Hello Everyone,
The special elections are very important for local decisions.  There is going to be millions of dollars going through the school districts especially concerning the Community Enhancement Plan and it would be nice to have a few fiscal conservatives on these boards.  Please consider running for office in the special districts election of Coos County....Rob T.

​Soon the state legislature will be in session, and every person who owns a firearm will be in the sights of its members because they are beaming with new ideas in ways to disarm the citizens of Oregon. 
 
In 2015, the voters of Coos County overwhelmingly enacted the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance, which made national news and brought a great deal of attention to the issue. 
 
Since then eighteen other counties in OR had Chief Petitioners file a SAPO as an initiative in their county, and these people deserve gratitude for allowing themselves to become vulnerable to public scrutiny and taking on this controversial challenge.  It is not an easy job to approach your fellow citizen and ask them for their information.  
 
The county clerk for five of those Oregon counties rejected the SAPO initiative for circulation, two counties have those petitions still circulating, and the majority of voters in eight of those counties enacted the SAPO initiative in this past election. 
 
Unfortunately, the voters of two Oregon counties rejected the SAPO on the ballot essentially rejecting their own Second Amendment rights.  A citizen in another county decided to challenge the law in court, and they won the case against the ordinance.   
 
The challenge will not affect the enforcement of the SAPO in other counties. 
 
As a way to counter any future court cases, The Committee to Preserve the Second Amendment has drafted a new measure the Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance.  Our attorneys believe it to be a much stronger statute and we plan to encourage citizens from every Oregon County to file the SASO as a new initiative for 2019. 
 
A chief petitioner has already filed in Coos County.  It is the first county in OR to have this new ordinance filed as an initiative.   Josephine County passed a similar law by a vote of their commissioners this past year, so they are the first official Second Amendment Sanctuary County in the state.  Our goal is to turn every county into a sanctuary for gun owners, and we plan to do it “one county at a time.”  
 
Why should counties with a Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance replace it with the Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance?
 
Even though some legal experts agree it is a good law, there is a chance the courts could strike down the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance or (SAPO) because it authorizes the sheriff to determine whether a state or federal law violates an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.  The county sheriff has a great deal of discretionary authority, and they have to choose every day which law they will and will not enforce for many different reasons, mostly budgetary.
 
The SAPO may go too far in conflating two branches of government.  The judicial branch of government is the one authorized to determine the constitutionality of the law while sheriffs are part of the executive branch of government, which enforces the law.  It goes to the separation of powers.  
 
Moreover, if the county sheriff does not believe in the rights ratified in the Second Amendment they can choose to go ahead and enforce federal and state firearm laws even though their county might have enacted a SAPO. 
 
The new measure, the SASO, eliminates the sheriff’s role as a determining factor, and it utilizes the anti-commandeering doctrine, which President James Madison writes about in Federalist paper #46.  The practice protects cities and counties from having to use their resources to uphold or cooperate with state and federal laws they find immoral or objectionable. 
 
The SASO imposes a directive on the county government not to aid, assist or dedicate any funds or personnel to uphold any state or federal laws concerning firearms or firearms accessories.  It is the same defense used by sanctuary cities to protect illegal aliens from federal enforcement, and even the wording is very similar. 
 
Any court that rules against the SASO on the basis a city or county cannot determine where their local government will spend their tax dollars would be ruling against enactments that establish sanctuaries for people who have violated federal immigration law because both of them utilize the same legal principle.  
 
The SASO has some limitations in its enforcement, as do most laws. 
 
It does not protect felons in possession of a firearm.  It does not allow people to carry guns in government buildings.  It does not stop state or federal agents from coming into the county to enforce laws regarding firearms or firearm accessories.  It does not prevent the police in the cities from enforcing these laws unless that municipality has passed a SASO of their own.  It does not keep private or retail sellers of firearms from running a background check, which all goes to show that even sanctuaries cannot escape the overreach of government.  
 
The SASO is not a silver bullet against all rules and regulations that violate the tenet of infringement. 
 
However, the SASO will prevent the sheriff and county officials from enforcing state and federal or any other extraterritorial laws concerning firearms and their accessories. It is a hedge against one level of local government, and it eliminates the highest law officer in the county and his deputies from participating in any enforcement operation by the state to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens.   It also sends a loud message echoing the phrase “shall not be infringed” to gun-grabbing legislators.
 
Anyone who would like to find out more info or to help us in our campaign should surf to our website www.SanctuaryOrdinance.com where you can volunteer, sign up for our newsletter, or donate to the campaign.  For all other inquires all interested parties can send an email to sanctuaryordinance@gmail.com. 
 
About the author:
Rob Taylor is a local activist from Coos County who serves as Chair of the Committee to Preserve the Second Amendment.   

To the citizens of Coos County:

Soon the state legislature will be in session, and every person who owns a firearm will be in the sights of its members because they are beaming with new ideas in ways to disarm the citizens of Oregon. 

To counter these attacks on our liberty, a couple of months ago I filed another measure called the Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance and I finally got the SASO petition sheets approved to sign for Coos County residents.  Anyone who is a registered voter of Coos County can sign this petition. 

We are the first county in OR to have this new ordinance filed as an initiative.   Josephine County passed a similar law by a vote of their commissioners this past year, so they are the first official Second Amendment Sanctuary County in the state.  Our goal is to turn every county into a sanctuary for law-abiding gun owners, and we plan to do it “one county at a time.”  
 
Anyone who would like to find out more info or to help us in our campaign should surf to our website www.SanctuaryOrdinance.com where you can volunteer, sign up for our newsletter, or donate to the campaign.  For all other inquires all interested parties can send an email to sanctuaryordinance@gmail.com.   
Sincerely, Rob Taylor

Oregon Citizens Lobby

Legislative Days at the Capitol
December 11th to 14th, 2018

Legislative Organizational Days

January 14th to 17th, 2-192019 Legislative Session

January 22nd to June 30th, 2019There is no other voice like ours in the Capital. You can be proud to be a part of this movement! 

