Click the following link for the FB event page:  

Please feel free to download the file for a copy of the flyer:

                                                                                          May 29, 2019
 
Subject: Public Notification
 
 
Governor Kate Brown has signed into law, effective immediately, HB 4111, which will allow persons in the United States with an Employment Authorization Document issued by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services to be issued an Oregon Driver’s License.  The person who applies for such a license under this HB is not required to provide proof of legal presence in the United States when applying for a limited term identification card or driver’s license. Limited term driver’s license will not be accepted as proof of citizenship for Concealed Hand Gun License.   
 
 
 
As such, effective on June 3, 2019, all persons who wish to apply for a Concealed Handgun License in Coos County will need to bring proof of citizenship with them when applying.  This can be done with an original birth certificate or a US Passport or other government issued identification that meets the required identification requirements. One example is the “new” Real ID compliant drivers license issued by Oregon DMV which requires an additional fee to DMV.
 
 
 
Craig Zanni- Sheriff

Here's why:
CHL requires proof of ID. a while back the legislature attempted to give licenses to illegal aliens claiming it would make the roads safer as they would buy insurance etc… However the voters said no. The legislature has over ruled the voters and authorized a drivers license gain. However those license will not meet the real ID rules as the previous licenses had been doing, as required by federal law.  The new real ID license require an additional fee to the state via DMV if I read the new rule correctly.

​Hello Everyone, 

The following is an explanation from the attorney for the Chief Petitioner in Columbia County on Judge Grove’s opinion concerning the Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance.   The reason our attorney had to write this letter was to show that the judge in Columbia County made a decision on whether or not the Chief Petitioner, Chris Brumbles , could file the SASO as an initiative petition for circulation and not for any other reason.

 Some of the county commissioners in other Oregon counties were using the outcome of this trial in Columbia County as a reason to deny the SASO in their county.  A few newspapers have published articles making assumptions on this decision that were incorrect.  The case was about whether the measure met the criteria for an initiative, not on the constitutionality of its content.   
 
The Oregon Firearms Federation and The Committee to preserve the Second Amendment are committed to defeating the county clerk’s denial to file the latest version of the Columbia County SASO, which our attorney modified according to the Judge’s decision.  Our attorney is confident that our legal claims are valid and that the SASO is sound law.  We agree with his assessment.   
 
Scroll down to read copies of the documents relevant to this case, including the original filing. 
 
Sincerely, Rob Taylor

https://www.eastoregonian.com/news/local/gun-sanctuary-proposal-misses-target/article_a598c38e-6ad8-11e9-a86d-1f8d979b2e8a.html  

Stay tuned for more information on this case as it develops....Rob T.  

To receive updates or to make a contribution to preserve the Second Amendment please visit www.oregonfirearms.org/

Submitted by Chris Brumbles,

What say ye!!

  The government was created by the people for one reason, to protect our Rights. What the government has forgotten, and unfortunately many people have also, is that the government is here to serve us, not the other way around.
 
More and more, we see our employees attempt to rule rather than to serve. Our employees let their ideology drive them instead of righteousness, reason, and morality. We watch as tyranny becomes the norm and cultural Marxism threatens our existence, and our Liberty.
 
Today we see politicians openly brag that they are socialists in a country that was founded on Judeo Christian principles, Natural Rights, as a Republic under the rule of law. Some fools refer to our country as “our democracy”; this has always been to spread confusion. Let there be no doubt, we are not, and have never been a democracy. The word Democracy is not in the constitution or in any state constitutions. You do not pledge allegiance to the democracy for which it stands. Democracy is mob rule, and the transforming of a Republic to an Oligarchy.
 
The end of government is justice, and justice is the absence of the theft of our property and Rights. Justice has been the first casualty in this cultural war started by traitors. Our country has been invaded from within by far left radicals who use political correctness, multiculturalism, censorship, and other forms of Marxist ideology to brainwash the masses, and totally extirpate our country, freedom, and our culture.
 
