Universal Citation: CT Gen Stat § 29-38c (2013)
(a) Upon complaint on oath by any state’s attorney or assistant state’s attorney or by any two police officers, to any judge of the Superior Court, that such state’s attorney or police officers have probable cause to believe that (1) a person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, (2) such person possesses one or more firearms, and (3) such firearm or firearms are within or upon any place, thing or person, such judge may issue a warrant commanding a proper officer to enter into or upon such place or thing, search the same or the person and take into such officer’s custody any and all firearms and ammunition. Such state’s attorney or police officers shall not make such complaint unless such state’s attorney or police officers have conducted an independent investigation and have determined that such probable cause exists and that there is no reasonable alternative available to prevent such person from causing imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others with such firearm.

(b) A warrant may issue only on affidavit sworn to by the complainant or complainants before the judge and establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant, which affidavit shall be part of the seizure file. In determining whether grounds for the application exist or whether there is probable cause to believe they exist, the judge shall consider: (1) Recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward other persons; (2) recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward himself or herself; and (3) recent acts of cruelty to animals as provided in subsection (b) of section 53-247 by such person. In evaluating whether such recent threats or acts of violence constitute probable cause to believe that such person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others, the judge may consider other factors including, but not limited to (A) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm by such person, (B) a history of the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force by such person against other persons, (C) prior involuntary confinement of such person in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, and (D) the illegal use of controlled substances or abuse of alcohol by such person. If the judge is satisfied that the grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, such judge shall issue a warrant naming or describing the person, place or thing to be searched. The warrant shall be directed to any police officer of a regularly organized police department or any state police officer. It shall state the grounds or probable cause for its issuance and it shall command the officer to search within a reasonable time the person, place or thing named for any and all firearms and ammunition. A copy of the warrant shall be given to the person named therein together with a notice informing the person that such person has the right to a hearing under this section and the right to be represented by counsel at such hearing.

(c) The applicant for the warrant shall file a copy of the application for the warrant and all affidavits upon which the warrant is based with the clerk of the court for the geographical area within which the search will be conducted no later than the next business day following the execution of the warrant. Prior to the execution and return of the warrant, the clerk of the court shall not disclose any information pertaining to the application for the warrant or any affidavits upon which the warrant is based. The warrant shall be executed and returned with reasonable promptness consistent with due process of law and shall be accompanied by a written inventory of all firearms and ammunition seized.

(d) Not later than fourteen days after the execution of a warrant under this section, the court for the geographical area where the person named in the warrant resides shall hold a hearing to determine whether the firearm or firearms and any ammunition seized should be returned to the person named in the warrant or should continue to be held by the state.  At such hearing the state shall have the burden of proving all material facts by clear and convincing evidence. If, after such hearing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, the court may order that the firearm or firearms and any ammunition seized pursuant to the warrant issued under subsection (a) of this section continue to be held by the state for a period not to exceed one year, otherwise the court shall order the firearm or firearms and any ammunition seized to be returned to the person named in the warrant. If the court finds that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, the court shall give notice to the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services which may take such action pursuant to chapter 319i as it deems appropriate.

(e) Any person whose firearm or firearms and ammunition have been ordered seized pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, or such person’s legal representative, may transfer such firearm or firearms and ammunition in accordance with the provisions of section 29-33 or other applicable state or federal law, to any person eligible to possess such firearm or firearms and ammunition. Upon notification in writing by such person, or such person’s legal representative, and the transferee, the head of the state agency holding such seized firearm or firearms and ammunition shall within ten days deliver such firearm or firearms and ammunition to the transferee.

(f) For the purposes of this section, “ammunition” means a loaded cartridge, consisting of a primed case, propellant or projectile, designed for use in any firearm.

(P.A. 99-212, S. 18; P.A. 13-3, S. 33.)

History: P.A. 13-3 made provisions re seizure and transfer of firearms applicable to ammunition, added Subsec. (f) defining “ammunition” and made technical changes.

Related Posts:
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
Second Amendment Legislation Repeals Parts of Background Checks HB 2973
OFF ~ Legislative Update
Lake County BOC  Public Meeting for Legal Update on SAPO February 15, 2017 10am
OFF ~ Multnomah Declares War On Gun Owners
Columbia County Voters ~ Download & Sign Second Amendment Petition
Action Alert:  County Commissioners Need to Hear Second Amendment Supporters
Coos County Watchdog Public Meeting on New Initiatives March 3, 2017 @ 6:00 pm
Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance “SAPO” Update: January 26, 2017
Coos County Sheriff Office Fingerprinting Machine Down NO CHL Until Feb 17, 2017
US Department of Justice ~ ATF ~ Firearms Transaction Record
SB548~ Relating to Residency Requirements for Concealed Handgun Licenses
Sheriff Office Fingerprinting Machine Down NO CHL Until January 25, 2017
OFF ~ The Gun Bills Are Coming, and Some Are Just Weird
OFF ~ First Anti-Gun Bill Proposed

League Testifies on Lodging Tax Bill
The House Revenue Committee, chaired by Representative Phil Barnhart (D-Eugene), held a hearing Thursday on an important lodging tax bill for cities and counties. The League testified in support of HB 2064 with a dash-1 amendment that revises state preemptions on the use of local lodging tax revenues in order to increase flexibility for addressing tourist-related costs.  The flexibility would allow restricted revenues to be used for maintenance of tourist-related facilities as well as the costs of tourism activities, tourist events and festivals, sporting events,
tourist attractions, and beautification projects that enhance tourist attractions, tourism facilities and tourist events.

In addition, the amendment would revise the definition for transient lodging intermediary to ensure all business model types that facilitate the retail sale of rooms or homes are required
to collect lodging taxes as well as file a tax return and pay the taxes. Presently, some entities are not paying the tax or require an agreement with a local government to pay the tax. Another amendment may be necessary to clarify that no double taxation is intended by the revisions.  The intent is that either the transient lodging provider is responsible for the tax, or if an intermediary is used by the provider, that intermediary will be responsible for paying the tax.

The committee’s discussion of the amendment was lengthy and very lively as there is great interest this session in providing local governments more flexibility as long as the changes are narrowly tailored to maintain a nexus to tourism. Oregon’s local lodging tax revenues have more than doubled since the 2003 preemptions went into effect, but increased tourism costs are also hamstringing the budgets of some cities and counties. Public safety costs for tourist events and activities are a particular need that legislators seem receptive to addressing this session.

The League will continue to work with the committee to advance the bill.
Contact: Wendy Johnson, Intergovernmental Relations Associate – wjohnson@orcities.org

Hey Folks,

The Jury Nullification Bill, SB924, died in committee. 

However, we plan to resurrect it next year.  It will be brought back in the short session in 2018. 

Thank you all for the support. 

The Sustainable Energy Ordinance
Violates the Right to Commerce
 
Since the first time cavemen traded bones for beads humans have participated in the most basic ritual of shopping the marketplace commonly referred to as the Right to Commerce.  Preceding any government or religion, the market is an organic element existing because we exist surviving on the unique trait of adaptability, not the artificial illusion of sustainability.        
 