Check out the updated OCL website.  http://oregoncitizenslobby.org 
The War Room will be every Thursday, Rm 350,  starting February 7, 2019 Come and join us!

Please Volunteer.If you are a returning volunteer please update your profile to improve your experience!

You can Volunteer to:
1.  Adviser (one who may not analyze bills themselves, but lends their expertise in a given area to those who are analyzing bills or writing testimony)
2.  Analyze bills for Track Their Vote website and scoring legislator’s votes
3. Call or legislators on posted bills.
4. Give public testimony at committees.
5.  Participate in War Room efforts (this is literally a room we reserve at the capitol during the legislative session, where we congregate and collaborate on analyzing bills and lobbying)
6.  Write/email legislators
7.  Write letters to the editors
8.  Write testimony for bills
9.  Join the Twitter Brigade @ORcitizen  #orocl

Analyzers and Advisers will be contacted by a Team Leader and receive further instructions and training.


Mission of the Oregon Citizens Lobby
Our mission is to help empower Oregonians by monitoring the legislative process in this state. We analyze bills and track them throughout their life cycle. We also track the actions of state representatives and senators as they work through and vote on these bills. The bills and legislators receive a grade based upon the 5 core principles of OCL. If a politician votes in a manner that violates one or more of these principles it is up to them to explain why they did so. We leave the politics to the politicians.

The result of our work is posted at Track Their Vote for the public to review.
Our hope is that this information will help citizens better understand proposed legislation which will in turn allow them to give relevant testimony on bills, lobby their legislators, and hold these politicians accountable for their actions.

Five Core Principles
Fiscal Responsibility
Government should have a limited budget that reflects the vitality of the state’s economy.
Local Control
Governmental power and functions should be as close to the citizens as possible for maximum oversight, control, and responsiveness.
Free Markets
Production and prices should be dictated by the laws of supply and demand without the interference of government in the way of subsidies, price controls, or over-burdensome regulation.
Limited Government
Our government should be charged with administering only those functions essential to society and that cannot be performed by private entities.
Personal Choice and Responsibility
Citizens must be free to pursue life, liberty, and property without undue government interference and to reap the rewards or bear the consequences of their decisions.
 
Oregon Citizens lobby
​Communications@oregoncitizenslobby.org

Submitted by Chris Brumbles,

What I learned from the 2018 Oregon Midterm

  Well, the midterm elections are over and here in Oregon we came away with some good things, some bad things, and some unexplainable craziness. This year we had a chance to get rid of our sanctuary status as a State, but you guessed it, the perpetually offended insane rioting class in Portlandia voted it down. Surely they would vote to end taxpayer funded murder of babies…nope, you must be able to murder babies and by golly, the taxpayers need to pay for it. Accountability must be avoided.

  Oregonians have been voting No on sales taxes for over 35 years, but in this midterm, they voted to allow the State to tax FOOD. How insane is that; the ten new taxes passed by the Demonrats in the last year, adding up to over a billion dollars is not good enough, they can now tax FOOD. Did I mention that in the last couple of sessions, the Oregon legislature and Crazy Katherine have passed around 6 new business taxes along with a $15.00 an hour minimum wage that will have Oregon looking like Detroit when they all reach full enactment? Good times.

  I have met many good Republicans around the State, but the State leadership for the GOP are a bunch of timid fellas who decided to get behind Knute the knot head Bueller . Bueller is an arrogant know it all who decided to run as a Republican, but to campaign as a Demonrat.  Pro-abortion, pro- special privileges for gays, lesbians and gender pretenders, anti-gun, anti-American, and as far as I can tell, hasn’t one principle in his whole makeup. Glad to see that the GOP at the State level is at least consistent…too afraid to take a stand, but at least perfectly willing to bend over and touch their toes. I read a story the other day that said that the Oregon Governor race has come down to between 3-5 points every year for over 20 years…this year it wasn’t even close. Crazy Corrupt Kate gave Ferris Bueller a day off and didn’t even break a sweat. Hey GOP, its spelled P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E-S. You have to stand for something, kicking your base in the berries doesn’t work.
​
  On a good note, Patriots in Oregon put the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance on the ballot in 10 Counties and it passed in 8 of them. We already had SAPO’s in 5 counties and this is just the beginning. Our next venture is the Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance. The SAPO makes it illegal for counties to enforce unconstitutional gun laws written since 2012, and makes the Sheriff the go to guy to determine what laws are unconstitutional. Because people have complained that not all Sheriffs obey their Oath, the SASO will make it illegal for counties to enforce ANY gun laws period. We thank Michael Boldin and the Tenth Amendment Center for writing this law for us and for their guidance. Yes we are prepared for the tyrants and oath breakers to come out calling us extreme or radical, but we will remember to consider the source and that they live in opposite world every day.
 
In Liberty,
Chris Brumbles
Columbia County Coordinator
Oregon Firearms Federation ​

Once upon a time in Tyrannical Oregon

  Once upon a time, there was a tyrannical town called Salem. Life was pretty good there for self-appointed Queen Kate and her despotic minions. Even under the control of the evil public employees union and the perpetually offended and confused village of Portlandia, the ideologues got everything that they wanted. Portlandia was so confused that they didn’t even know what bathroom to use, but these tax eaters were held above all tax payers in the state.

  These two looney bins joined forces in an effort to control, enslave, and force the good Americans to conform to their nutty ideology against their will. The Ameriphobes in charge cared nothing of history or logic and soon their repeated, failed Marxist policies, had them spending so much of OTHER PEOPLES MONEY that everyone’s grandchildren had a very bleak and indebted future indeed.