Our employees ignore our voices and care only about power and the next election as they destroy our children’s future, and lead them to chains. No place is this more evident than here in Oregon, where the legislature has gone completely off the reservation. The majority party pursues the complete fulfillment of the communist manifesto in a single session. They ignore the will of the people with impunity as they turn this state into the next Detroit, while destroying the rule of law, and criminalizing law abiding citizens.
 
If you live in Oregon, you have no justice unless you are a criminal, or illegal invaders; then you are the latest addition to the protected class. If you are a tax eating public employee union, the corrupt left will fill your coffers with plunder so that you may live the kings’ life in retirement and launder a portion to return to them. This cycle is vicious to people who just want to live and let live.
 
Let there be no doubt; there are no limits that the left will avoid in pursuit of their chimerical utopian dream. They enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought, reflection, or common sense.  They have declared war on the people of this great nation and will never stop. Their arrogance will not even allow them to hide it anymore.
 
We will not let the arrogance and tyranny of the left prevail. This great experiment in self-government will continue to exist and live on.  We will not comply with the illegal laws they pass, and we won’t be disarmed and wait for the boxcars. The constitution and Bill of Rights does matter, it is not outdated, and if they hate our country, let them move on. I will not say give me Liberty or give me Death, Liberty is not theirs to give, it is already given me by God and although my death will eventually come, when it does, I will be a Freeman. The only way to take my Liberty is by taking my life. What say ye!!

In Liberty,
Chris Brumbles
Columbia County Coordinator
Oregon Firearms Federation
Founder, Oregon Irregulars 3%   ​

The Board of Commissioners in Curry County is not going to enact a Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance because there is not enough support.  Commissioner Court Boice is in full support of some version of the SASO, Commissioners Sue Gold & and Chris Paasch do not support the SASO.  Paasch claims that it is not a county issue.  Gold did not make much of a statement, but it was evident that she was not interested in the measure. 
 
The Board ended the workshop without any commitment to another meeting. 

Link to a video of the meeting:
​https://youtu.be/iujMYmuGjoQ
 
In my opinion, Paasch and Gold are afraid of the liability and “liberal” backlash.   I believe they think it is not the job of the commission to exert their authority against the state.  The county is one of the last lines in the battle of defending liberty.  It is their duty to protect our rights.  
 
Lyn Boniface is our contact in Curry and we will file the SASO as an initiative when we are ready. 
 
Curry residents are encouraged to contact their BOC. 
Please thank Commissioner Boice for his support
Please tell the other two Commissioners what you think of their decision.  Please be civil. 

Chris Paasch, Chair - [email protected]

Sue Gold, Chair - [email protected]

Court Boice, Commissioner - [email protected]

Phone: 541.247.3296 / 800.243.1996
​
Sincerely, Rob Taylor

Related Posts:
Curry County Workshop for Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance April 24, 2019
The SASO a New Law for the New Year
SASO Denied for Circulation by the Clerk of Columbia County
SASO on the Curry County Commissioners Agenda Wednesday February 6, 2019
LTE ~ Response to Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin for Comments on the SAPO
Coos County Initiative Filed ~ Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance
​Sign the Coos County Petition for the Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance
​The SASO a New Law for the New Year
Buy a Sign & Support the Right To Keep & Bear Arms! ~ Vote Yes for the SAPO!!!
Press Release: Constitutional Measure IP#8 The Common Firearms Act
County Status for the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance July 16, 2018
SOS 2020 Initiative Petition #6 School Gun Safety Act
Douglas County Ballot Question on the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance
SOS ~ 2018 Initiative Petition #43 Withdrawn by Chief Petitioners
Gun Owners of America Requesting Donations for Oregon Firearms Federation
Grant County SAPO Challenged in Court and County Responds to the Challenge
2018 Initiative Petition #44 Certified Ballot Title
Tom McKirgan ~ Man Behind the Douglas County Second Amendment Ordinance
Status of the Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties May 26, 2018
SOS ~ 2018 Initiative Petition #43 Certified Ballot Title ~ I WILL NOT COMPLY
LTE ~ Speaking Loud & Clear One County at a Time

​CURRY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
BI-WEEKLY ADMINISTRATIVE WORKSHOP
Wednesday April 24, 2019 – 5:30 PM
Commissioners’ Hearing Room, Courthouse Annex
94235 Moore Street, Gold Beach, Oregon
www.co.curry.or.us
Curry County does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities and all public meetings are held in accessible locations. Auxiliary aids will be provided upon request with 48 hours advance notification. Please call 541.247.3296 if you have questions regarding this notice.