Currently, there is an effort by a group of rabid environmentalist to deny people this right by democratizing trade and allowing voters the power to dictate over who can and cannot buy and sell products to willing consumers.  It is a threat to liberty looming over Coos County in the form of an ordinance titled, Establishing a Community Bill of Rights Providing for a Sustainable Energy Future, or Measure 6-162, which will be on the May ballot in a countywide election.
 
Measure 6-162 is supposed to be the silver bullet that will kill the LNG project in Coos Bay, but the people promoting this tyranny by the majority have stated that their end goal is to eliminate all use of fossil fuels and replace those affordable, dependable energy sources with more costly and unproven experimental alternatives.  The bill will also impose new draconian regulations that will limit growth potential through the hindrance of private ownership to the point of crippling the economy.  In an effort to find fuel smugglers or to detect illegal infractions, the local government will have to establish checkpoints on its borders, stifling traffic and free travel.  The process will make it more difficult and more expensive to heat houses and businesses or simply fill-up a car, effectively closing down the county.   
 
The nihilistic sponsors of the bill have even stated that, “if a town goes bankrupt trying to defend one of our ordinances, well, perhaps that’s exactly what is needed to trigger a national movement,” which shows a cruel indifference towards the very people they claim to be helping.   It also demonstrates the group’s blind faith adherence to a radical ideology even when those beliefs are detrimental to their fellow citizens.   It is the height of irrationality. 
 
The people of Coos have a chance to retain sanity by rejecting the idea that a vote can eliminate a right.  More importantly, its defeat will send a message to the anticapitalistic crowd who may use this same initiative to try to destroy the economy of other Oregon counties.  Oppose the regression of society and Vote NO on Measure 6-162 before the extremists relegate the community back to the Stone Age.
 
About the author:
Rob Taylor is the founder of a virtual network of local activist at CoosCountyWatchdog.com, and a chief petitioner for the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance. 

05.01.17

On the communist holiday of "May Day" the Oregon Senate passed, on an almost party line vote, the Boquist/Burdick gun grab SB 719A. Senator Betsy Johnson was the only Democrat voting "no."  Boquist was the only Republican voting "yes." The Democrats immediately issued a press release calling the vote "non-partisan." 

Senator Boquist's floor speech revealed a very different interpretation of what "due process" is than what we believe.
 
Under this bill you get an opportunity to prove your innocence only after you have been punished with the confiscation of your property and the elimination of your rights.
 
Boquist claimed that "there is a process" for confiscating legally owned Class III items under this bill but neglected to say what it was. When we contacted ATF several weeks ago they said they knew of no such process and one Police Chief told us he had no idea how this could be done legally.
 
We want to thank Senators Kim Thatcher, Dennis Linthicum and Alan Olsen for their testimony in opposition to this dangerous bill. We also want to thank Senators Girod and Kruse who, along with Thatcher, Linthicum, and Olsen approved and distributed a floor letter OFF wrote in opposition.
 
The bill now moves to the House where will do all we can to derail it. It's not clear at this point what committee it will be assigned to so please contact all Oregon House members to express your opposition to this assault on your rights.

TAKE ACTION HERE. 

From State Rep David Brock Smith ~ There are some good and bad bills moving through the legislature, and I am working to enhance and protect our fish, farm and forest industries, their communities and residents.

Senator Kruse and I will be holding our Town Halls next weekend, April 8th, 2017.

The schedule is:
Brookings – Chetco Library         9:00 AM
Gold Beach , County Annex         10:45 AM
Port Orford City Hall                     12:30 PM
Bandon Library                               2:30 PM
Coquille City Hall                             4:15 PM
Myrtle Point Kozy Kitchen             6:00 PM


Here is a great video of one of our hardworking Cranberry Farmers in Southwest Oregon. Over 97% of the cranberries grown in Oregon are grown in House District 1, and I am proud to work for and with these great people. To watch the video of Peters Cranberries, Inc, click here.

Call To Action
03.23.17
On March 22nd, we asked you to contact House Rep Brad Witt to express your concerns with his House Joint Resolution 13.

As many of you who contacted him know, Rep Witt has heard your concerns and agrees that in its current form, HJR 13 is overly broad and could well create situations Witt never intended. He has agreed to rework the resolution to address those issues.

But there is lots more to be done.

As you know the passage of SB 941 in  2015 has caused all of the problems we predicted it would. 941 outlawed most private transfers of firearms and was nothing more than a payoff to Mike Bloomberg and an attack on law abiding gun owners.

We repeatedly warned legislators that this bill was dangerous and opposed by most counties and most Sheriffs.  The anti-gun liberals in the legislature and big city cops who supported this law showed no interest in actually enforcing it when one of their own anti-gun activists blatantly violated it. But the damage it has done to Oregonians is incalculable.

The liberals who pushed 941 through to pay Bloomberg back for the money he poured into Oregon claimed the bill was about "safety" and "keeping guns out of the wrong hands." They told us it was for the good of "domestic violence victims." And of course, it was all lies.

In fact, 941 has made Oregon a far less safe place. 

As we have reported many times, when people who are identified as "prohibited persons" attempt to buy guns, they are virtually never arrested, even if they are actively wanted at the time!
Under 941 it is now a crime to safeguard a firearm for a neighbor who is going out of town or a friend who needs to remove a gun from his home for personal reasons. This from the same people who are demanding "safe storage" of firearms.

But it's even worse than that.  As result of the refusal of the anti-gun left to even consider the consequences of SB 941, Oregon has put its most vulnerable directly in the cross hairs of violence.

Oregon has a program for people who have active and credible threats against their lives. It's called the "Address Confidentiality Program" and participants essentially live in hiding.  Thanks to the leftist supporters of SB 941, all of whom generate plenty of theater about protecting the victims of domestic violence, anyone covered under the program is forbidden from buying a gun. You heard that right. The law forbids people who live in daily fear from purchasing a firearm to defend themselves and their children.

 This is so obviously wrong it is hard to believe that even the most ardent haters of gun rights could justify it. But of course, they do.

We want to fix this.

Make no mistake, all of SB 941 is flat out bad law and we want to see the whole bill repealed. But as we move towards that goal we want to reverse as many of the worst elements of the bill as we can.

There are other effects of 941.  For example, people who live in recreational vehicles can no longer legally buy firearms if they have a "continuous traveler" driver's license and now even antique firearms require a background check for a "private" transfer, something not required for a purchase from a dealer!

Quite a few good bills have been introduced by our friends in the legislature. You can see all current 2017 gun bills here, but three bills that would address these crucial issues are languishing in the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Floyd Prozanski, one of the legislature's most militant anti-gunners.

Those bills are: 
SB 667,  SB 854 and SB 855.

Please contact Floyd Prozanski and tell him it's time to fix the mess they made with SB 941. Please consider cc'ing your note to Senate President Peter Courtney who has the power to instruct Prozanski to hear these important bills. We cannot continue to allow the extremists in the legislature to keep putting innocent people at risk.