  Plunder of the good people’s money did not satisfy the evil would be tyrants, so they began a long train of the plundering of RIGHTS. The people of the state reluctantly went along with the theft of the fruits of their labor, but when the attack of their RIGHTS continued, the people acted. The people got fed up with the tyranny and decided to nullify the illegal laws that were being written. By putting the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance on their county ballots, they could protect their God given RIGHTs, send a message to the Oligarchs in Salem, and avoid a Civil War.

  10 counties put the SAPO on their ballots with 17 more counties working on it for a future election. If you count the 5 counties that already have this law, nearly the whole state was in on it. You would think that the demented employees working for the people would take a hint, but they just made threats and promised more theft of RIGHTS.

  While the people were working on their SAPO’s, there was another group of people who thought they were morally superior to everyone. These useful idiots tried to put the ultimate evil agenda’s on the ballot, and they called them IP43 and IP44. These two Initiatives infringed every aspect of Liberty, and included confiscation of the peoples privately owned personal property. What the nutty zombies didn’t expect was for the Oregon Firearms Federation to ride in on a white horse with their lawyers blazing and put an end to their evil plot…for now.

  The people of one county called Columbia decided enough was enough. Columbia County showed their contempt for the Autocracy in Salem by putting their SAPO on the ballot first and leading the way for the other nine. They decided to elect a Sheriff that would support the SAPO and their RIGHTS. The only real choice that they had was Lt. Brian Pixley, who was on the record saying he would support the people, the SAPO, and would be the PEOPLES SHERIFF. His main competition tip toed around questions instead of answering them, was fuzzy on the constitution, and there was a question of cronyism in his campaign. Most of the money he was receiving was coming from a fired ex deputy and many questioned the reasoning behind it. What promises were being made that would get a fired ex deputy to spend $13,000.00 on a county election for Sheriff? There was also a concern of possible bullying tactics and dirty politics. The choice for the people was a no brainer, they needed a PEOPLES SHERIFF, not an ex Federal Agent that had trouble understanding the supremacy clause. They needed Brian Pixley.

  Now that Columbia County was about to pass the SAPO, and to elect a PEOPLES SHERIFF to protect their RIGHTS, they had another urgent problem to address. The people found out that their representative didn’t represent them at all. Brad Witt represented only himself and had been living off of the people long enough. Nearly 15 years in office and absolutely nothing accomplished. Now this Oath breaker wanted to steal the RIGHTS of our young adults and veterans, and make age discrimination legal for corporations. It was plain to see that Witt-less had to go.

  Luck would have it that a much better choice was running for Representative in District 31. Brian Stout, a business owner, got tired of all of the regulation and job killing taxes and decided to stand up for the people of Columbia County. With Brian Stout as their Rep, the people would finally have someone in the house that would protect their RIGHTS. With the SAPO, Brian Pixley as the PEOPLES SHERIFF, and Brian Stout in the house, our county will be much safer and a better place to live. Let’s make it so. Please VOTE,…It truly matters.
​
In Liberty,
Chris Brumbles
Deer Island ​

Related posts:
Oregon Firearms Federation 2018 General Election Candidate Grades
Vote YES on Coos County Measure 6-168 & End the Debt ​
Feel-Good Tax Repeal on the Ballot in Coos County
City of Bandon ~ Ballot Measure 6-172 Pool Funding ~ Voting YES Means No Pool ​

​Please factor in our candidate ratings when you make your decisions on your ballot. There will be some tough choices. Not all races have good candidates, but many do.

You can see our candidate ratings here.

You can support our efforts by making a donation here.

Thank you for your commitment to the Second Amendment protecting Oregon.

​Dear Rob:   
 
I am a "nimby" but my backyard is the entire City of Bandon.
 
I am opposed to any large pool, public or private, anywhere in the City Limits of Bandon!  Here's why:
 
1.  It will be a huge strain on our already over burdened water system.
 
2.  The pool will not be self-supporting in the long run, becoming a net drain on city finances, and
 
3.  The liabilities it will involve:  if a child is molested at the pool, or if a person is drowned or disabled there and when medical conditions start to appear due to the toxicity of pool chemicals and human waste, the City of Bandon will be sued for damages.   
 
Max Hand
 
PS if you look back at letters to editor in 2012 you will see that I expressed this position then in the most vehement possible terms...more than once! 

Submitted by anonymous:

​WHY? 
 
Most residents of Bandon think a proposed pool site is next to the Youth Center.  
 
They are unaware of what City Council, the Planning Department and Parks  
 
and Recreation are doing under pressure from the pool lobby.  
 
 
On record at their Feb. 5, 2018 City Council meeting, the mayor and members  
 
of the Council state the many reasons why a pool would NOT be a good idea  
  
 in City Park. The 5-1 vote of the Council was “NO POOL in City PARK.” 
 
 
However, on Sept. 13, 2018 City employees from the aforementioned  
 
Departments, and at taxpayer’s expense, participated in an extensive  
 
“feasibility plan” in addition to plotting out sites IN the Park--the  
 
ones near the library and off Eighth Street being most favorable. 
 
 
The big question is “WHY?????”  Why did the City order this plan???  
 
 
As one of the 2/3 of the voters in 2012 who voted against the City having a pool,  
 
I think we deserve some answers. Many questions need to be addressed about  
 
liabilities and how our taxes would be used to support the infrastructure for a  
 
project a huge as this one.  Ten or more acres of cement could be poured over 
 
green areas in the park, streets could be reconfigured and many residents, not 
 
just the ones close to the park, would have their homes and lives impacted. 
 
 
At the Feb. 5 City Council meeting, the mayor and the head of City Council said 
  
if not in the Park they would consider “giving the pool lobby a different piece of 
  
City land.”   
 
 
WHY would this private enterprise be GIVEN a piece of City property in the Park  
 
or otherwise? If some other private enterprise such as a restaurant or a gas  
 
station lobbied heavily for a piece of City land would they be given it? 
 ​

The petition sheets will be available soon:  

The Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance was designed to replace the
Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance that the voters of Coos County enacted in the election of 2015.   