AGENDA
Items may be taken out of sequence to accommodate staff availability.
Be advised no public comment is allowed at a workshop unless invited by the Chair.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL/AMENDMENT OF THE AGENDA
3. PUBLIC COMMENT (Only allowed at beginning of meeting. Limited to 3 minutes per person.)
4. PRESENTATION
A. Curry County Voices: The First Six Months, Its Future, and the Future of PEG Access Channels in General
5. PROJECTS
A. SASO (Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance) Discussion
6. OTHER (ORS.192.640( 1) ". . . notice shall include a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered at the meeting, but this requirement shall not limit the ability of a governing body to consider additional subjects.”)
7. ADJOURN

The editor of the Bandon Western World refused to print this letter to the editor, but we will print it here on Coos County Watchdog.  Anyone is welcome to submit their letter to the editor....Rob T.  

​LEGAL POOL VOTE
 
Mrs. Lawson, the only part of your letter that is not propaganda is these four words:  "It needs city utilities."
 
Our utilities exist because of 100+ years of tax dollars paid to establish and maintain them.  The rightful owners of our utilities are all the citizens, all the taxpayers of Bandon.  These rightful owners must have the final say on whether your private corporation, with its outsized water needs, gets access to the services.
 
This permission must be granted via a formal, legal ballot--a ballot mailed to us under the signature of the County Clerk, a secret ballot that is opened and counted only by legally appointed and sworn election workers. 
 
You claim that your  project is for "everyone" in Bandon.  Prove it, by 1) ceasing your back-room collusion with the Mayor and two Councilors, and 2) directing your energy toward a legal ballot measure which asks:
 
"Do you want to allow a private corporation to locate its swimming pool in City Park for the purpose of taking city utilities?"
 
In a world where you can be anything, be honest!
 
 
William Hand
PO Box 1353

OREGON FARM BUREAU STATEMENT ON HAMMONDS GRAZING PERMIT REISSUANCE
News Release from Oregon Farm Bureau
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Oregon Farm Bureau statement on Hammonds grazing permit reissuance
SALEM, OREGON, February 15, 2019 – “On Feb. 14, 2014, the Bureau of Land Management revoked the grazing permit of Hammond Ranches. Almost five years to the day later, on Feb. 13, 2019, BLM signed documents that reissued the permit, allowing the Hammond family to get back to the business of raising cattle in eastern Oregon.

“This reissued grazing permit signals that justice has finally been achieved for this rural family. While nobody can restore what the Hammonds have lost to years of prosecutorial overreach and bureaucratic vendetta, we are grateful that this awful chapter is closed.

“Oregon Farm Bureau was proud to play a role in advocating on the Hammonds’ behalf, including gathering over 25,000 online signatures and working directly with officials, so the family can return to doing what they love and keep a proud heritage of ranching alive.”
###


* Note to Editors: “Farm Bureau” is a registered trademark; please capitalize in all cases.
Oregon Farm Bureau (OFB) is a grassroots, nonpartisan, nonprofit, general farm organization representing the interests of farming and ranching families in the public and policymaking arenas. First established in Oregon at the county level in 1919 and the state level in 1932, Farm Bureau is organized in all 36 counties.

​Oregon Farm Bureau President Sharon Waterman is an OFB Hall of Fame honoree and operates a Century Ranch raising sheep, cattle, and timber in Bandon. She is OFB’s 16th president.

Contact Info:
Contact: Anne Marie Moss, [email protected]

​​Letter to Sheriff John Hanlin
​
  I read an article dated January 31st that was discussing several of the illegal and unconstitutional anti-gun bills that have been presented in the legislature this session.  The article got really disturbing when Sheriff John Hanlin became part of the story. While Hanlin was being interviewed, he admitted that many of these new bills were probably unconstitutional, but he’d, “ leave it to the courts to decide, rather than using the county’s new Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance to refuse enforcement of its provisions.” Hanlin also claimed that the SAPO was meant as a “formal Statement”.

