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

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
​[email protected]

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.

 Secretary of StateElections Division
oregonvotes.gov
Contact: [email protected] | 503-986-1518 | Toll Free 1-866-673-VOTE


Initiative Petition

SALEM –Signature verification for the 2018 petition cycle has been completed and the following measure numbers have been assigned to the legislative referral from the 79th Legislative Assembly and those petitions qualified to the November 6, 2018, General Election ballot. They are:




Measure 102
Referral 401 (HJR 201)
Amends Constitution: Allows local bonds for financing affordable housing with nongovernmental entities. Requires voter approval, annual audits


Measure 103
Initiative 37; determined to contain 119,744 valid signatures
Amends Constitution: Prohibits taxes/fees based on transactions for "groceries" (defined) enacted or amended after September 2017


Measure 104
Initiative 31; determined to contain 124,428 valid signatures
Amends Constitution: Expands (beyond taxes) application of requirement that three-fifths legislative majority approve bills raising revenue


Measure 105
Initiative 22; determined to contain 96,700 valid signatures
Repeals law limiting use of state/local law enforcement resources to enforce federal immigration laws


Measure 106
Initiative 1; determined to contain 117,799 valid signatures
Amends Constitution: Prohibits spending "public funds" (defined) directly/indirectly for "abortion" (defined); exceptions;
reduces abortion access




Additional information is available at www.oregonvotes.gov. ​

Town Hall Meeting Considers Amending
Empire Urban Renewal Plan

The Coos Bay Urban Renewal Agency (Agency) will be hosting a Town Hall Meeting next Tuesday, July 31 at 5:30 p.m. to discuss amending the Empire Urban Renewal Plan (Plan). The City of Coos Bay adopted the Empire URA Plan in 1988. This Plan allows for the expenditure of funds within the Empire Urban Renewal Area (Area). The City (also the Urban Renewal Agency) has completed numerous projects in the Area. These projects include assistance in the renovation of the Dolphin Theater, the Newmark Widening Project, South Empire Improvements, Hollering Place Wayside, Boat Building Center Improvements, Storefront Improvements (Empire Mercantile, Subway, and several others) a bathroom complex at the Empire Boat Ramp and other projects. 
 
The Agency and City Council have been evaluating the Empire Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) over the last year. In 2018, they adopted a minor amendment to update the projects in the Plan. The projects identified for the future are the Hollering Place Development, a Façade Program, street improvements, library assistance, and signage. As part of the minor amendment process, the financial projections were updated, and the City determined they would like to proceed with a substantial amendment to the Plan to increase the maximum indebtedness of the Empire URA District. This increase would allow financial capacity to undertake a number of capital street projects within the Empire URA District. 
 
The Town Hall meeting will be held at the Dolphin Theatre, located at  580 Newmark Avenue. ​

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: [email protected]
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.

 Secretary of StateElections Division
oregonvotes.gov
Contact: [email protected] | 503-986-1518 | Toll Free 1-866-673-VOTE


Initiative Petition



On July 2, 2018 the chief petitioners withdrew Initiative Petition 2018-043.




Subject Provided by Chief Petitioners
Promote Public Safety for All Through the Reduction of Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines


Chief Petitioners
Walter John Knutson 4526 NE 27th Ave Portland, OR 97211
Michael Z. Cahana 3139 SW Fairmount Blvd. Portland, OR 97239
Alcena E. Boozer 5256 NE 48th Ave. Portland, OR 97218




More information, including the text of the initiative, is contained in the IRR Database available at www.oregonvotes.gov.

The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance initiative was challenged in Grant County for bundling four subjects when an initiative can only cover one subject according to the Oregon state constitution.  Those reasons include four subjects: 1) redefining the constitutional definition of firearms to include ammunition and accessories; 2) making any gun-restricting law in Grant County unconstitutional; 3) expanding the sheriff’s statutory duties; and 4) prohibiting the sheriff from enforcing any law that restricts the right of people to possess firearms.

The County certified the initiative, so they will have to defend the challenge in court.  The challenge and the county's response is included in the following post.  It makes good reading for anyone interested in learning the legislative process at the local level....Rob T.