2018 Coos County State of Oregon
Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance
 
SECTION 1.  TITLE
The title of this ordinance shall be known as the "Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance,” or “SASO.”
 
SECTION 2.  FINDINGS
The people of Coos County Oregon find and declare:
A.    Acting through the United States Constitution, the people created government to be their agent in the exercise of a few defined powers, while reserving the citizen’s right to decide on matters, which concern their lives, liberties, and properties in the ordinary course of affairs;
 
B.     The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states, “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”;
 
C.      The rights of the people to keep and bear arms are further protected from infringement by State and Local Governments under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America as well as Article 1 of the Constitution of the Great State of Oregon;
 
D.    Article 1, Section 27 of the Constitution of the Great State of Oregon states, “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power”;
 
E.     Article 1, Section 33 of the Constitution of the Great State of Oregon states, “This enumeration of rights and privileges shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people”;
 
F.      The Supreme Court of the United States of America in District of Columbia v. Heller upheld the individual rights to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.  Justice Scalia’s opinion stated that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home;
 
G.    Justice Thomas M. Cooley in the People v. Hurlbut 24 Mich. 44, page 108 (1871) he surmises:  “The State may mould local institutions according to its views of policy or expediency: but local government is matter of absolute right; and the state cannot take it away”;
 
H.    The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America Section 1 it states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”;
 
I.       There is a right to be free from the commandeering hand of government that has been most notably recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Printz v. United States.  The Court held: ‘The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. The anticommandeering principles recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Printz v. United States are predicated upon the advice of James Madison, who in Federalist #46 advised “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” in response to either unconstitutional federal measures or constitutional but unpopular federal measures;
 
J.       It should be self-evident from the compounding evidence that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right that shall not be infringed and all local, state, and federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition are a violation of the Second Amendment;
 
K.    Local governments have the legal authority to refuse to cooperate with state and federal firearm laws that violate those rights and to proclaim a Second Amendment Sanctuary for law-abiding citizens in their cities and counties;  
 
L.     Therefore, through the enactment of this document Coos County Oregon is hereby a Second Amendment Sanctuary County;
 
SECTION 3.  PROHIBITIONS
A.    Other than in compliance with an order of a District or Circuit court, and notwithstanding any other law, regulation, rule or order to the contrary, no agent, department, employee or official of Coos County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, while acting in their official capacity, shall:
 
1)      Knowingly and willingly, participate in any way in the enforcement of any Extraterritorial Act, as defined herein regarding personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.
 
2)      Utilize any assets, county funds, or funds allocated by any entity to the county, in whole or in part, to engage in any activity that aids in the enforcement or investigation relating to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.
 
SECTION 4.  PENALTIES
A.    All local, state and federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations, which restrict or affect an individual person’s, or The Peoples’, general right to keep and bear arms, including firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition shall be foreign laws and defined as Extraterritorial Acts, and are invalid in this county.  Such Extraterritorial Acts shall not be recognized by Coos County, are specifically rejected by the voters of this county, and shall be considered null, void and of no effect in Coos County Oregon, and this includes, but shall not be limited to the following:
 
1)      Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services on the purchase or ownership of those items by citizens; and
 
2)      Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition;
 
3)      Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition;
 
4)      Any registration and background check requirements on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition for citizens; and
 
5)      Any Extraterritorial Act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by citizens of the legal age of eighteen and over; and
 
6)      Any Extraterritorial Act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from citizens; and
 
7)      Any prohibitions, regulations, and/or use restrictions related to ownership of non-fully automatic firearms, including but not limited to semi-automatic firearms; including semiautomatic firearms that have the appearance or features similar to fully automatic firearms and/or military "assault-style" firearms by citizens; and
 
8)      Any prohibition, regulations, and/or use restrictions limiting hand grips, stocks, flash suppressors, bayonet mounts, magazine capacity, clip capacity, internal capacity, or types of ammunition available for sale, possession or use by citizens; and
 
9)      Any restrictions prohibiting the possession of open carry or concealed carry, or the transport of lawfully acquired firearms or ammunition by adult citizens or minors supervised by adults.
 
B.     Anyone within the jurisdiction of Coos County Oregon accused to be in violation of this ordinance may be made a defendant in a civil proceeding pursuant to ORS 203.065.
 
C.     Fines recovered under ORS 203.030 to 203.075 shall be paid to the clerk of the court in which recovery is had. After first deducting court costs in the proceedings, the clerk shall pay the remainder to the treasurer of the county for the general fund of the county, pursuant to ORS 203.065.
 
D.    A civil offense against this ordinance is a Class A violation, per ORS 203.065, with a maximum fine of $2,000 for an individual, and $4,000 for a corporation, per ORS 153.018.
 
E.     Any peace officer, as defined by ORS 161.015, may enforce this ordinance, adopted under ORS 203.035.

F.      Exceptions:
a.       The protections provided to citizens in Section A(1)-(A)(9) of this ordinance do not apply to persons who have been convicted of felony crimes. 
b.      This ordinance is not intended to prohibit or affect in any way the prosecution of any crime for which the use of, or possession of, a firearm is an aggregating factor or enhancement to an otherwise independent crime.
c.       This ordinance does not permit or otherwise allow the possession of firearms in State or Federal buildings.
d.      This ordinance does not prohibit individuals in Coos County from voluntarily participating in assisting in permitting, licensing, registration or other processing of applications for concealed carry permits, or other firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition licensing or registration processes that may be required by law in other legal jurisdictions outside Coos County or by any other municipality inside Coos County.
 