  As the NW coordinator for the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance and now the Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance, please allow me to correct Mr. Hanlin, who obviously doesn’t have a clue as to why so many worked so hard on the SAPO.

  For more than a dozen years, our Natural Born Rights have been under constant attack by would be tyrants. Every gun law is illegal and the government actually has a mandate to leave our RIGHTS alone…it’s called the Bill of Rights. We won’t even mention that these bills would only affect people who have done nothing wrong and are only about control. What Sheriff Hanlin seems to forget is that he swore an Oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the people of his County. A Sheriff is directly elected by the people to protect their RIGHTS against all enemies of Liberty and we don’t let the “courts” decide what is constitutional. The “courts” are not the ultimate arbiter of the constitution, the constitution is and it was written so that the laymen would comprehend it. Everyone from the dog catcher to the President takes the Oath and it is not a ritual. If you enforce a law that you believe to be unconstitutional, you are usurping your authority and are therefore a tyrant.

  To be clear, the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance was not meant to be a “formal statement”. Yes, it was meant to send a message, but it is also meant to protect the people from overreach. In Federalist 46, Madison gave us a few ways to deal with overreach and one of the peaceful ways was nullification. The SCOTUS has opinioned many times that a law that is not constitutional is void ab initio. I thought Sheriff Hanlin was a Constitutional Sheriff and am very disappointed in his latest. We are now pushing a Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance to take the whole thing out of the Sheriffs hands. We will protect our RIGHTS if our elected employees won’t.  

In Liberty,
Chris Brumbles
Columbia County Coordinator
Oregon Firearms Federation
Founder, Oregon Irregulars (3%)

  Submitted by Chris Brumbles:

​Columbia County, this past November we passed the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance to protect our Inherent Natural Born Rights and Salem has doubled down with more usurpations. In response, on January 1st, 2019 I filed a Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance that further protects our Rights.

  The county responded to prospective petition 19-1 by rejecting it, saying it was not one subject, that it didn’t have complete text, and that it was administrative in nature. We believe the premises of this rejection to be false and ideologically driven; we have filed a lawsuit and will continue to pursue the protection of your Rights. We will keep you updated. To help turn Oregon Counties into Sanctuary’s for our Rights, please contact Sanctuary Ordinance.com to help.
​
In Liberty,
Chris Brumbles
Columbia County Coordinator
Oregon Firearms Federation
P.S. Your tax money will once again, be used against We The People to defend the counties ridiculous attempt to obstruct and enslave. (Up to you to include this part or not Marty.) 

SASO on the Curry County Commissioners Agenda
CURRY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEEKLY BUSINESS MEETING Wednesday February 6, 2019 – 9:00 AM in the Commissioners’ Hearing Room, Courthouse Annex 94235 Moore Street, Gold Beach, Oregon www.co.curry.or.us 
We are on the agenda to present the SASO. If you want to speak slips must be in by 9:00 am so come early. We need to fill the room and overflow it with Second Amendment supporters, so please tell all interested parties.
​

4. PRESENTATIONS
A. Cena Crook Service Award Presentation – Louise Kallstrom, County Accountant 
B. CPTSD (Curry Public Transit Service District) Grant Plans for 2019-2021, Kathryn Bernhardt, General Manager, CPTSD 
​C. SASO (Sanctuary 2nd Amendment Ordinance)  - Lyn Boniface

Hello Everyone,
After reading over the new draft of the "Smart Meter" ordinance it became obvious that it did not have an Opt-Out option, so this measure is a useless piece of legislation.  The people of Coos County will have to step up and speak out for the opt-out option for all residents.....Rob T.  

 Tuesday, January 15: 6:00 PM Hearing- Amending the Coos County Code to Promulgate Rules & Regulations Protecting County Citizens from Arbitrary and Excessive Utility Charges- Owen Building large conference room

Hello Randal,

Would you please look over the new Smart Meter ordinance from the county BOC.  They don't have it on the agenda, but that is a SM ordinance.  

