaires, regardless of how it may infringe upon citizens’ Constitutional rights. Oregonians would be wise to oppose this proposal, and remember all of this come November.

Please remember--if we do not stand up for rural Oregon, no one will.

Best Regards,
Doug
Senate District 28
Email: [email protected] I Phone: 503-986-1728
Address: 900 Court St NE, S-311, Salem, OR 97301
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/whitsett

BIG NEWS 

The Supreme Court in the case of Hurst v. Florida. 

By a 7-1-1 vote-in fact, even overruling two of its own prior rulings-the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the jury as the sole fact-finding authority in capital sentencing.

Specifically, the Court found that the Florida capital sentencing scheme, in which the judge is the one whose job is "to make the critical findings necessary to impose the death penalty", violates the Sixth Amendment, in light of its own ruling in Ring v. Arizona (2002) requiring that the jury find the aggravating factors if the death penalty is to be imposed. 

Ring, in turn, traces back to the case of Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000). In Apprendi, the Court ruled that the penalty for a crime could not be extended beyond the statutory maximum due to the findings of a judge based on a preponderance of evidence, but instead could only be based on the findings of a jury meeting the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Ring was the application of the Apprendi ruling to capital cases.

Florida seems to have tried to carve out an exception for itself to Ring by arguing that the jury plays an advisory role in sentencing. However, the Court noted in its majority opinion that, 
"In arguing that the jury's recommendation necessarily included an aggravating circumstance finding, Florida fails to appreciate the judge's central and singular role under Florida law, which makes the court's findings necessary to impose death and makes the jury's function advisory only. The State cannot now treat the jury's advisory recommendation as the necessary factual finding required by Ring."

In addition to Florida, two other states have a judicial override provision in place that allows a judge to unilaterally impose the death penalty against the jury's recommendation of a life without parole sentence: Delaware and Alabama. According to the Equal Justice Initiative, "Of the 33 states with the death penalty, Alabama is the only jurisdiction where judges routinely override jury verdicts of life to impose capital punishment. Since 1976, Alabama judges have overridden jury verdicts 111 times. Although judges have authority to override life or death verdicts, in 91 percent of overrides elected judges have overruled jury verdicts of life to impose the death penalty."

I am currently consulting with legal experts to better understand what, if any, implications Hurst holds for judicial override in Delaware and Alabama, in addition to Florida.

It is absolutely unconscionable that in the most serious of all legal cases-those in which the state claims the right to purposely put people to death-government can not only usurp the jury's traditional, legal function in judging the law, but also jurors' well-established and uncontroversial role as the fact-finders in the case. If the jury are neither to judge the law nor the facts, then the next step is the elimination of the jury altogether.

Many jury issues with respect to capital cases still need to be addressed including non-unanimous votes in capital sentencing, the unjust effects of death qualification of jurors during voir dire, and so on. But the Hurst ruling upholding the jury as the final arbiter of facts in capital sentencing is greatly encouraging that the endangered species that is the jury can be brought back from the brink of extinction. 

Together, let us continue our work with a solid hope that the protective role of the jury in safeguarding human rights and liberty can be more fully restored in our legal system.

For Liberty, Justice, and Peace in Our Lifetimes,
Kirsten C. Tynan

Related Posts:
Jury Nullification, or Jury Discretion and The Second Amendment
SCOTUS---Supremes Refused to Hear Legal Challenges to the NDAA 
SCOTUS---Police Must Get a Warrant to Search Information on a Cellphone, Right ON 
OFF---Supreme Court Rules Against the Transfer of Guns Between Approved Buyers
OFF---Supreme Court to Hear "Straw Purchase" Case
SCOTUS---Court Takes up case of Fired Air Marshal for whistle-blowing 
SCOTUS---Court Vacates Police Immunity Ruling
7th Circuit Court Rules Against Gun Activist Using Precedence Set in the Drug War 
OR Supreme Court---LOC Celebrates the Fact the Property Owners lose more rights
SCOTUS---Is it a fish or an incriminating document? 
Former North Bend Resident's Positive Response to Second Amendment Ordinance
Coosville Chooses to Preserve the Second While Rejecting Another Tax
Media Reports on Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance Measures 6-151
OFF ~ Stop the EMERGENCY (clause) ‏~ Sign the Petition ~ Defend the People's Right
The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance Wins the Election in Coos County

We frequently hear the proposition that in the line of defense of our liberties, first is the ballot box, then the soap box, then the jury box, and finally, failing all else, the cartridge box.