SECTION 5.  PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION
A.    Any entity, person, official, agent, or employee of the Coos County Government who knowingly violates this ordinance, or otherwise knowingly deprives a citizen of Coos County the rights or privileges ensured by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon State Constitution, while acting under the color of any state or federal law, shall be liable to the injured party in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
 
B.     In such actions, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the government of Coos County Oregon or any political subdivision of the county, reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
 
C.     Neither sovereign nor official or qualified immunity shall be an affirmative defense of the County in cases pursuant to Section 4 or 5 of this ordinance.
 
SECTION 6.  SEVERABILITY
A.    The provisions of this act are hereby declared to be severable, and if any provision of this act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this act.
 
SECTION 7.  EFFECTIVE DATE
A.    The effective date of this ordinance, The Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance or SASO shall be effective immediately upon certification of approval by the voters of Coos County.

Every election seems to come with the promise of more tax increases.  The government never seems to have enough.  Even with record revenues, the Oregon state government finds itself with shortfalls and more unfunded liabilities left for the repayment of future generations.
 
Our own Coos County commissioners are always mulling over new taxes.  The museum tax, the transient tax, the road tax, the marijuana tax and of course the urban renewal tax they are insatiable in their appetite for the people’s money. 
 
In late March of this year, the commissioners bypassed the people and voted unanimously to renew the county’s North Bay Urban Renewal plan, which has the potential of going into thirty-two million dollars of debt.
 
The commissioners give the same cheesy excuse that only the people living in the UR area are paying the UR tax, but that is a half-truth.
 
It is true that only the property owners in a UR area pay their property taxes directly to that area’s UR agency over the frozen tax base.  Anything over the frozen base is the increment of taxes that goes to finance the UR agency, hence the term tax-increment financing. 
 
However, those tax dollars were supposed to go to several other overlapping taxing districts to cover the cost of the services provided by those districts. 
 
Everyone in the county uses the services provided by those districts, including the owners of the properties inside the UR area.  When taxpayers of the property inside the UR taxing area do not pay for the services they are using because the system has redirected the money to the UR agency, other taxpayers in the other overlapping countywide districts have to cover the cost of those expenses.  Therefore, everyone who pays property taxes in Coos County pays taxes directly or indirectly for the debt accrued by all seven urban renewal areas that exist in the county through this process of tax increment financing. 
 
Otherwise, property owners would not see UR taxes listed on their tax bill. 
 
The county loses $3 million annually in tax revenue to urban renewal, which represents 5% of the total amount of property taxes collected in the county.  Multnomah County, which is essentially Portland, dedicates about 25% of their total annual property taxes to urban renewal, and their number one complaint is affordable housing, which is partially due to TIF. 
 
There is no such thing as free money. 
 
Since the politicians are going to use most of this money to facilitate the development of private corporations, it then comes down to a simple question.
 
Should the government use public tax dollars to gamble on private development or should corporations gamble with their own money?
 
Politicians are neither lucky nor skillful enough to be rolling the dice with the people’s money, and that includes the three political hacks currently serving on this county’s Board of Commissioners.  
 
People rarely get a chance to rescind an ordinance that continues a tax, and once the government enacts a tax, it is impossible to stop.  In the November election, the people will have a chance to repeal the county’s urban renewal plan and the tax debt that goes along with it. 
 
The voters of Coos County should take advantage of this possibly once in a lifetime experience and vote yes to repeal. VOTE YES for Measure 6-168 and feel-good about repealing a tax because it is the right thing to do. 
 
Anyone interested in finding out more information on urban renewal and tax-increment financing can go to www.CoosCountyWatchdog.com.  

Great News Please sign!
Please Share:
From: Press Release
Date: July 26, 2018 at 2:23:57 PM PDT
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: Constitutional Measure Protecting Access to Firearms, Self-Defense Rights Cleared for Signature Gathering

For Immediate Release:                             Contact: commonfirearms@gmail.com
July 26, 2018
 
The “Don’t Take Away My Right To Defend My Family Committee” proudly announces that an Oregon constitutional amendment “The Common Firearms Act” (IP-8) has been filed with the Oregon Secretary of State and has received clearance to begin gathering the required 1,000 valid signatures of registered Oregon voters to obtain a ballot title for the November 2020 general election.
 
This proposed constitutional amendment is a direct result of IP-43 (since withdrawn) which would have allowed among other things the unconstitutional confiscation of legal firearms. A 117,000 member Facebook group was quickly organized to fight IP-43 and out of that group came the effort to put forward “The Common Firearms Act”.
 
The two chief petitioners of “The Common Firearms Act” are Sharon Preston of Redmond, a member of the Facebook group and Carlyan Castellano of Portland, one of the creators and administrators of the Facebook group.
 
“Evil doesn't ask who you voted for before it crosses your threshold. Many women choose a firearm as their tool for personal defense. As a Certified Instructor, I've trained thousands of women in Oregon from all walks of life” said Preston. “I know first hand how important it is for these women to be able to choose from a wide variety and purchase firearms that suit their needs. IP-43 would have made that nearly impossible.”
 
“The Common Firearms Act” is based on the late US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the Heller decision that used the term “Firearms In Common Use” and held that the heart of the Second Amendment is the right to self-defense. Oregon’s Constitution states that the citizens have the “right to bear arms for the defense of themselves” and this proposed amendment protects the right to own  firearms that were commonly available for civilian purchase under Oregon law as of July 1, 2018. It does not change any existing Oregon firearm regulations, but it prevents new regulations from placing unreasonable burdens on the right to defend yourself or your loved ones with a common firearm.


“As a young woman I am passionate about my right, and the rights of my peers, to own firearms. In opposition to IP43 we created the Facebook group (Oregonians Against the "Assault Weapons" Ban now referred to as) Oregon Firearm Advocate” said Castellano. “Our private group grossed over 100k members in the first week. This was a clear representation that the right to defend ourselves with a firearm crossed party and ideological lines and must be protected in the Oregon Constitution.”
 
IP-8 website: www.commonfirearms.com ​

Initiative Petition

On July 11, 2018, the Elections Division received Initiative Petition
2020-006, proposed for the November 3, 2020, General Election.