Initiative Petition

The Elections Division received a certified ballot title from the
Attorney General on May 31, 2018, for Initiative Petition 2018-044, proposed for the November 6, 2018, General Election.

Caption
Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities

Chief Petitioners
Henry Wessinger 1000 SW Vista Ave #1105 Portland, OR 97205
Vincenza Passalacqua 1704 19th St. NW #9 Washington, DC 20009
Paul Kemp 8710 SE 137th Avenue Happy Valley, OR 97086


Appeal Period
Any registered voter, who submitted timely written comments on the draft ballot title and is dissatisfied with the certified ballot title issued by the Attorney General, may petition the Oregon Supreme Court to review the ballot title.


If a registered voter petitions the Supreme Court to review the ballot title,
the voter must notify the Elections Division by completing and filing form
SEL 324 Notice of Ballot Title Challenge. If this notice is not timely filed, the petition to the Supreme Court may be dismissed.


Appeal Due
June 14, 2018


How to Submit Appeal
Refer to Oregon Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 11.30 or contact the Oregon Supreme Court for more information at 503.986.5555.


Notice Due
1st business day after appeal filed with Supreme Court, 5 pm


How to Submit Notice
Scan and Email to [email protected]
Fax to 503.373.7414
Mail to 255 Capitol St NE Ste 501, Salem OR 97310    


More information, including the certified ballot title and the Secretary of State's determination that the proposed initiative petition is in compliance with the procedural requirements established in the Oregon Constitution for initiative petitions, is contained in the IRR Database available at www.oregonvotes.gov.

Note from the Editor: 
Most people may not know that the Committee to Preserve the Second Amendment has been working since 2016 to convince the Douglas County commissioners to enact the SAPO measure, but like most politicians, they were hesitant to take that risk for the people of their county.     

Like many OR county commissioners, they tried to appease their constituents by enacting a symbolic resolution, which was a compromise and did very little to create a legitimate local law that would preserve the Right to Bear Arms. 

​The commissioners had one problem that was moving into their county, and that would be the Southern Regional Coordinator of our group, Mr. Tom McKirgan.  After battling politicians from both parties for three years on this issue, he was going to make sure the commissioners heard his argument, and he was not going to let them off easy.  Tom is a former lawman and full-time patriot.    

Almost upon arriving in Douglas County, Mr. McKirgan constantly reminded the commissioners of their duty to do something more significant in their county.  In March of 2018 when IP43 & IP44 appeared, the commissioners realized they were facing a new threat to the second amendment rights of their county’s residents, so the board decided to hear out the Committee to Preserve the Second Amendment. 
​
Thanks to Mr. Tom McKirgan, the Douglas County BOC will be referring the SAPO to the ballot box in the General Election.  The people of Douglas County owe a debt of appreciation for his diligence.   
Loyal friends are the most indispensable necessity in the fight against tyranny….Rob Taylor

On June 6th and June 20th, the Douglas County Board of Commissioners will hold public hearings on the recently proposed Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance, or SAPO. 
 
It is the same ordinance that has been sweeping Oregon in response to state measures IP-43 which bans “assault-style” firearms, large capacity magazines and requires gun registration with the state police, and IP-44, which requires unacceptable trigger locking mechanisms for storage and transport, effectively making home and self-defense nearly impossible.
 
How do you like the state telling you not to protect yourself, your family, and others with legally owned firearms while turning you into a felon overnight?
 
I am the Southern Oregon Coordinator for the Committee to Preserve the Second Amendment and had the honor to present the SAPO to the Board of Commissioners for their consideration in placing it on the November 2018 ballot. Oregonians are fed up with the continued relentless assaults on our inherent right to keep and bear arms, and we are not taking it sitting down. We are telling the entire state that our county WILL NOT COMPLY with any law that violates the Supreme Law of the Land; the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions.   
 
Any legislation not made in pursuance of the Constitution cannot exist and is invalid from inception.
 