The latter two really are the enforcement mechanisms for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

An informed jury can and should be the means by which the right to freedom of speech is defended, as in the case of John Peter Zenger. An informed jury could protect against improper search and seizure, secure free exercise of religion, the right peaceably to assemble, and freedom from excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. Trial by jury also protects all those rights not specifically enumerated, but covered by the Ninth Amendment.

An informed jury can also act to secure the right to keep and bear arms, by protecting citizens against prosecutions which would deny that right. I have read where there are something like 20,000 gun control laws on the books, all or nearly all of which are arguably unconstitutional.

In many jurisdictions peaceful citizens who use firearms to defend themselves against armed robbery, home invasions, carjackings or rape are prosecuted for violating local or state gun control laws. In some cases they are expected to run away or otherwise not resist, even in their own homes. Clearly these prosecutions are ripe for the conscientious application of jury nullification by fully informed jurors.

In other cases, gun owners face prosecution for owning various kinds of prohibited, politically incorrect (yet certainly constitutionally protected) firearms, even without having used them in self defense. People carrying firearms for protection run afoul of various laws, and gun owners in some locations are prosecuted for failing to register their guns.

Business people licensed as Federal Firearms License dealers are subject to constant harassment, trumped-up charges, and prosecution for minor technical violations of arcane and unconstitutional firearms laws and regulations. If jurors believe that these laws are unconstitutional, if they believe these laws clearly conflict with the Second Amendment, they have the power to choose to acquit the defendant, and in so doing, defend the Constitution itself.
In the course of the ATF’s attack on the Branch Davidian church at Waco , four agents were shot and killed. The jury, in a case that FIJA was involved in, found the defendants “not guilty” of murder on the grounds of self-defense. (The jurors did convict the defendants on what they thought were minor charges, thinking the sentence would be minimal, but Judge Walter Smith imposed the maximum, and several are still in prison. The jury forewoman tried to get the sentences reduced.)

In another outrageous showcase of federal power run amok, the attack by federal marshals on the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge in Idaho, which resulted in the deaths of Sammy Weaver and Vicky Weaver. Kevin Harris was charged with murder and several other federal felony counts for the death of a federal agent. A jury found him not guilty on all counts. Randy Weaver was charged with eight federal felony counts, and the jury found him not guilty on all counts. He was acquitted on the charge which involved a sawed-off shotgun, which had been the whole point of the fiasco in the first place. Weaver was found guilty of failing to appear in court and of violating his bail conditions.

A literature search turned up a few recent cases in which a prosecutor saw fit to charge a gun owner with murder or something similar, but the jury saw it as self defense. An article from the Fort Wayne, Indiana, News-Sentinel on April 17, 2003 reported that Shane Douglas shotgunned an assailant who had threatened to shoot him for supposedly ‘messin’ with his girlfriend. There was local controversy over the fact that the circumstances were not clear cut—and Douglas was white and the deceased was black and it was an all-white jury, but the News-Sentinel pointed out that the previous week, another largely white jury acquitted a black defendant of aggravated battery and manslaughter of a white man.

In another case the Delaware News Journal on April 26, reported that a Wilmington man was acquitted by a jury of murder, attempted murder and two weapons charges in the shooting death of his downstairs neighbor. He had claimed self defense because the neighbor and his girlfriend had lunged at him and he felt threatened.
And finally, according to Yahoo News on March 21, a Texas jury acquitted a man whose assailant threatened to “carve up his face” because he resembled a member of the band ‘N Sync. Richard Brown shot Eric Acosta because he feared Acosta had a knife when he made the threat. Great reason to threaten to cut someone—Acosta sounds like a candidate for the Darwin Awards.

Repeated failure of juries to convict under controversial and arguably unconstitutional laws sends a powerful message to the legislature and to the executive branch that the law is not being supported by the community. Acquittals and hung juries are expensive and politically embarrassing to the prosecutor, legislature, executive, and most judges (who are very often not as neutral and impartial as the myth would have us believe). Never underestimate the effect acquittals have on the system. Jury nullification is the most effective and potent power the citizenry has within the political and legal system, extending even to the level of the individual juror.