Subject Provided by Chief Petitioners
School Gun Safety Act


Chief Petitioners
Jerrad Robison 311 SW Antler Ridge Court, Redmond, OR 97756
Ston McDaniel 7401 SE Gentian Way, Prineville, OR 97754








To begin the ballot title drafting process, chief petitioners must submit 1,000 sponsorship signatures. If submitted, the Elections Division will process sponsorship signatures in accordance with the Statistical Sampling Procedures for State Petitions adopted under administrative rule
OAR 165-014-0030.


More information, including the text of the petition, is contained under
2020 Initiatives, Referendums and Referrals link available at www.oregonvotes.gov.

April 4, 2018 Opinion Piece By Steve Scheer
 
Citizens of Coos you’ve patiently stuck with over the last 4 months as I’ve tried to inform you of what’s going wrong in County Government.  In this week’s issue we’ll look at what’s impeding Coos County from moving forward economically.
 
In my opinion Coos County’s economic development has been stagnant for at least the past 40 years and is due to its lack of a definable identity.  Does it want to be an industrial import/export seaport?  Does it want to be a tourist destination?  Does it want to be a combination of both?  Who knows, but whatever it is, it seems that the former is what is being presented to the rest of the State and ultimately Country.
 
The problem with this approach is that it conflicts with the second option because its presentation is mutually excludable to the other.   We’ve seen through over those 40 years many attempts to lure heavy industry to the area from coal, nickel, rare earth mineral processing and exporting to an electrical power generating plant and now LNG importing/exporting (first proposed as an import terminal in October 2005, and later redefined as an export terminal in May 2010).  None of these attempts have panned out, and the County has essentially lost 40 years of potential development with its corresponding job growth associated with it.
 
Let’s be honest if the Portland Metro area or the Willamette Valley wanted any of those large companies that we’ve courted over the years they’d be located there.  If they don’t want them then it’s usually for environmentally related reasons that they’re rejected.  As we’ve seeing recently, our LNG proposal is coming under attack for those same reasons. The urban centers of the state don’t want that business anywhere within Oregon.
 
As a tourist destination, we’ve had better luck.  Bandon Dunes and its subsidiaries according to 2014 assessor data account for over $610,000 in taxes for Coos County.  The County’s development of Riley Ranch has been successful and is turning a profit.  The new resort being built as you read this at the old Coos Head Pulp Mill site in Barview should be an asset once completed and open for business.
 
However that’s not much to show for over 40 years if you exclude the two tribal developments.  I think this is a result of the Jekyll and Hyde personally that we have as a County, and its projection is not lost on the rest of the country.  Don’t expect others to come running to invest in our area without assurances that their vision for the area matches our own, and has long term stability.   In order to proceed we must change our approach, coming together and decide the type of area we want to live in, and market that vision to the rest of the country.
 
How do we accomplish this?  The realistic approach is to identify what we have here in Coos County that gives us a comparative advantage over the rest of the areas up and down the Coast.  It’s our climate, beaches, parks, history, unique mix of industries, farming, ranching, fishing, ship building, etc. that honors that history and defines who we are.  Our remoteness and isolation which is a determent for large industrial development is an asset in an overstimulated world.    The mix would insulated our economy from the vagaries of the business cycle, also provide a wide range of industries and the associated jobs that are part of each.  This would also give our youth a breadth of professions to choose from.
 
A large industrial mindset will preclude any development along those lines, and lead to a continued stagnation.  We need to think smaller not bigger, 50 diverse companies providing on average 10 jobs each creates 500 jobs, and makes us less vulnerable to economic swings.  If 5 businesses fail we still have 450 jobs, one company of 500 employees who fails leaves us with 500 unemployed people.  An added benefit to this approach is that the smaller communities in the area could share in locating those smaller firms into their areas.
 
It’s also necessary for the County to enter the 21st century and provide ultra-high-speed internet access to the entire County and every business and residence contained within.  We should be considering speeds in the 10 gigabit range as a starter.  It’s my understanding that the fiber optic backbone (main trunk lines) already exist along highways 42 and 101, it’s just a matter of rolling out fiber up the market roads and interconnecting roads and lanes.  This could be an economic stimulus to not only existing businesses, but also a way of attracting both new business, and encouraging entrepreneurial startups swelling up from within.
 
I once worked with one such individual in the days of floppy disks, and was told that he could live anywhere in the country as long as he had access to a commercial airport.  His software could be shipped anywhere overnight and mass reproduced the next day and distributed immediately.  Today with the internet and high speed broadband we don’t even need that.  We’re just a keystroke or a mouse click away from teleconferencing, file sharing, or information exchange to anywhere in the world.
 
However like in your life, you need certain assurances in order to make proper decisions.  Businesses are no different, someone looking for a quite rural idyllic lifestyle, would be attracted to this area.  However, the appearance or threat thereof a large scale industrial site of one sort or another that threatens that way of life, will send those businesses running, and put the area on a blacklist for future consideration.
 
To summarize take advantage of your strengths, fly under the radar of the Willamette Valley and Portland Metro area, after all they can’t compete with what we offer and aren’t interested in smaller companies.  Take advantage of Southwestern Oregon Community College and the job training and skill programs they provide as a down payment on that investment.   Then go out and execute, making course corrections as needed, in a generation you should see the results of your labors.

April 11, 2018 Opinion Piece By Steve Scheer
 
Citizens of Coos County, the final public hearings of the Budget Committee have occurred.  Next week I’ll share with you my observations of the approved budget.
 
However this week there are a couple of items that were shared by the Coos County Board of Commissioners (BOC) with the budget committee that might be of interest and/or concern to you.
 