Laws coming out of Salem and Portland are based solely on feel-good emotions, not rights.  When was the last time you heard of criminals obeying gun laws?   The law-abiding will follow these orders, but only to the point of government becoming destructive to their liberty.  
 
There are over 20,000 “common sense” gun laws on the books and not one of them has prevented or will ever prevent a single gun-related death. How will two more liberal gun laws solve the problems they cite? Then there will be three more proposed laws behind them and five more behind those. It will never end until We the People take control of our destiny with the ballot box.
 
Americans cannot callously ignore that too many have lost their tomorrows to preserve our liberty today.  It is now our fundamental responsibility to ensure the same freedoms for our children and beyond just as it was with the founders of this great nation.  The Second Amendment holds the same level of protection as every one of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights.  The attacks on it stop here in Douglas, a Second Amendment Sanctuary County.
 
Tom McKirgan
Douglas County

The word “county” is from the Middle English word conte, meaning the office of a count. However, a county within the United States, defined by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary as “the largest territorial division for local government within a state,” is based on the Anglo-Saxon shire, which corresponds to the modern county. Counties were brought to the United States by the English colonists and were established in the central and western parts of the United States by the pioneers as they moved westward.

Early county governments in Oregon were very limited in the services they provided. Their primary responsibilities were forest and farm-to-market roads, law enforcement, courts, care for the needy and tax collections. In response to demands of a growing population and a more complex society, today’s counties provide a wide range of important public services, including, public health, mental health, community corrections, juvenile services, criminal prosecution, hospitals, nursing homes, airports, parks, libraries, land-use planning, building regulations, refuse disposal, elections, air pollution control, veterans services, economic development, urban renewal, public housing, vector control, county fairs, museums, dog control, civil defense and senior services.

Originally, counties functioned almost exclusively as agents of the state government. Their every activity had to be either authorized or mandated by state law. However, in 1958, an amendment to the Oregon Constitution authorized counties to adopt “home rule” charters, and a 1973 state law granted all counties power to exercise broad “home rule” authority. As a result, the national Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has identified county government in Oregon as having the highest degree of local discretionary authority of any state in the nation.
Nine counties have adopted “home rule” charters, wherein voters have the power to adopt and amend their own county government organization. Lane and Washington were the first to adopt “home rule” in 1962, followed by Hood River (1964), Multnomah (1967), Benton (1972), Jackson (1978), Josephine (1980), Clatsop (1988) and Umatilla (1993).

Twenty-eight of Oregon’s 36 counties, including the nine with charters, are governed by a board of commissioners comprised of three to five elected members. The remaining eight less populated counties are governed by a “county court” consisting of a county judge and two commissioners.

Oregonians for Fair Elections has put forward a petition for the ballot in 2018. Rep Mike Nearman and Attorney James L. Buchal are the Chief Petitioners.

 The petition requires every voter in Oregon to prove citizenship. We think this is necessary because our laws have so many loopholes in them. There are non-citizens on the voter rolls.


Our website is www.oregoniansforfairelections.com There, any Oregonian can print, sign and mail the single singer petition to require all voters prove citizenship. I also attached our single signer page and the text of the petition language. 
The petition text gives all the ways a person can prove they are a citizen for purposes of this petition.
We also have another URL that goes to the same website: www.ORfive.com .

Here are the reasons we need Petition #5.
Oregon Voter paper application SEL 500 allows a person to register without any ID.

First, I want to remind everyone that it is a federal crime to lie on a registration form. The punishment is 5 years in prison and $125,000 fine.
Even so, Anyone can register to vote using a paper SEL500 registration card. You must attest that you are a citizen. Your word is good enough. You can skip the driver ID, the social security last 4 numbers or any other id. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) state that if you only provide your name, address, date of birth and signature you will still be registered. We ask the question: How do you know the information is accurate if you don’t ask for proof? 

247.012 "(4)(a) Except as provided in ORS 247.125, if a registration card is legible, accurate and contains, at a minimum, the registrant’s name, residence address, date of birth and signature, the county clerk shall register the person.”