Prozanski's contact info can be found here.
His email is Sen.FloydProzanski@OregonLegislature.gov
Peter Courtney's contact info can be found here.
Courtney's email is  sen.petercourtney@oregonlegislature.gov

A sample message follows.

Related Posts:
OFF ~ Bad Idea Becomes Bad Bill SB 868
Second Amendment Legislation Repeals Parts of Background Checks HB 2973
OFF ~ Legislative Update
Lake County BOC  Public Meeting for Legal Update on SAPO February 15, 2017 10am
OFF ~ Multnomah Declares War On Gun Owners
Columbia County Voters ~ Download & Sign Second Amendment Petition
Action Alert:  County Commissioners Need to Hear Second Amendment Supporters
Coos County Watchdog Public Meeting on New Initiatives March 3, 2017 @ 6:00 pm
Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance “SAPO” Update: January 26, 2017
Coos County Sheriff Office Fingerprinting Machine Down NO CHL Until Feb 17, 2017
US Department of Justice ~ ATF ~ Firearms Transaction Record
SB548~ Relating to Residency Requirements for Concealed Handgun Licenses
Sheriff Office Fingerprinting Machine Down NO CHL Until January 25, 2017
OFF ~ The Gun Bills Are Coming, and Some Are Just Weird
OFF ~ First Anti-Gun Bill Proposed
Coos Bay Manager, Secretary of State & LOC Agree City's Laws Equal to State Law
LTE ~ Colombia County Approves Second Amendment Preservation Petition
Entering A Second Amendment Sanctuary County
Oregon Firearms Federation ~ Kevin Starret Endorses Teri Grier 
Second Amendment Chief Petitioners Needed for these Oregon Counties

Senate Committee Continues PERS Consideration

The Senate Committee on Workforce, chaired by Senator Kathleen Taylor (D-Portland), continued its consideration and analysis of reform concepts for the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) on Wednesday. Several amendments were introduced for SB 560, sponsored by Senator Tim Knopp (R-Bend). The amendments included the following:



• Reducing the multipliers used for calculating full-formula benefits from 1.67 percent for general service members to 1 percent for Tiers I and II, and reducing the multiplier for police and fire members from 2 percent to 1.2 percent. A retiree’s benefit is calculated by multiplying their final average salary by the multiplier for each year of creditable service (-2 amendment);

Severing the link between the assumed earnings rate and the annuity rate, and reduce it to 3.5 percent. This amendment addresses the “money-match” requirements that remain in the system. Currently, retirees eligible for the money-match are guaranteed a rate of return of 7.5 percent regardless of PERS investment earnings (-3 amendment);

• Prohibiting the use of accrued sick and vacation time that would accumulate as part of an employee’s final average salary calculation, effective on passage (-4 amendment);

• Increasing the retirement age for general service employees in the Oregon Public Service Retirement Plan (OPSRP) from 65 to 67 years of age regardless of years of service(-5 amendment);

• Requiring a public employer to pay a percentage of an employee’s salary into PERS when they hire a retiree (-6 amendment); and

• Increasing the amount of time it takes a newly-hired employee to establish membership in OPSRP (-8 and -9 amendments).

The committee only heard testimony from an invited panel that consisted of PERS staff, legislative counsel and the state’s chief human resources officer. The panel examined the constitutionality, systems savings and human resources aspects of each of the proposals. The preliminary analysis of these amendments can be found here.
The committee is expected to continue this discussion next week.

Contact: Scott Winkels, Intergovernmental Relations Associate – swinkels@orcities.org                    

The PERS reform options deemed likely constitutional by Legislative Counsel include:
1. Cap the final average salary calculation at $100,000 per year;
2. Use a market rate for Money Match annuities;
3. Ensure all PERS members contribute to their benefit by redirecting member contributions into an account to help pay for their future retirement;
4. Stop unfair pension enhancement by preventing future unused vacation and sick leave from artificially inflating final average salary calculations;
5. Spread the final average salary calculation over five instead of three consecutive years;
6. Move all new employees to a defined contribution plan requiring employers to match the 6% employee contribution into the Individual Account Program; and
7. Allow full bargaining regarding government payment of employee PERS contributions and limiting agreements to five-year periods.

The PERS actuary, Milliman, is evaluating the financial impacts of these proposals. If implemented, these reforms would not affect benefits already accrued by current PERS members.
“We now have a solid place to start conversations on real, fair PERS reform, and we’re ready to get to work,” said Senators Knopp and Johnson. “We invite any Oregonian interested in solving our PERS crisis to join us.”

Related Posts:
PERS ~ Possible Solutions, which will be ignored by the legislature....
PERS---Promises Made, Promises Broken, along with the budget
Letter to Editor---The Problem with PERS
Action Alert:---State Legislation PERS Bill
PERS---Liability Down Strong Returns still leaves $14 Billion Deficit...
PERS---Worse than Fuzzy Math: It’s Fictional
PERS---OR Lawmakers Must Address PERS reform--Agenda  2013
PERS---Study   shows advantages of 'defined benefit' pensions
PERS---issue heads back to Oregon Supreme Court
PERS---What is it? 
PERS---executive director answers questions about possible reform
What is the PERS crisis? 

March 14, 2017
The Oregon Jury Nullification Bill
 
Throughout the history of western civilization, there is a legal concept wherein individual jurors or an entire jury will either forgo and set aside the evidence as presented or the instructions given to them by the judge, or both and reach a verdict based on their own conscience.   It comes from a sanctioned doctrine subscribing that jurors are the judges of the facts, the law, and the moral imperative.   
 
Oregon is unique in the sense of already having a state constitution that enumerates this exalted tradition of jury discretion.  The sixteenth amendment states that, “In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases,” which should be fully disclosed to every jury at every trial to ensure their impartiality.
 
Since this is presently not the case, State Senator Kim Thatcher recently introduced a bill, SB924, which would interject wording pertaining to jury discretion into the jury instructions.  The bill states that, “As jurors, if you feel that a conviction would not be a fair or just result in this case, it is within your power to find the defendant not guilty even if you find that the state has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Many legal experts, including Constitutional Attorney KrisAnne Hall and Professor Roger Roots PhD, are confident that adding this single sentence, or a similar statement to the jury instructions in every courtroom is one lawful remedy to level an imbalance that is absent in the Judicial Branch of government today.  In Oregon, it would help restore the dwindling confidence and pride in the state’s legal system. 
 
The Sixth Amendment espouses that every individual has a right to an impartial jury. 
 
The impartiality of a juror will always be in question unless they are knowingly informed of the jury’s “power to acquit” and “right to nullify” even if guilt of the defendant is proven beyond reasonable doubt.  The only way for a defendant to have absolute knowledge that a jury of their peers is aware of this inherent authority is if the Judge in their case explains this right to the jury from the jury instructions before deliberations. 
 
 The term for this authority is “Jury Nullification,” which does not actually invalidate any law. It just nullifies the law in a particular case at the jury’s discretion.     
 