The first is that the BOC is getting serious about the consolidation of the County Parks system.  All of the parks other than Lakeside, Riley Ranch, Bastendorf, and Laverne are on the chopping block.  These parks are what the BOC has identified as underperforming.  They’re not generating enough money for the County to cover maintenance fees.  Those not precluded by deed restrictions are for sale and they hope to have buyers before the next budget hearings in 2019.  Powers Park has already had preliminary discussions and a work session is scheduled shortly.
 
As stated previously in a Sentinel Opinion piece, the budget committee toured the County parks 2 summers ago, this is the result of that tour.  I’m not aware of any public outreach on the issue, other than maybe the Parks Committee.  If you have a special interest in keeping these outlier parks as part of the County system, intact in part or whole, then now is the time to get involved. Note:  Parks has transferred approximately $750,000 to the General Fund over the last 3 years.
 
The second issue is the disposal of the North Bend Annex.  As again stated in a previous Sentinel Opinion piece the County budget committee also toured this facility about 2 years ago.  The theme of that piece was that the BOC wanted to dump the property for little or nothing.
 
The BOC now that Coos Health and Wellness has relocated to their new facility in Empire has emptied the building of most County offices.  The only remaining tenant is Oregon State Courts.  The BOC stated they have two potential buyers for the building, however that’s not the issue.  Unlike two years ago, the BOC wants the sale to generate enough funds to cover in whole or part a massive reshuffling of County offices.  This will probably necessitate the expenditure of over a million dollars in moving and remodeling costs.
 
The reshuffle goes like this.  First the Sheriff’s Department will relocate into a remodeled space in the current jail.  The architectural plans I saw two years ago revealed a price tag for the jail remodel of about $1 million.  Secondly, the Planning Department will then be moved into the Courthouse basement space which the Sheriff now occupies.  Thirdly, the BOC, County Counsel and Human Resources (HR) would move to the Owen Building now occupied by the Planning Department.  Finally The State Courts now in the North Bend Annex would relocate to the area in the Courthouse now occupied by the BOC, County Counsel and HR.
 
I’m assuming that the costs of all these moves will be borne by the County, as well as the associated remodeling costs required to reconfigure each space for its new occupants.  State Courts could be different depending on how their current contract with the BOC is drawn, or what inducements the BOC will have to agree to in order to facilitate such a move.
 
As to the status of the Watermaster and Veterans Services, that wasn’t mentioned.  However the BOC, County Counsel and HR in the approved 2018-2019 budget is comprised of 9 Full Time Equivalents (FTE), while Planning, Veterans Services, and the Watermaster contain 7.8 FTE’s. 

Therefore it’s likely they will have to be relocated to accommodate the need for space for the additional personnel.
 
In the case of Veterans Services this could be the time to reconfigure their outreach into a format that better suits the needs of the veterans themselves.  It’s my understanding from conversations with the veterans, they would like to be out of the Oregon Coast Community Action building located in Empire, and have the County Veterans Services coexist with the non-profit volunteer group Southwestern Oregon Veterans Outreach (SOVO), now located in the Pony Village Mall.  The synergy would be of benefit to the veterans, as both services could cover for each other.  Veterans have told me they would prefer a Coos Bay / North Bend location, with outreach to the surrounding cities.
 
As to the reshuffling itself, the Sheriff moving to the Jail makes sense, since in an emergency scenario such as an earthquake, his entire command and control structure could be wiped out, by the collapse of the structurally inadequate courthouse.  This would cause unnecessary delays to any recovery effort.
 
As to the relocation of the BOC out of the Courthouse into the Owens building, this seems odd.  It would be cheaper to move them to the Sheriff’s old offices in the basement and leave Planning, Veterans Services and the Watermaster where they are.  The reasoning given for moving Planning instead is that it would consolidate all County permitting at a central location, though Planning is more closely tied to Building Codes and DEQ, who are both located in Coos Bay.
 
More than likely the BOC just wants newer, larger and more assessable office space for themselves.  They would be closer to the large conference room in the Owens Building and wouldn’t have to walk in foul weather to attend meetings there.  There is also dedicated parking on the north side of the building, serviced by a corresponding exterior door leading into the building.  This would allow them private access to and from the facility without being exposed to public contact.
 
For whatever reason, this is what the BOC has as a priority, and is proposing to implement.  Although the County is currently in a fiscal crisis, money still appears to be available even though transparency is not.  As repeated ad nauseam, selling assets (in this case Parks and the North Bend Annex) to finance questionable 7 figure projects when County departments are asked to cut their budgets, defies logic.  As always, you are the final arbiter

April 18, 2018 Opinion Piece By Steve Scheer
 
Citizens of Coos County, as promised last week, we’ll cover my observations of the final (approved) budget for 2018-2019.  The departments presenting that week were Planning, Parks, and Solid Waste.
 
As predicated in the March 28, 2018 Sentinel OpEd, the County Board of Commissioners (BOC), revealed the final day revenue that they had been holding back.  This included a $758,000 BLM check for Secure Rural Schools (SRS).  Actually this amount was later amended to include an additional $149,000, but was later rescinded due to a calculation error on the part of a third party.  This figure was included in the budget approved by the Budget Committee, but will have to be made up by the BOC before they Adopt the final budget.  Likely from either the Forestry 5 year rolling average or the Solid Waste roof fund.
 
In addition $455,800 was transferred from Parks to the General Fund along with $200,000 from Solid Waste.  This left $281, 454 to balance.  This was accomplished by cutting $38,000 more out of individual line items in the Solid Waste budget, with the final $244,454 coming from the Solid Waste roof fund.  This left a surplus of $1,000 that was allocated as $600 to the BOC for an employee party and $400 for new ten-key calculators for the Finance Department.
 
The budget approved was in the amount of $113 million, and represents $1.0799 per thousand valuation.  The BOC stated next year would be difficult due to an expected PERS increase, and an increase in Cost Allocation.  The BOC plans to address this with the hope that Jordan Cove will come on line soon, and from an increase in County forest timber receipts, due to the overharvesting plan taking effect.
 