Non-HAVA voters are voters who have not met the federal qualification for ID. They can not vote on a federal race. Oregon has over 10,000 non-HAVA voters (Active and Inactive, Inactive voters can update their registration address as late as election day and still vote). 

Federal Voter Postcard Application allows people all over the world to register in Oregon without any ID.

The federal voter postcard application allows folks around the world to register without producing an ID, let alone proof of citizenship. To register the applicant only need to attest that they are a US Citizen and pick an Oregon residential address for registration (That puts you in a specific precinct for voting purposes). No one will check if you ever lived there. We asked the elections office and they do not check. In Oregon, you can pick any street corner as your residential address. A homeless shelter will work, even if it is out of business. You only need a working mailing address, anywhere in the world, to successfully register and get an Oregon ballot.

Federal Voter Postcard Application (FVAP) says you need some ID. But if you read the instructions it says you can just say you don't have the documents and you will be registered anyway.

“FVAP Application Section 1
"You must provide a State issued ID number. If you do not have a State issued ID number, provide the last four digits of your Social Security Number. If you do not have either of these numbers, you must enter in Section 6: "I do not have a State issued ID or Social Security Number". 

From Anywhere in the world, anyone will get an Oregon ballot as long as they have a working mailing address and say they are a US citizen. Who will put you in jail if you lie about being a US Citizen when you are located outside the US? NO ONE. The worst that happens is you are taken off the voter rolls.
Here are the instructions: https://www.fvap.gov/guide/chapter2/oregon#fpca
Here is the FVAP application: https://www.fvap.gov/uploads/FVAP/Forms/fpca.pdf


New in 2018. DACA and TPS get Driver Licenses, Oregon ID, and permits without verification of their documents or proving legal presence.
Measure 88 was a referendum over a law passed that gave driver cards, permits and licenses to illegal aliens in 2014, but was defeated by 66% of the vote. Still, the DMV administrative rules set up rules to allow DACA and TPS enrollees to get Oregon ID,  Licenses and Permits. 

The Real ID bill was passed in 2017 to meet the federal requirements of the DHS for air travel. This legislative session, HB4111 was submitted to meet funding requirements that surfaced over the implementation of the Real ID bill.

Subsequently, HB4111 was hijacked with an amendment that made the DACA and TPS enrollees rules set by DMV administrative rules part of the Oregon Revised Statutes. This amended bill passed the Legislature through contorted means but ended up passing.

HB4111 stipulated that DACA and TPS enrollees do not have to prove legal presence and that their documentation could NOT be verified by DMV. 

“SECTION 3. (1) Notwithstanding ORS 807.021 and 807.730, a person is not required to
provide proof of legal presence in the United States when applying for a limited term identification card, a limited term driver license or a limited term driver permit…”

“(2) Notwithstanding ORS 807.022, the department may not verify the documents described in this section.”

JURY DUTY RECORDS SHOW THAT NON-CITIZENS ARE GETTING ON OUR VOTER ROLLS
Our records request after the Automatic Voter Registration passed, found there are still non-citizens getting on the voter rolls. They were caught when they self-admitted they were not citizens when they answered jury duty call. This records request shows that some non-citizens are slipping through the cracks and corrupting our voter rolls. 

Oregon needs to make sure all voters are citizens. Please help us gather the 117, 578 signatures before July 2018 to get this on the ballot. It is simple to do. Go to our website: http://www.oregoniansforfairelections.com Print, sign, and mail the single signer sheet. Then share it with your friends and family.