The court system has been overlooking the jury’s “power to acquit” and the “right to nullify” to the point of nonexistence.  Many times during US history, precedence has been set allowing the jury to find a defendant innocent, even when the decision was clearly contradictory to the law.  Yet today many Judges tell the juries that there is no such right.   In some cases, judges have rejected jurors from the jury panel due to their intent to nullify the law, and the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit validated this practice in a decision made in 1997.  
 
Consider this, before every interrogation of a suspect, an officer is supposed to read that person their Miranda Rights to afford them the opportunity of making an objective decision pertaining to their legal situation.  More importantly, it reiterates the fact that for the record the suspect was knowingly aware of their rights thus preserving the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings, which could possibly prevent the government losing the case on appeal.  Now extend that theory of acknowledgement to a jury.  A jurist that is unaware of their legal authority and individual rights, the “power to acquit” and the “right to nullify,”  would automatically be partial to the prosecution’s position in any trial due to this omission, thereby abolishing the defendant’s ability to receive an unbiased verdict by an impartial jury of their peers.     
 
The Fifth Amendment states, “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,” which establishes double jeopardy protections.  During the colonial era, the king would prosecute revolutionary colonists repeatedly until the royal court found them guilty.  The Founding Fathers were accustomed to this legal treachery and it is the reason why they held trial by jury as a very revered institution, and that the decision made by the jury was final, no matter what the court may have proven.  Jury discretion was and still is one of the few mechanisms a free society utilizes to keep the chains on unrestrained government. 
 
Unfortunately, the US court system currently operates on the assumption that individuals on a jury may or may not be aware of their rights as a jurist and for Judges and Prosecutors ignorance is bliss, but for defendants it is a dangerous bias.  In many other jurisdictions, the jury instructions have gone from “may” convict to “must” convict when the prosecution proves that a defendant is guilty of breaking a law, which eliminates any chance for a jury to use their own discretionary authority and common sense when deliberating a case.  
 
The ingrained system for both the federal and state courts are not going to exert any effort in explaining to prospective jurors of their legitimate duty, because it benefits the government’s ability for an easy conviction. 
 
The Legislature will have to initiate change to reform this systemic failure of the Judiciary.   Federal and state lawmakers will have to write new laws to compel the courts to inform the jury of their duties and rights by passing legislation that will forcibly insert that information into the jury instructions and compel the Judges to read those instructions before deliberations, or suffer the specified consequences.     
 
Click the following link to find out more information on SB924 the Oregon Jury Nullification Bill.  www.facebook.com/oregonjurynullificationlaw & www.CoosCountyWatchdog.com   
 
Keep track of the bill on OLIS at
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Measures/Overview/SB924.                                     
 
About the author:
Rob Taylor is the founder of a virtual network of local activist at CoosCountyWatchdog.com, and a chief petitioner for the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance. 

Right now in the Senate Committee On Judiciary there is a bill concerning the Right to an Impartial Jury.  It would add wording to the jury instructions given by the judge to the jury explaining their power to acquit and right to nullify.  
 
SB 924 is the Oregon Jury Nullification Bill
 
“The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.”
 
Please contact the following Senators on the Judiciary Committee and politely ask them to vote yes on Senate Bill 924, the Oregon Jury Nullification Bill.  Ask them to schedule a Hearing for SB 924, and to pass the bill on for a full vote of the Senate.  Then ask them to support the Right to Jury Nullification and please vote in favor of the measure.
Right now SB 924 is in the Senate Committee On Judiciary
 
More information and resource material concerning Jury Nullification is immediately following the list.  
 
2017 Regular Session
Senate Committee On Judiciary
 
Committee Chair Senator Floyd Prozanski
Democrat - District 4 - South Lane and North Douglas Counties
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1704   District Phone: 541-342-2447
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-413, Salem, Oregon 97301
District Address: PO Box 11511, Eugene, OR 97440
Email: Sen.FloydProzanski@OregonLegislature.gov
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/prozanski
 
Senator James I. Manning Jr.
Democrat - District 7 - North Eugene, West Eugene, Santa Clara, and Junction City
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1707
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-205, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: Sen.JamesManning@oregonlegislature.gov
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/manning
 
Senator Michael Dembrow
Democrat - District 23 - Portland
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1723    District Phone: 503-281-0608
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-407, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: Sen.MichaelDembrow@state.or.us
Twitter: @michaeldembrow
 
Senator Dennis Linthicum
Republican - District 28 - Klamath Falls
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1728
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-305, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: sen.DennisLinthicum@oregonlegislature.gov
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/linthicum
 
Senator Kim Thatcher
Republican - District 13 - Keizer
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1713
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-307, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: Sen.KimThatcher@state.or.us   
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/Thatcher

Related Posts:
Jury Nullification in American History
Quotes on the Fully Informed Jury
FIJA ~ Jury Rights Day ~ KrisAnne Hall Explains Jury Nullification
Judge Will Reportedly Misinform Jurors in the Trial of Ammon Bundy & Six Others

The Role of Jury Nullification in American History:
            The Trial of John Peter Zenger ~ 1733
John Peter Zenger was a German immigrant who printed a publication called The NEW YORK WEEKLY JOURNAL. This publication harshly pointed out the actions of the corrupt royal governor, WILLIAM S. COSBY. It accused the government of rigging elections and allowing the French enemy to explore New York harbor. It accused the governor of an assortment of crimes and basically labeled him an idiot. Although Zenger merely printed the articles, he was hauled into jail. The authors were anonymous, and Zenger would not name them.
 
In 1733, Zenger was accused of LIBEL, a legal term whose meaning is quite different for us today than it was for him. In his day it was libel when you published information that was opposed to the government. Truth or falsity were irrelevant. He never denied printing the pieces. The judge therefore felt that the verdict was never in question. Something very surprising happened, however.
[…]
When the trial began and Zenger’s new attorney began his defense, a stir fluttered through the courtroom. The most famous lawyer in the colonies, ANDREW HAMILTON of Philadelphia, stepped up to defend Zenger. Hamilton admitted that Zenger printed the charges and demanded the prosecution to prove them false. In a stirring appeal to the jury, Hamilton pleaded for his new client’s release. “It is not the cause of one poor printer,” he claimed, “but the cause of liberty.” The judge ordered the jury to convict Zenger if they believed he printed the stories. But the jury returned in less than ten minutes with a verdict of not guilty.
 
Cheers filled the courtroom and soon spread throughout the countryside. Zenger and Hamilton were hailed as heroes. Another building block of liberty was in place.
 
The Trial of William Penn ~ 1670
The common-law tradition of freedom of religion and of assembly has its origins in the 1670 trial of William Penn, accused of preaching an illegal religion in Gracechurch Street, London. The jury refused to convict Penn in spite of clear evidence of guilt, because they were unwilling to brand a man a felon for worshiping God according to his own beliefs. When the court attempted to punish Penn’s jury for their act of nullification, a higher court reversed on the principle that it is only the jury, not the judge, which has the authority to decide whether a defendant is guilty.
 