The Compensation committee next met.  This committee consists of the 3 citizens appointed to the budget committee.  In the interest of full disclosure I did testify before the compensation committee against approval of raises for the BOC.  Their decision was to deny any raises for the BOC by a 2 to 1 vote.  This was an especially difficult decision for the two member who voted no, and I commend them for the fortitude it took to do so.  They both had the publics’ best interest.
 
One item that occurred during the Sheriff’s presentation and was ignored by the BOC has become a focus in the news recently.  That is a public safety levy.  The BOC and Sheriff are to meet later this month in work session to discuss this idea.
 
Let me take a minute to clear up a misconception that I’ve been hearing lately.  That is what goes on at the BOC regular biweekly meetings.  This meeting is not where issues or policy are decided, but where the formal vote occurs.  The real decisions are made in the work sessions held to discuss the items or policy, and occur prior to regular BOC meetings.
 
That said, the Sheriff tried to make two proposals during his budget presentation regarding a public safety levy in support of his department.  The first was in the amount of $2.6 million or $.48 per thousand, the second was for $5.3 million or $.97 per thousand.  This will probably be the starting point for forthcoming discussions.  Work sessions are open to the public, but meeting agendas are not always available before the meeting.

What does all this mean?  This is referred to as a Local Option Levy and is temporary in nature. Ongoing operations are of 1 to 5 years. Capital Projects are the lesser of 10 years or the useful life of the Capital project.  A Local Option Levy also requires the approval of the voters by election.
 
How could this affect you?  Ongoing operations are like drugs, once you approve one, you’re hooked and the only way to continue the service is by approving by vote another levy.  This is what’s going on in Lane County with their jail.  Capital projects are a one time and done.  This method could be used to finance the new County wide communications system and dispatch software upgrades.
 
Are there other considerations?  The first is that the voters in the Coos Bay school district just barely passed a bond that will raise taxes for approximately 33% of the County citizens by $1.60 per thousand.  On a $200,000 property the Sheriff’s levy would be an additional $100-200 per year on top of the $320 per year they’ll begin paying in November.  Will those citizens be prepared to shoulder the additional cost?  Especially those on fixed incomes?
 
Rental housing is already tight and rents are increasing.  Landlords will have to pass the cost on, how will this affect renters already on the edge.  Could this lead to more people becoming homeless?
 
What about the people who’re already homeless trying to accumulate enough money to transition into housing.  Will this make reaching that goal an even more daunting task?
 
One additional thought for your consideration.  The Sheriff as of 2017-2018 was 48% of the General Fund Budget, and 59% excluding the miscellaneous account which contains dedicated funds.  So we to need to ask, how will this money be allocated?  Will it supplement the current Sheriff’s budget?  This action would not relieve the General Fund of any future demands on it.  Would it supplant the current Sheriff’s budget?  This would free up the levy amount from the General Fund, relieving future demands.  However, would the General Fund now freed up by millions of dollars, now become subject to new spending by the BOC?  Finally it could be a hybrid of the two, in which case both scenarios would apply.  Also in play is the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) the BOC has with Bandon Dunes, and how it would be interpreted within the context of the Sheriff’s funding levels not falling below the 2016-2017 budget levels.
 
These are just a few of the complexities facing the BOC and the Sheriff.  However, if the BOC decides to proceed they will have to submit to a vote.  This time the law is on your side, and you will have the final say.
Commented

From: Melissa Cribbins <melissacribbins@icloud.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:12 AM
Subject: Fwd: Candidate Questions
To: fredekirby@gmail.com


Mr. Kirby:

Thank you for your question.  Please humor me briefly while I respond in part to your question to Avery:

I attend many meetings inside the county while I am a county commissioner. Many of those meetings are speaking engagements, where I am asked to speak to a group or organization about issues facing the county.  I do not charge mileage to the county for my in-county travel, instead, I pay for one tank of gas per month as a public office holder expense.  This allocation is fair and keeps the expenses to the taxpayers down. 


As to the donations from the tribe and tribal members, the Coquille were my employers for over five year prior to my election.  I like to believe that I did a good job while I was there, and showed a good work ethic.  I have always had excellent references from prior employers, and I still keep in touch with many of them.  As a matter of fact, Joan Seitz, who also donated to my campaign, was a judge that I clerked for prior to working for the Coquille. I have not held a single fundraiser during this election cycle, and all of my donations have come from people who support the work I have done. 

I have been a commissioner for over five years, and I stand by my record.  I have not done special favors for anyone, as my record clearly indicates. If I had to guess, I would say that the Coquille appreciate the stability and calmness that the Commission has experienced since I have been in office. 


Thanks for your question. 

Melissa

From: John Sweet <j.sweet1@charter.net>
Date: Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 6:40 AM
Subject: RE: Candidate Questions
To: fred kirby <fredekirby@gmail.com>


Fred,
The Bunns are my in laws and manage a real estate business in which my wife is a partner.  They have no holdings in Coos County.  I believe their generous donation is purely an expression of  family support.
John

Related Posts 
Cribbins & Sweet have a Few Questions to Answer About Campaign Contributors
Commissioners Cribbins & Sweet Deserve Public Reprimand for Deception
Cribbins & Sweet Utilize Voter Suppression on Urban Renewal Extension
Commissioner's URA Vote Triggers Tax Referendum ~ Meeting on Friday the 13th
Coos County Considering Ordinance to Extend UR Tax Debt March 27, 2018
Board of Commissioners Postpones Vote on Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
The Excesses of Tax-Increment Financing & Urban Renewal
Port of #CoosBay Blowing Through Your Tax Dollars Like Drunken Sailors 
Commissioners Campaign Contributors are Champions of Corporate Welfare
Download The John Sweet Recall Flyer & The Second Amendment Preservation Flyer
Cribbins & Sweet Snub Second Amendment Supporters Again
The Administrator