Blessings,
Janice Dysinger
President
Oregonians for Fair Elections
503 757 0670

Initiative Petition

To:              All Interested Parties
From:          Lydia Plukchi, Compliance Specialist
Date:           March 22, 2018
Subject:        Initiative Petition 2018-043
On March 22, 2018, the Elections Division received Initiative Petition 2018-043, proposed for the November 6, 2018, General Election. Petition 2018-043 was filed with updated text as a replacement for withdrawn petition 2018-042.
Subject Provided by Chief Petitioners

Promote Public Safety for All Through the Reduction of Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines

Chief Petitioners
Walter John Knutson
4526 NE 27th Ave Portland, OR 97211

Michael Z. Cahana
3139 SW Fairmount Blvd Portland, OR 97239

Alcena E. Boozer
5256 NE 48th Ave Portland, OR 97218

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 in the IRR Database available at http://egov.sos.state.or.us/elec/web_irr_search.search_form. ​

______________ ACTION ALERT _____________
 Click Tittle to view Bill
2018R1 HB 4145

Public Hearing   
2/7/2018 1:00 PM, HR 50

Please send Testimony to the
  House Committee On Judiciary

Join the Oregon Citizens Lobby for Limited Government:
http://oregoncitizenslobby.org/

Email: Email:  [email protected]
This bill expands the number of people who are prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition, adds reporting requirements on OR Dept of State Police (OSP), adds reporting requirements on the attorneys' offices and other law enforcement agencies receiving the additional reporting from OSP.

Personal Choice and Responsibility
Expands the list of prohibited persons under ORS 166.255 from those who have had a hearing to now include those who were served but did not request a hearing, expands the number of people who can be the target from 'intimate partner' to 'household member' which includes Spouses, Former spouses, Adult persons related by blood or marriage, Persons cohabiting with each other, Persons who have cohabited with each other or who have been involved in a sexually intimate relationship, Unmarried parents of a minor child.

Fiscal Responsibility
The reporting requirements on OR Dept of State Police including notifying attorneys' offices and other law enforcement agencies and publishing written reports, will require increased expenditure. If these measures were effective in making it impossible for prohibited persons to be armed, the expense might be justified. But law enforcement cautions against overconfidence that making something illegal makes it impossible: felons are found to be illegally in possession of weapons all the time. So while well-intentioned, the additional expenditure here is unlikely to be justified.

Limited Government
The reporting requirements on OR Dept of State Police including notifying attorneys' offices and other law enforcement agencies and publishing written reports, will require increase in staff to perform. This bill contains a 24-hour deadline to perform the additional reporting.
______________________
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2018R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB4145/

Related Posts:
OFF ~ The Oregon Firearms Federation urges a "NO" vote on Measure 101
Oregon Firearms Federation ~ Protect Your Rights For Free!
OFF ~ NRA CAVES AGAIN ~ 719 REPEAL EFFORT FALLS SHORT
Information on Several Petitions Currently in Circulation in the State of Oregon
OFF ~ The Gun Confiscation Battle Begins
Teri Grier ~ Bill Post ~ Mike Nearman ~ File Referendum on SB719 Gun Confiscation
The Differences Between SB719A & Connecticut's Gun Confiscation Law
LTE ~ SB719 Into the Oven, Out of the Stack
Oregon Firearms Federation Responds to Senator Brian Boquist on SB 719
OFF Late Session Omnibus Anti-Gun Bill Introduced
Senator Arnie Roblan Votes for SB917A The Gun Confiscation Bill ~ Now in House
OFF ~ CALL TO ACTION ~ Contact Senator Prozanski ~ Time to Fix SB941 
OFF ~ Bad Idea Becomes Bad Bill SB 868

New Oregon Laws for 2018 ~ Oregon lawmakers passed nearly 750 bills during their session this year.
 
PUBLIC RECORDS
Senate Bill 481 aims to increase government transparency. The bill, introduced at the request of Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, sets deadlines by which public officials must evaluate and respond to the public's requests for government documents.
 
GUN CONFISCATION
Senate Bill 719 will allow Oregon judges to issue so-called "extreme risk protection orders" to take firearms away from people determined to pose an immediate threat to themselves or family members. A judge would make the call whether to issue the order.
 
TRANSPORTATION
Oregon drivers will begin paying a slew of tax increases come January 1 as part of the Legislature's $5.3 billion transportation funding plan.
 
The statewide gas tax will increase 4 cents, to 34 cents.
 
Car registration fees will increase $13 to $43 and title fees go up $16 to $93 for a regular title.  There will be higher fees for registration of trailers, motorcycles, mopeds and heavy trucks. The tax and fee revenue will fund highway and infrastructure upgrades statewide for at least a decade.
 