However, the Board makes it for hardship cases and they get to set the criteria on what is a hardship case.  Please read it thoroughly.   
Sincerely,
Rob Taylor

Smart Meter OP ED

Smart Meters are data gathering and control endpoints of the Smart Grid. The Smart Grid was kicked into gear when the Federal Government passed the Stimulus Bill in Feb 2009 providing an 11 Billion Dollar financial motivation for what we see happening with Smart Meter Deployment nationwide.

​Propaganda of lowering power costs and improving the environment are false promises to hide the real objective of data collection, surveillance and control. Actually, the US Power Grid becomes more insecure with remote access and our environment is harmed by the substantial increase in RF Microwave transmissions. Smart Meters commonly utilize RF Microwave Frequencies similar to cell phones to provide 2 way communications with the utility. This not only puts individual customers at risk of hacking by Bad Actors, but also puts the whole power grid at risk because now your power can be cut remotely. Utilities tell you it is a good thing that your power can be disconnected remotely.

Smart Meters being remotely reprogrammable, having undisclosed capabilities, and completely out of our control, should scare every American who cares about security and safety for their home & family. Think 4th Amendment!

Smart Meters observe your power usage patterns during the day. This exposes activities like when you are home, when you sleep etc. When you consider that detailed data gathering does not benefit the customer at all; and yet makes tremendous profits for utilities and other agencies through Federal Grants and data sales to third parties, you start to see why the corporate leaning regulatory bodies like Oregon Public Utilities Commission are so dead set on forcing this invasive computerized technology on our homes. They levy completely illegal Opt Out Fees and yet are getting away with it in many US States, including Oregon.

Smart Meters do not save the consumer money! It only costs the consumer more and more! Computerized overbilling cannot be disputed successfully since there is no mechanical proof. Overbilling is common. Utility fees go Up and Up after deployment of Smart Meters. Then they will start Time-Of-Use to gouge you some more to keep your home warm or cool.

New Mexico’s Public Regulation Commission rejected the Smart Meter Deployment with Opt Out Fees because it did not benefit the public in any way and all power company claimed benefits to customers were declared false. Smart Meters only cost the customer more with no benefits.

Why did Oregon Public Utilities Commissioners approve and New Mexico’s Public Regulation Commissioners reject? New Mexico has “Elected” Commissioners which held public “Hearings” in which public comments and submitted evidence is allowed and must be included in the record for consideration. Oregon has “Appointed” Commissioners who did not hold public “Hearings” on Pacific Power’s Smart Meter Deployment Application with Opt Out Fees. Oregon PUC only had “meetings” in which public testimony was not allowed. The lack of contrary evidence on the record makes the Oregon PUC feel emboldened to repeat Pacific Power’s lies as if they were true.

The US Supreme Court is the only way to reverse this travesty of citizens being forced to decide between their health, safety and privacy; or; having to pay Extortion Fees that many just cannot afford. US citizens that have removed their smart meter and replaced it with an analog meter, which is completely within their constitutional rights to protect their home with force if necessary, are being convicted of Tampering Laws. Tampering Laws were never enacted to allow a utility to force an invasive harmful device on our homes, and of which they have total control! This is completely in violation of our 4th Amendment Rights and must be the basis of the appeal to the US Supreme Court. The illegal Opt Out Fees that were used to force this invasion on Americans is plain and simple Mafia style Extortion.

Smart Meter OP ED

Although the Opt Out fees are Double Billing, this argument will not hold up legally because they can pass a new budget removing the double billing. That feeling you get in your gut when you know something is wrong, but you just cannot put your finger on it, is totally justified in this case. Reducing costs by eliminating meter readers is a smoke-screen and a lie! The costs to read Smart Meters many times exceeds the costs to read analog meters! To read customers power usage with a Smart Meter, they must install new meters, new antennas, new infrastructure, hire more new personnel than the meter readers they fired, maintain the smart grid infrastructure, etc.

Customers refusing smart meters are being charged Opt Out fees, Meter Reading Fees and Meter installation fees while customers who accept Smart Meters are not being charged additional costs necessary to read their meters, installation fees or any other smart grid expenses! The Oregon Public Utilities Commissioners are bound by Oregon Statutes to insure fair cost based rates to customers; they have violated the law!