Of course, if a prospective juror gets removed during jury selection, that juror is never going to be able to vote according to conscience, and will be unable to provide the defendant with the kind of protection envisioned in the right to trial by jury. It is a mistake to imagine that by mentioning jury nullification in the process of getting yourself kicked out of the jury pool, you are doing much good. Recognizing that the present broad latitude allowed the prosecutor and other lawyers during voir dire is most certainly an invasion of a person’s privacy, you may not have much choice if they pin you down, but try to avoid volunteering information of any kind. It’s none of their business. In any case, what you say is up to you and your conscience.

Be alert for any suggestion of the possibility of reasonable doubt, and cling to it tenaciously once in deliberations. It is very, very difficult for them to prosecute a juror for being less than forthcoming during jury selection, but they might be able to kick you off the jury in some jurisdictions, unless you discuss reasonable doubts concerning the evidence, witnesses, or police tactics. If you do that, then you can also discuss the power of the jury to vote its conscience. It helps if you are not alone in your opposition to a conviction.

It is up to local FIJA volunteers and/or gun owners groups to spread the word in local media regarding the power of the jury, and to work with the defense in discussing effective trial strategies.

Several years ago, an imperial judge in California announced, with regard to FIJA’s work, “This is rebellion!” Ah, the pretensions of power. Talk about thin skin! If jurors exercising their traditional, constitutional right to vote their conscience constitutes rebellion, we should ask how preferable is it to defend the Second Amendment peacefully, without resorting to the necessity of invoking the Second itself in defense of the right to keep and bear arms?

Criminal history box, banned
A landmark new law carried by Democrats last session will prevent most businesses from asking job applicants whether they’ve been convicted of a crime. Businesses can consider criminal history later in the hiring process. Supporters said the new law allows applicants who may have a criminal record to explain their situation to potential future employers.

The movement, which was spearheaded by unions and civil rights groups in Oregon and elsewhere, was dubbed “Ban the Box” because applications had previously included a question about criminal history that will no longer be allowed for many positions.

Paid sick leave

Oregon became the fourth state in the country to require employers to provide their workers with sick leave. For businesses with 10 or more employees, the leave must be paid. Smaller businesses must allow workers to accrue unpaid leave. Opponents, including all Republicans and some moderate Democrats in the Legislature, argued the bill would harm small businesses and farmers who employ seasonal workers who will be eligible for leave under the new law.

Clean Fuels

While the state is going to delay enforcing penalties against companies that don’t comply with a new fuel-blending and carbon credit-trading program laid out in state law for several years, companies will still have to change their fuel blend or buy credits to offset emissions starting January 2016.

The program, dubbed Clean Fuels because it seeks to encourage development of biofuels and other alternative fuel, aims to prevent 7.7 million tons of carbon from being emitted over the coming decade, a cut of a few percentage points of normal transportation emissions based on estimates using figures from the Environmental Protection Agency. The Department of Environmental Quality couldn’t provide an estimate on the percentage of emissions cut through the program.

Oil companies opposed the law and have promised to give voters a chance to repeal or replace it during the November 2016 election.

How much do you make?

Oregonians will be able to ask co-workers how much they make without fear of retribution from their employers under House Bill 2007, which passed last session. Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian pitched the new law as one way to root out underlying causes of pay inequity in Oregon. The law protects employees who ask their employers about wages as well.

Lottery winners and back taxes

Come Jan. 1, the state’s lottery system will check state social service databases before paying out winners $600 and above. The new law requires the Oregon Lottery to make sure big winners aren’t cashing in if they owe money for overpayments of public and medical assistance or food stamps.

Any winner who owes the state money through those programs will have the money deducted from his winnings. If he owes more than he wins, the state garnishes the entire amount. The lottery already garnished winnings for child support.

DUII booking

The new year brings a slightly tougher law against driving under the influence in Oregon. A law created by Senate Bill 387 seeks to ensure anyone charged with a DUII is actually taken to jail for booking. The law’s supporters said police at times cite offenders but don’t book them.

Multnomah County Circuit Judge Edward Jones argued courts should ensure everyone is booked, saying the onus is on the state and courts to collect data and work toward eliminating DUII recidivism. So starting today, anyone charged with driving under the influence will be booked even if he is a first-time offender headed to a diversion course.
Animal researchers

The Oregon Health & Science University successfully got lawmakers to permanently shield information on employees who conduct research on animals other than rodents. The public records exemption, which was already in place but was set to expire, is one of hundreds that shield public information from view and one of several the Legislature added last session.