There is a new increase in the surcharge for Crater Lake license plates, from $10 to $15 per plate.
 
Beginning Jan. 1, Oregon drivers are allowed to black out addresses on their registration card and proof of insurance.
 
People will no longer need to take a driving test to get an endorsement on their license for driving three-wheeled motorcycles, known as “autocycles”.
 
Senate Bill 357, the Legislature reduced the punishment for people caught riding public transportation without paying a fare. The new law ratchets down fare evasion from a Class A to a Class C misdemeanor, but penalties are higher for anyone caught evading fares three times or more.
 
 
VICE LAWS
Oregon will join a handful of states that have increased the tobacco age to 21. The law requires anyone buying tobacco or vape products to be 21-years-old or older and creates stiff penalties for convenience store clerks who sell to the underage.

 
EMPLOYMENT
Starting July 2018, employers will be required to give their employees at least one week notice of their work schedule. The law applies to employers with more than 500 employees. In 2020, the law will increase the time frame to two weeks advanced notice. This law makes Oregon the first state in the country to mandate when employee schedules are released.
 
Employers in the mill, factory or manufacturing industries will be required to pay their employees daily or weekly overtime (whichever is greater) starting Jan. 1. The law also prohibits employees from working more than 55 hours unless they agree to more hours.
 
Employers will be banned from asking employees to falsifying documents in relation to hours worked or compensation received. Any employer that violates this law may face a penalty of up to $1,000. For employees forced to violate this law, they may receive up to $1,000 in damages.
 
Companies may adopt policies limiting the accrual of paid sick leave to 80 hours per year. Companies can also adopt a policy prohibiting employees from taking no more than 40 hours of paid sick leave a year. Employers with 10 or more employees are required to offer 40 hours of paid sick leave annually. Any companies with less than 10 employees must offer up to 40 hours of unpaid sick leave a year.
 

 
CONSERVATION & RECYCLING
Oregon's famous bottle bill, which allows people to turn in empty bottles to redeem a 10 cent deposit, will expand to apply to beverages beyond beer, water and soft drinks. Beginning in 2018, nearly all beverage bottles will require a deposit. That means bottles that contained coffee, tea, hard cider, fruit juice, coconut water, kombucha and other drinks can be redeemed for the deposit.

2015 ORS 254.431¹
Special procedure for ballots challenged due to failure to sign return envelope or nonmatching signature

• Text
  
• 
  
• (1) If a ballot is challenged because it is returned in an unsigned return identification envelope or because the signature of an elector on a return identification envelope does not match the signature in the voter registration record for the elector, the county clerk shall mail to the elector a notice that describes the nature of the challenge. The Secretary of State shall design a standard form to be used in all notifications sent by county clerks under this subsection.
  

(2)(a) In order for the vote of the elector to be counted, the elector must provide evidence sufficient to disprove the challenge not later than the 14th calendar day after the date of the election.
(b) If the elector does not provide evidence sufficient to disprove a challenge alleging that the signature of the elector on a return identification envelope does not match the signature in the voter registration record for the elector by the 14th calendar day after the date of the election, the registration of the elector shall be considered inactive.

(3)(a) The filing officer may not release as a public record any information that could be used to identify an elector whose ballot has been challenged under this section until the eighth calendar day after the date of an election.
(b) Following the seventh calendar day after the date of an election, the filing officer may disclose as a public record under ORS 192.410 (Definitions for ORS 192.410 to 192.505) to 192.505 (Exempt and nonexempt public record to be separated) the following information about each elector whose ballot was challenged under this section:
(A) The name of the elector;
(B) The residence addresses of the elector; and
(C) The reason the elector’s ballot is being challenged.

(4) As used in this section, "filing officer" means:
(a) The Secretary of State, for federal or statewide elections and for elections to the office of state Senator or Representative; or
(b) The county clerk, for county, city or district elections. [2013 c.695 §3; 2014 c.67 §3; 2014 c.112 §3; 2015 c.169 §5]