We have covered the 2 main issues so far;
1. Our Constitutional Rights to Choice when it comes to our home and safety, were violated.
2. Illegal Extortionary means were utilized.

Additional risks of Smart Meters not presented into evidence at Oregon Public Utilities Commission meetings are numerous.

Exposure to RF Microwaves 24/7. Despite the thousands of studies clearly showing the harm of non-ionizing RF Microwave exposure, this technology is being forced on our homes without our informed consent, exposing us to high power RF Microwave pulses every few seconds, 10,000 to 190,000 times a day.

Smart Meter Fires due to internal failure. Utilities divert attention away from this extreme risk to life and property by blaming fires on Hot Sockets and faulty wiring, accepting no responsibility and providing no insurance for Smart Meters. Smart Meter fires are well documented and still happening. In the first 6 months of 2018 British Columbia had 60 Smart Meter fires. Analog Meters never catch on fire!

Citizens in the U.S. are supposed to be protected by the constitution. The Right to refuse this fire risk on our homes is being taken away! The financial hardship of Opt Out Fees is just too much for many and people were not informed of the dangers. There is purposeful deception & lying taking place which is depriving the public of critical information that directly affects their family’s safety!

What will they put inside these meters forced onto our homes next? 5G? More advanced spying and control technology? How can we Stop this Invasion on our homes?

Band every County and City in your state together in a class action law suit against your states Utility Commission! Educate your county commissioners and legal counsel. The combining of legal teams means no more running out of money to force this to the US Supreme Court.

Join with Josephine County Oregon in doing ordinances to stop smart meters. Force the US Supreme Court to Rule on Our Right to Refuse Computerized Technology being forced on our homes.

We must stand up and win this or our rights as Americans will be gone forever ! !