Fugitive Slave Act ~ 1850
Jury nullification was practiced in the 1850s to protest the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which was part of the Compromise of 1850. The Act had been passed to mollify the slave owners from the South, who were otherwise threatening to secede from the Union. Across the North, local juries acquitted men accused of violating the law. Secretary of State Daniel Webster was a key supporter of the law as expressed in his famous “Seventh of March” speech. He wanted high-profile convictions.
 
The jury nullifications ruined his presidential aspirations and his last-ditch efforts to find a compromise between North and South. Webster led the prosecution when defendants were accused of rescuing Shadrach Minkins in 1851 from Boston officials who intended to return Minkins to his owner; the juries convicted none of the men. Webster tried to enforce a law that was extremely unpopular in the North, and his Whig Party passed over him again when they chose a presidential nominee in 1852.
 
Conscription ~ 1864 to Present
Historians often cite the Fugitive Slave Act as one of the polarizing incidents that led us into Civil War a decade later. That war also saw, on both sides, another instance of the government compelling citizens to do its bidding: the military draft. Many citizens agreed with the justice of their side’s fight in that war, but were not eager to participate in it.
The Confederacy was the first to pass conscription, in 1862, and the Union followed the next year. Most men complied, but there was resistance, most famously in New York City’s draft riots of 1864. Again, the people were happy to acquiesce to a government policy—pursuing victory in the Civil War—but looked at it more critically when asked to be the instrument of that policy.
 
Since that time, American government has grown in scope and power, but there are still few acts that require the average citizen to participate against his will. One exception, the military draft, became accepted as an emergency measure with the rise of mass armies in the twentieth century. Since the end of the Vietnam War, draft registration has become a formality and no one has actually been compelled to serve against his will. Some in Congress have questioned whether registration is even still necessary.
 
What do you do when a child’s on fire? We saw children on fire.
What, what do you do when a child’s on fire in a war that was a mistake?
What do you do? Like write a letter?
 
With these words from Father Michael Doyle, the award-winning documentary film by Anthony Giacchino entitled The Camden 28 begins to tell the extraordinary story of a group of peace activists working to end the Vietnam War. In the early hours of 22 August 1971, this group of 28 including students, blue collar workers, clergy, and others, most of them would put into motion their direct action against the war. Several of them broke into a draft board office in Camden, New Jersey, and set about their work of destroying and removing draft records while others monitored the situation and advised from outside the buidling. Their goal was to shut the office down. With just a few minutes left before they planned to leave, they were accosted by FBI agents who had lain in wait, watching them work without interfering until they were given the order to intervene.
[…]
63 days after the trial began and nearly two years after their direct action the fate of the Camden 28 would be settled by their jury. On 20 May 1973, concluding an historic trial, the jury who had listened and deliberated over the case for two months declared each and every one of the defendants Not Guilty on every count against them. This jury exercised its right of jury nullification to vacate more than 100 charges en masse in this single trial.

Subsequent to this abject defeat in court, the government dropped charges against the other defendants who had been severed from this trial. Supreme Court Justice William Brendan would refer to the Camden 28 as “one of the great trials of the 20th century.” Just months after the close of the trial, the U.S. would end its military involvement in Vietnam.
 
 
Alcohol Prohibition
In 1920, the US Constitution was amended to prohibit the sale of alcohol because a majority wished to impose their moral beliefs on the minority of citizens. The jury protected citizens from the tyranny of the majority. During Prohibition, juries nullified alcohol control laws about 60 percent of the time. The fact that most juries would not convict on alcohol control laws made the use of alcohol widespread throughout Prohibition. Jury resistance contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing Prohibition. The jury reflecting made prohibition a toothless amendment.

Related Posts:
Quotes on the Fully Informed Jury
FIJA ~ Jury Rights Day ~ KrisAnne Hall Explains Jury Nullification
Judge Will Reportedly Misinform Jurors in the Trial of Ammon Bundy & Six Others

Quotes on the Fully Informed Jury
Quote From the Diary of John Adams on the Right of Juries ~ 1771 Feb. 12
[It] has already been admitted to be most advisable for the Jury to find a Special Verdict where they are in doubt of the Law. But, this is not often the Case–1000 Cases occur in which the Jury would have no doubt of the Law, to one, in which they would be at a Loss. The general Rules of Law and common Regulations of Society, under which ordinary Transactions arrange themselves, are well enough known to ordinary Jurors. The great Principles of the Constitution, are intimately known, they are sensibly felt by every Briton—it is scarcely extravagant to say, they are drawn in and imbibed with the Nurses Milk and first Air.
 
Now should the Melancholly Case arise, that the Judges should give their Opinions to the Jury, against one of these fundamental Principles, is a Juror obliged to give his Verdict generally according to this Direction, or even to find the fact specially and submit the Law to the Court. Every Man of any feeling or Conscience will answer, no. It is not only his right but his Duty in that Case to find the Verdict according to his own best Understanding, Judgment and Conscience, tho in Direct opposition to the Direction of the Court.
 
A religious Case might be put of a Direction against a divine Law.
 
The English Law obliges no Man to decide a Cause upon Oath against his own Judgment, nor does it oblige any Man to take any Opinion upon Trust, or to pin his faith on the sieve of any mere Man.
 
 
Quote from John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ~
 Jury Instructions in Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)
It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.
 
 
Quote by Victor S. Yarros Jury Reform originally published in Liberty, 1 June 1895
It is needless to say that no one has suggested the reform of making the jury judges of law as well as of fact. Indeed, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction with jury trial, the suggestion must seem paradoxical. But, in reality, such a reform would, even under present conditions, prove highly beneficial. It would simplify the proceedings and check legal juggling. It would diminish injustice and introduce common sense, which is all but banished from common-law jurisprudence.
 
Quote by William Kunstler Former ACLU director and co-founder of the Center for Constitutional Rights Jury Nullification in Conscience Cases
Historic cases apparently conflict with the court’s approach in Berrigan.  More than two centuries ago, Andrew Hamilton addressed a colonial jury in New York in defense of the printer, John Peter Zenger.  Zenger was, under the law as it then existed and the facts of his case, clearly guilty of the crime of seditious libel with which he was charged, yet his lawyer was permitted to urge the twelve men sitting in judgement upon him “to see with their own eyes, to hear with their own ears, and to make use of their consciences and understanding in judging of the lives, liberties, or estates of their fellow subjects.”
           
Because Andrew Hamilton was permitted by this colonial judge to appeal to the conscience of the jury his client was acquitted and the great principle of freedom of the press became one of our most cherished traditions.  Yet today, in a theoretically more enlightened age, American juries cannot be told that under the law they have the power to decide any criminal case as they see fit, and that no one can question their decisions, no matter how contrary to law and fact they might be.  This produces an interesting anomaly:  juries possess the power, but they cannot be told of it as they are of every other aspect of the juridical process.
 
The law, ancient and modern, was explicit on the inalienable power of jurors to follow their consciences, if that was the decisional route they desired to take.  

Related Posts:
FIJA ~ Jury Rights Day ~ KrisAnne Hall Explains Jury Nullification
Judge Will Reportedly Misinform Jurors in the Trial of Ammon Bundy & Six Others

02.28.17
 
Yesterday we told you about LC 1767 , a draft for a bill that would allow a "household member" or law enforcement agent to request that a person's guns and rights be taken away if they convinced a court that the person was an "extreme risk." 

Today we can report that the draft has been introduced as SB 868

It's no surprise that Ginny Burdick is one of the bill's sponsors. The other sponsor however, is Senator Brian Boquist who has long been a supporter of gun rights.

Link to Boquist's webpage: 
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/boquist

While the Boquist's sponsorship is no doubt well intentioned, we still believe the bill is both misguided and counter productive. Many of the factors a court could take into account for revoking a person's Second Amendment rights would already disqualify them from having a firearm, but the court is also allowed to consider whether the accused acquired or attempted to acquire a firearm or ammunition in the last 180 days!

That could be many of us and is a pretty scary reason to take someone's rights and property away.

Given the anti-gun bias prevalent in Oregon courts, especially in Multnomah County, this bill has the potential to be very dangerous.

Please contact Senate President Peter Courtney and tell him that SB 868 is a bad idea. Point out that while the bill claims to be, in part, an effort to prevent suicide, there is nothing in it that restricts the accused's rights to have prescription drugs, knives or car keys. Instead of seeking real solutions, this bill is just another attempt to demonize gun owners.

Courtney's contact info is:
Phone: 503-986-1600
Email  sen.petercourtney@oregonlegislature.gov 

HB 2973

At the request of:
Chief Sponsors:      Representative Post, Smith DB
Regular Sponsors: Representative Esquivel, Heard, Huffman, Nearman, Noble, Olson, Reschke, Sprenger, Stark, Whisnant, Wilson

Bill Title:  Relating to repealing the private firearm transfer criminal background check requirement.

Summary:  Repeals requirement that person who is not gun dealer obtain criminal background check prior to transferring firearm to another person who is not gun dealer.

Current Committee:  House Committee On Judiciary

1 22 2017
 
 Attached in entirety
 
United States Statutes at Large, 1952, Vol. 66, 82nd Cong., p. 163-282 
American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017
This bill repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws.
The bill requires: (1) the President to terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations (U.N.), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body; and (2) closure of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.
The bill prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N., (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (4) U.S. Armed Forces from serving under U.N. command, and (5) diplomatic immunity for U.N. officers or employees.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193/text
Sponsor: Rep. Rogers, Mike D. [R-AL-3] (Introduced 01/03/2017) Committees: House - Foreign Affairs Latest Action: 01/03/2017 Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. (All Actions)

Related Posts:
US Department of Justice ~ ATF ~ Firearms Transaction Record
Sheriff Office Fingerprinting Machine Down NO CHL Until January 25, 2017
OFF ~ The Gun Bills Are Coming, and Some Are Just Weird
OFF ~ First Anti-Gun Bill Proposed
Coos Bay Manager, Secretary of State & LOC Agree City's Laws Equal to State Law
LTE ~ Colombia County Approves Second Amendment Preservation Petition
Entering A Second Amendment Sanctuary County
Oregon Firearms Federation ~ Kevin Starret Endorses Teri Grier 
Second Amendment Chief Petitioners Needed for these Oregon Counties
Columbia County Receives Ballot Title for Initiative Petition 16-7
Video of the Columbia BOC Discussing the Second Amendment August 17, 2016
Columbia County Resident Files for Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance
Curry County BOC Vote to be a Second Amendment Sanctuary County
Curry County BOC Vote Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance July 20, 2016
Open Letter to the Curry County Board of Commissioners on 2nd Amendment
Curry BOC Voting on Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance Referral
An Election Message to Second Amendment Supporters

01.10.17

The Oregon Legislature, due to convene on Feb. 1, has started making available pending legislation. While there will no doubt be plenty more to come, we wanted to share with you some of the early proposals coming out of Salem.
 
Two bills in particular caught our eye.
 
We already told you about Kate Brown's proposal to institute indefinite delays on gun purchases if the Oregon State Police don't do their jobs. We shared a draft of that bill a few weeks ago. Now it's a "bill," HB 2237. This bill would eliminate the small and rarely used safeguard that allows a firearms transfer to take place after 3 business days have elapsed since the time a background check is initiated, if OSP does not issue a "permission slip" to exercise your rights.
 
In reality, few dealers are willing to complete a transfer without an approval, many believing they are liable if the check eventually ends up with a denial. The fact is, dealers are protected under Federal law if they complete transfers under these circumstances, but we have heard from more than one dealer who received veiled threats from the OSP and the Feds if they lawfully completed a transfer after 3 days.
 
While we have seen about 22 bills that effect gun owners, we wanted to tell you about two we found particularly odd: HB 2523 and HB 2526.
Both of these bills are sponsored by Senator Elizabeth Hayward, a Democrat, and House Rep Knute Buehler, a Republican. Both are physicians.
 
Interestingly, Hayward suffers from mental health issues, which makes her sponsorship of both bills somewhat concerning.
 
HB 2523 "Authorizes  gun  dealer  to  accept  for  safekeeping  firearm  surrendered  by person  or  family  or household  member  of  person  who  is  at  risk  of  causing  physical injury  to  self  or  others  with  firearm."
 
The bill would appear to allow a family or household member to take someone else's guns to a gun store and ask the gun dealer to store them because they think the person who owns the guns is dangerous. The dealer must then place the gun "in a secure location."
 
There is no requirement that the person who took the guns to the gun store have even the smallest qualification to determine another's state of mind. But the bill gets even stranger. Under the bill, the gun must be returned to whoever brought it in, or whoever can prove ownership of the gun, when they request it. If anyone can explain how this makes sense, please let us know.
 
Aside from the fact that there is not a single reason why any gun dealer would want to accept this responsibility with no compensation, it is hard to understand how a person taking your gun to a dealer against your will is not committing a theft. The bill does not require the gun dealer to conduct a background check to return the gun to the person who brought it in, or someone who can "prove" the gun is actually theirs, unless "required under Federal law." It would appear Docs Buehler and Hayward need an introduction to Gun Laws 101.

Keep in mind, under SB 941, which passed in 2015 with strong support of Dr Hayward, it is a crime for a person who is concerned about their mental health to allow a friend to safeguard their firearms.
 
HB 2526 will require gun dealers to provide "educational" material on suicide. These materials must be in a "prominent location near the point of sale." The bill requires the Department of Justice to "create or approve" ... "firearm safety and suicide prevention material."  But wait, it gets better. "Multiple versions of materials must be created or approved, to reflect the different local values and cultures within this state."
Buckle up folks. It is going to be a bizarre legislative session. And we are just getting started.

11.30.16


Kate Brown has announced the first of what we are sure will be an epidemic of anti-gun bills for 2017.

This proposed legislation mimics, and adds to, the concept behind HB 4147 from the 2016 session. A draft of the new bill can be seen here.