Randal Barrett,
​Advocate NoSmartMeter.org

​Laws binding on OPUC Commissioners:
756.040 General powers.
(1) In addition to the powers and duties now or hereafter transferred to or vested in the
Public Utility Commission, the commission shall represent the customers of any public utility or tele-communications utility and the public generally in all controversies respecting rates, valuations, service and all matters of which the commission has jurisdiction. In respect thereof the commission shall make use of the jurisdiction and powers of the office to protect such customers, and the public generally, from unjust and unreasonable exactions and practices and to obtain for them adequate service at fair and reasonable rates.
The commission shall balance the interests of the utility investor and the consumer in establishing fair and reasonable rates. Rates are fair and reasonable for the purposes of this subsection if the rates provide adequate revenue both for operating expenses of the public utility or telecommunications utility and for capital costs of the utility, with a return to the equity holder that is:
Laws Utilities are bound by:
757.020 Duty of utilities to furnish adequate and safe service at reasonable rates. Every public utility is required to furnish adequate and safe service, equipment and facilities, and the charges made by any public utility for any service rendered or to be rendered in connection therewith shall be reasonable and just, and every unjust or unreasonable charge for such service is prohibited.
757.210 Hearing to establish new schedules; alternative regulation plan.
(1)(a) Whenever any public utility files with the Public Utility Commission any rate or schedule of rates stating or establishing a new rate or schedule of rates or increasing an existing rate or schedule of rates, the commission may, either upon written complaint or upon the commission’s own initiative, after reasonable notice, conduct a hearing to determine whether the rate or schedule is fair, just and reasonable. The commission shall conduct the hearing upon written complaint filed by the utility, its customer or customers, or any other proper party within 60 days of the utility’s filing; provided that no hearing need be held if the particular rate change is the result of an automatic adjustment clause. At the hearing the utility shall bear the burden of showing that the rate or schedule of rates proposed to be established or increased or changed is fair, just and reasonable. The commission may not authorize a rate or schedule of rates that is not fair, just and reasonable.
(b) As used in this subsection, “automatic adjustment clause” means a provision of a rate schedule that provides for rate increases or decreases or both, without prior hearing, reflecting increases or decreases or both in costs incurred, taxes paid to units of government or revenues earned by a utility and that is subject to review by the commission at least once every two years. (2)(a) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to rate changes under an approved alternative form of regulation plan, including a resource rate plan under ORS 757.212.
(b) Any alternative form of regulation plan shall include provisions to ensure that the plan
operates in the interests of utility customers and the public generally and results in rates that
are just and reasonable and may include provisions establishing a reasonable range for rate of
return on investment. In approving a plan, the commission shall, at a minimum, consider
whether the plan:
(A)
Promotes increased efficiencies and cost control;
(B) Is consistent with least-cost resources acquisition policies;
(C) Yields rates that are consistent with those that would be obtained following application
of ORS 757.269;
(D) Is consistent with maintenance of safe, adequate and reliable service; and
(E) Is beneficial to utility customers generally, for example, by minimizing utility rates.
(c) As used in this subsection, “alternative form of regulation plan” means a
Plan adopted by the commission upon petition by
a public utility, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, that sets rates and revenues and
a method for changes in rates and revenues using alternatives to cost-of-service rate
regulation.
(d) Prior to implementing a rate change under an alternative form of regulation plan, the
utility shall present a report that demonstrates the calculation of any proposed rate change at
a public meeting of the commission.
(3)
Except as provided in ORS 757.212, the commission, at any time, may order a utility to
appear and establish that any, or all, of its rates in a plan authorized under subsection (2) of
this section are in conformity with the plan and are just and reasonable. Except as provided
in ORS 757.212, such rates, and the alternative form of regulation plan under which the rates
are set, also shall be subject to complaint under ORS 756.500.
(4) Periodically, but not less often thanevery two years after the implementation of a plan
referred to in subsection (2) of this section, the commission shall submit a reportto the
Legislative Assembly that shows the Title 57 Page 28 (2015 Edition)
UTILITY REGULATION GENERALLY
757.212 impact of the plan on rates paid by utility customers.
(5)
The commission and staff may consult at any time with, and provide technical assistance to,
utilities, their customers, and other interested parties on matters relevant to utility rates and
charges. If a hearing is held with respect to a rate change, the commission’s decisions shall
be based on the record made at the hearing.
757.225 Utilities required to collect for their services in accordance with schedules.
No public utility shall charge, demand, collect or receive a greater or less compensation for
any service performed by it within the state, or for any service in connection therewith, than
is specified in printed rates schedules as may at the time be in force, or demand, collect or
receive any rate not specified in such schedule. The rates named therein are the lawful rates
until they are changed as provided in ORS 757.210 to 757.220.
757.227
Rate mitigation for certain electric company rate increases.
(1) As used in this section, “electric company” has the meaning given that term in ORS
757.600.
(2) The Public Utility Commission shall require that an electric company mitigate a rate
increase payable by a class of customers described in subsection (5) of this section if:
(a) The increase results from a transition to an electric company’s generally applicable costbased
rate from the rates established under the contracts described in subsection (5) of this
section; and
(b) The increase in the cost of electricity to that class of customers by reason of the transition
will exceed 50 percent during the first 12 calendar months after the transition occurs.
(3) The commission shall require an electric company to mitigate a rate increase under this
section by means of a schedule of rate credits for the class of customers described in
subsection (5) of this section. The rate credits provided by an electric company under the
schedule shall automatically decrease each year to the lowest credit necessary to avoid a rate
increase that is greater than 50 percent in any subsequent year. Rate credits under this section
may not be provided for more than seven years after the transition occurs.
(4) For the purpose of determining the increase in the cost of electricity to a class of
customers by reason of a transition described in subsection (2)(a) of this section,
the commission shall:
(a) Include the total charges for electricity service, including all special charges and credits
other than the rate credit provided under this section; and
(b) Exclude any local taxes or fees paid by the class of customers.
(5) This section applies only to customers of an electric company that purchase electricity at
metering points that before the transition described in subsection
(2)(a) of this section were eligible for rates that were set under contracts entered into before
1960 and remained unchanged throughout the period of the contract.
(6) The full cost of providing rate credits under this section shall be spread equally among all
other customers of the electric company.
[2005 c.594 §3]
757.355 Costs of property not presently providing utility service excluded from rate base;
exception.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a public utility may not, directly or
indirectly, by any device, charge, demand, collect or receive from any customer rates that
include the costs of construction, building, installation or real or personal property not
presently used for providing utility service to the customer.
(2)
The Public Utility Commission may allow rates for a water utility that include the costs of a
specific capital improvement if the water utility is required to use the additional revenues
solely for the purpose of completing the capital improvement.
757.755 Termination of residential electric or natural gas service prohibited; rules of
commission.
(1) The Public Utility Commission of Oregon shall establish rules to prohibit the termination
of residential electric or natural gas service when such termination would significantly
endanger the physical health of the residential consumer.
(2) The commission shall provide by rule a method for determining when the termination of
residential electric or natural gas service would significantly endanger the physical health of
the residential consumer.
CUB
774.020 Policy. The people of the State of Oregon hereby find that utility consumers need an
effective advocate to assure that public policies affecting the quality and price of utility services
reflect their needs and interests, that utility consumers have the right to form an organization
which will represent their interests before legislative, administrative and judicial bodies, and
that utility consumers need a convenient manner of contributing to the funding of such an
organization so that it can advocate forcefully and vigorously on their behalf concerning all
matters of public policy affecting their health, welfare and economic well-being.
[1985 c.1 §1]
774.030 Citizens’ Utility Board; powers.
(1) The Citizens’ Utility Board is hereby created as an independent nonprofit public corporation
and is authorized to carry out the provisions of this chapter.
(2) The Citizens’ Utility Board has perpetual succession and it may sue and be sued, and may in
its own name purchase and dispose of any interest in real and personal property, and shall have
such other powers as are granted to corporations by ORS 65.077. No part of its net earnings
shall inure to the benefit of any individual or member of the Citizens’ Utility Board.
(3) The Citizens’ Utility Board shall have all rights and powers necessary to represent and
protect the interests of utility consumers, including but not limited to the following powers:
(a) To conduct, fund or contract for research, studies, plans, investigations, demonstration
projects and surveys.
(b) To represent the interests of utility consumers before legislative, administrative and judicial
bodies.
(c) To accept grants, contributions and appropriations from any source, and to contract for
services.
(d) To adopt and modify bylaws governing the activities of the Citizens’ Utility Board.
[1985 c.1 §3; 1989 c.1010 §179]