Currently Oregon law contains a safeguard, similar to Federal law, which simply says if the agency responsible for conducting background checks on firearms purchases is unable, or refuses, to complete a background check within a certain time frame, the buyer or "transferee" of the firearm may still legally take possession of the gun. In Oregon, background checks are conducted by the state police, often very badly.

The law does not require that gun dealers complete the transfer, it simply allows them to.

What the Governor is proposing is to eliminate that safeguard. She and other anti-gun Democrats are calling it a "loophole."  Not a day goes by that we do not hear from someone who is being delayed on a firearms purchase for no reason. Often these are people who have successfully completed transfers in the recent past. Many times they are people with valid concealed handgun licenses.

There is NO limit on how long the Oregon State Police can take to complete a check. There are people who have waited two years.  If the State Police claim they need information from another state, and that state simply refuses to cooperate, a perfectly qualified person can be "delayed" on a purchase forever.

As you know, thanks to the passage of the Democrat's SB 941 in 2015, virtually all private transfers are now illegal. As a result, this proposed legislation could become a de facto ban on gun purchases for anyone who the Oregon State Police simply say they cannot find enough information on.

The current system is a complete failure. You are required to ask the OSP for permission to exercise a right. If, through bureaucratic bungling or simple foot dragging, the OSP says it cannot complete your "permission slip" you are simply out of luck.

Imagine the impact this could have on a person attempting to obtain her first gun for self defense while facing a known threat.
 
She knows the state and the police cannot protect her and now she is being told she cannot protect herself.

We were able to defeat this dangerous legislation in 2016 when anti-gun extremist, Jennifer Williamson introduced it. Now it's back, no doubt the first of many. To express your concerns about this new and senseless attack on your rights and safety, please contact Heidi Moawad in the Governor's office.
Heidi.MOAWAD@oregon.gov
 
Talking points you may want to consider in your communication.

The rule that allows, but does not require, the transfer of a firearm after 3 business days have elapsed is not a "loophole" it is a safeguard.

The proposed legislation has absolutely no protections for persons unjustly denied a firearms purchase.

The proposed legislation places many people, especially women, in grave danger by potentially eliminating their ability to obtain a firearm for protection of themselves and their family.

The proposed legislation has no provisions for dealing with other states that do not cooperate with OSP's records requests.

The proposed legislation contains no appeals process or other mechanism for persons to challenge unjust delays, which could, under this legislation, become de facto denials.

The Oregon State Police already have a terrible track record of conducting these checks and an equally bad record of responding to persons who have been delayed without cause.


The next wave of anti-gun legislation is on its way. This is the first announced proposal. Please make your voice heard and be prepared to do it again and again. And remember, while the Republicans are in the minority, the Democrats love one thing more than they hate gun owners, and that's money. But they cannot raise taxes without some Republicans agreeing.  The Republican minority has the power to block any tax bill and can, and should, use that leverage to tell the Democrats NO MORE GUN CONTROL. It's going to be a rocky year. Stay involved.

Related Posts:
Coos Bay Manager, Secretary of State & LOC Agree City's Laws Equal to State Law
LTE ~ Colombia County Approves Second Amendment Preservation Petition
Entering A Second Amendment Sanctuary County
Oregon Firearms Federation ~ Kevin Starret Endorses Teri Grier 
Second Amendment Chief Petitioners Needed for these Oregon Counties
Columbia County Receives Ballot Title for Initiative Petition 16-7
Video of the Columbia BOC Discussing the Second Amendment August 17, 2016
Columbia County Resident Files for Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance
Curry County BOC Vote to be a Second Amendment Sanctuary County
Curry County BOC Vote Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance July 20, 2016
Open Letter to the Curry County Board of Commissioners on 2nd Amendment
Curry BOC Voting on Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance Referral
An Election Message to Second Amendment Supporters
OFF ~ Stand With Oregon's Sheriff ‏
OFF ~ 2016 Candidate Ratings ‏
OFF ~ 1515 Derailed Now We Must Stop 4147 ‏
OFF ~ If You Don't Act, Kiss Your Rights Goodbye ‏
OFF ~ Prozanski's Secret Accusation Bill Formally Introduced
OFF ~ Update On The Most Dangerous Gun Bill Ever
Senator Whitsett Explains ~ Second Amendment & Due Process Rights Under Attack
Jury Nullification, or Jury Discretion and The Second Amendment

Hey Folks,

The following conversation is between me and some government officials on an inquiry about the swearing in of city officials in Coos Bay that may have given the people another precedence for enacting the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance in our county and in other counties in Oregon.  In the process of answering my question the Manager of Coos Bay, The Secretary of State and The League of Oregon Cities made the argument in defense of local communities passing laws that are equal to state law.  Their answer is what local sovereignty is all about and the exact argument that has been made in defense of local initiatives that circumvent state law.   It is a prospect that was debated during the time of Dillon's Rule to the Cooley Doctrine.....Rob T.  

Link to the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance:
http://www.cooscountywatchdog.com/second-amendment-preservation-ordinance.html

Link to the Dillon's Rule and the Cooley Doctrine: 
http://juh.sagepub.com/content/8/3/271.extract

From: Rob Taylor
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 1:59 PM
To: Rodger Craddock
Subject: Swearing in of Officers

Hello Rodger, "City Manager of Coos Bay"

Can you please explain how the city of Coos Bay can swear in their elected officers when the election has not been certified by the county clerk or by the state? 

Below is a copy of the OR Constitution form Article 2, but I know the difference may be due to the city charter establishing its own rules on the election, but how can the swearing in take place before certification?  

      Section 14. Time of holding elections and assuming duties of office. The regular general biennial election in Oregon for the year A. D. 1910 and thereafter shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. All officers except the Governor, elected for a six year term in 1904 or for a four year term in 1906 or for a two year term in 1908 shall continue to hold their respective offices until the first Monday in January, 1911; and all officers, except the Governor elected at any regular general biennial election after the adoption of this amendment shall assume the duties of their respective offices on the first Monday in January following such election. All laws pertaining to the nomination of candidates, registration of voters and all other things incident to the holding of the regular biennial election shall be enforced and be effected the same number of days before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November that they have heretofore been before the first Monday in June biennially, except as may hereafter be provided by law. [Constitution of 1859; Amendment proposed by H.J.R. 7, 1907, and adopted by the people June 1, 1908]

Sincerely,
Rob Taylor

From: Rob Taylor
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 3:11 PM
To: WHALEN Alma
Subject: Re: Swearing in of Coos Bay Councilors

Hello Alma,  "Works for the Secretary of State's office"

Is that legal to appoint a board without that board being certified even if it is stated in the city charter?  Then, are the decisions made by the newly elected council official?    It does not seem proper or legal.  Do you have any ORS or written laws that regulate that process to reassert the legality of the city's charter or their decisions?  

I have Article two, section 14 of the OR Constitution, but it does not clarify the laws concerning city charters and certification.  

Sincerely,
Rob Taylor

From: Rob Taylor <obetewic@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 12:59 PM
To: Susan Muir
Subject: LOC Inquiry on City Elections

RE:  LOC Inquiry on City Elections

Hello Susan,

I have an inquiry on the election laws pertaining to cities that the SOS could not answer.

On Tuesday November 15, the city of Coos Bay had their regular city council meeting where they swore in the newly elected officers.  However, the city had them take the oath of office before the election was certified by the county clerk or the state.  Then these uncertified elected officials made some very important and controversial votes and that is where my questions begin.  

How can the city of Coos Bay legally swear in city officers before the election is certified?

How can any of the votes taken during the meeting be valid if it was held before the certification of the election and none of the officers where certified?

If it is legal, would you please send me the ORS or OAR that pertains to the laws on this issue? 

Sincerely,
Rob Taylor

Related Posts:
LTE ~ Open Letter to Mayor and Councilors of Coos Bay on Wastewater Treatment
LTE ~ Colombia County Approves Second Amendment Preservation Petition
LTE ~ Occasionally the Righteous can Still Win
LTE ~ Rigging Elections Using Three Proven Mechanisms
LTE ~ Help Support the Right to Pursue Fishing, Hunting, & Plinking
LTE ~ Irrational Opposition to the Patriot Movement in Saint Helens, OR
LTE ~ An Open Letter to the Mayor of Coos Bay Crystal Shoji from Fred Kirby
LTE ~ Mark Daily Running on Two Issues, User Rate Fees & Best Available Tech
LTE ~ Judge Candidate Ryan Hughes was Libeled & Slandered Anonymously  
LTE ~ Coos Bay Wastewater at a Turning Point
LTE ~ North Bend Airport Manager Might be "Nuts" 
LTE ~ One Very Confused Dick in Coos Bay
LTE ~ Coos Bay Privatization of Wastewater Treatment Plant for Overpriced Lawyers
LTE ~ Flat Income Tax vs FAIRtax ‏
LTE ~ To the Citizens of Coos County

Revenue Forecast Stable But Down Slightly
The Oregon Office of Economic Analysis issued its quarterly revenue forecast this week, informing lawmakers that projected 2017-2019 net general fund resources are holding stable, although down $14.3 million from the September forecast.

Lottery revenues are up $1.8 million since the September forecast, and jobs are being added as the state’s economy grows. However, the overall growth rate of 5,000 new jobs per month over the past two years has slowed to about 3,000 jobs per month. The state’s reserve fund has also decreased slightly to $948.9 million. This week’s projections will be used by Governor Brown as she prepares a proposed 2017-19 biennial budget. By law, the governor must prepare a balanced budget, and the scheduled release date for the 2017-19 budget is December 1. The estimated budget shortfall to maintain current services, is $1.7 billion.

The forecast was presented to a joint meeting of the House Revenue and Senate Finance and Revenue committees, chaired by Representative Phil Barnhart (D-Eugene) and Senator Mark Hass (D-Portland). Additional highlights of the presentation included: an unexpected bump in estate tax revenues; a comparison of the cigarette taxes in Oregon and Washington; a report on sizable state population increases; and recent job gains attributed mainly to small businesses.
Legislators receive revised revenue forecasts every three months to permit adjustments to the state’s budget to reflect changing economic conditions. The next forecast will be released February 22, 2017, during the first month of the legislative session.

Contact: Wendy Johnson, Intergovernmental Relations Associate – wjohnson@orcities.org

Greetings,  

We have quite a bit of jury-related news regarding the trial of Ammon Bundy and six other defendants that has gotten under way this week in Oregon. 

News sources are confirming what I heard from an observer from courtroom: the judge in the case is reportedly planning to misinform jurors regarding their right of jury nullification. 
According to The Oregonian,

"The judge also said she intends to question each juror on whether they were handed a flier outside court about jury nullification, and to instruct them that they must follow the law even if they disagree with it. Judge Brown said deputy U.S. marshals indicated there may be people outside court distributing such fliers.

Ryan Bundy and Ammon Bundy's lawyer Marcus Mumford objected to the judge's proposed instructions to prospective jurors. Ryan Bundy argued that they will "rob a juror" of the right to serve as a "check and balance'' on the federal government's power."

I understand from a courtroom observer that jury instructions were argued for approximately an hour to an hour and a half. In the event that there is an appeal after this trial is over, this issue may be ripe for litigation.
Despite the judge's stated plan to try and keep jurors in the dark about their right of jury nullification, on the first day of jury selection, defendant Ken Medenbach appeared in court wearing a shirt that the judge apparently did not become aware of until late in the day. As shown in the photograph above, the shirt displays a quote from the case of U.S. v. Dougherty on the back. The famous John Jay quote from  Georgia v. Brailsford (1794) appears on the front.

After becoming aware of the shirt yesterday afternoon, the judge apparently sent the following letter to Mr. Medenbach:

We also have some news for you on the jury selection process. On the first day of jury selection, the judge dismissed 11 out of 31 potential jurors:


Judge excludes 11 of 31 potential jurors for Oregon 
standoff trial in first day of questioning 

Clicking through to the above article will lead you to all the gory details including:

• dismissal of one potential juror who would not agree to follow the law blindly if he disagreed with it,
• questioning of jurors to ensure that they would all ignore "pangs of conscience" if they found that they disagreed with the law, and
• questioning of jurors to determine if anyone had received jury nullification information outside the courthouse.

As frequently happens when high profile cases involving substantial disagreement come up, I am aware that there are many people who have opinions for and against the defendants. There is a larger point here that is independent of any particular case, charge, defendant, or what we might think of any of those:

In every case, ALL defendants have a right to a fair trial before a fully informed jury, who can then decide based on the facts, the law, and their consciences how best to vote in order to ensure a just outcome. 
To stack the jury with people who will ignore their consciences on command and to instruct the jury falsely they are required to uphold the law as the judge instructs them amounts to de facto jury tampering under color of law. This undermines the fundamental purpose of trial by jury, which is to be an independent body empowered judge both the facts and law, and to stand as a protective bulwark shielding individuals and our rights against government.

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

Related Posts:
FIJA ~ Government vs. Fully Informed Juries: Denver by Roger Roots
SCOTUS ~ Upholds Jury As Sole Fact-Finding Authority in Capital Sentencing
Jury Nullification, or Jury Discretion and The Second Amendment
SCOTUS---Supremes Refused to Hear Legal Challenges to the NDAA 
SCOTUS---Police Must Get a Warrant to Search Information on a Cellphone, Right ON 
OFF---Supreme Court Rules Against the Transfer of Guns Between Approved Buyers
OFF---Supreme Court to Hear "Straw Purchase" Case
SCOTUS---Court Takes up case of Fired Air Marshal for whistle-blowing 
SCOTUS---Court Vacates Police Immunity Ruling
7th Circuit Court Rules Against Gun Activist Using Precedence Set in the Drug War 
OR Supreme Court---LOC Celebrates the Fact the Property Owners lose more rights
SCOTUS---Is it a fish or an incriminating document?