Related Posts:
Coos County Commissioners Release Draft of "Smart Meter" Ordinance ​
NO Smart Meter Meeting NB Library Thursday November 1, 2018

​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 [email protected]. 
 
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 [email protected].   
Sincerely, Rob Taylor

Submitted Anonymously, 
 
The City Council  agenda for Oct. 2, 2018 included item # 8.31  Subject: Pool location in City Park, complete with maps and a recommendation signed by John McLaughlin, City Planning Director.
 
 We and at least three of our neighbors went specifically to hear this presentation and brought prepared three-minute comments that we were led to believe would be heard on the record.   We know many other concerned citizens who went in the hope of understanding what is going on and to ask questions.
 
However, when we arrived  and asked for the sign-up sheet to speak, Mary Schamehorn confronted us demanding to know the, “topic?”  When we said “pool” she stated  it was  NOT on the agenda and there would be no time to speak.  Apparently, the agenda had been changed  when it became known that an angry crowd may show up.
 
What is being hidden from the Citizens of Bandon and why were we denied the right to speak? 
 
City Council often listens to “presentations” by the pool lobby, so why were our opposing views not heard?
 
Why is the City Council bending under pressure from the pool lobby and an anonymous--possibly fictitious--donor?   
 
Why has the City Planning Department, used public facilities, public employees and tax-payer dollars, to have a “feasability study” written about  sites in City Park  in direct violation of  the City Council's five-to-one vote of 2.2.18 decreeing  “no pool in City Park”?   This Planning Dept. plan is giving encouragment to a private enterprise that is assuming it can destroy the Park for the rest of us.  We like City Park the way it is!
 
How can the mayor--with a clearly stated and monetarily supported conflict of interest in favor of the pool lobby--legally have the deciding vote if there is a tie in City Council on this matter?
 
How can the Mayor and City Council legally consider donating City land to the pool lobby, a private enterprise?

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.

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.