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:  hjud.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov
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]

City Council Meeting
Calendar Date:Monday, November 6, 2017 - 7:00pm
BANDON CITY COUNCIL 
REGULAR MEETING
November 6, 2017, 7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 555 HIGHWAY 101, BANDON 97411


AGENDA
1.   CALL TO ORDER - INVOCATION - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
     Pastor Ron Harris, Pacific Community Church
2.   PUBLIC REQUEST(S)
3.   PRESENTATIONS
3.1 Volunteer of the Month
3.2 Recognition for Bandon being named #2 Safest City in Oregon
3.3 Introduction of New City Staff
4.   HEARINGS
4.1 Marijuana - Recreational
5.  PROCEEDINGS
5.1   ACTION & DISCUSSION
5.1.1 PERS Update
5.2   RESOLUTION
5.2.1 Res 17-09 Establishing a Policy for Serving Alcohol at City Facilities
5.2.2 Res 17-10 Adopting a New Electric Rate Schedule Effective Dec. 1, 2017
5.3   ORDINANCE
5.3.1 Ord #1621 Propose Amendments to BMC Title 9 Drinking in Public Places
5.3.2 Ord #1623 Propose Amendments to BMC Title 16 & 17 Providing for Recreational Marijuana
6.  CONSENT AGENDA
6.1   APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES
6.1.1 City Council Regular Meeting – October 3, 2017
6.1.2 City Council Study Session – October 3, 2017
6.2   REVIEWING OF COMMISSION & COMMITTEE MINUTES
(These have not necessarily been approved by the commission or committee they belong to)
6.2.1 Planning Commission Meeting –

• August 24, 2017- Work Session

• August 24, 2017 – Regular Meeting

• September 28, 2017 – Regular Meeting

6.2.2 Parks & Recreation Commission

• October 12, 2017- Regular Meeting

6.3   INFORMATION ONLY: DEPARTMENT REPORTS
6.3.1 A/P Report for September 2017
6.3.2 Library Report for September 2017
6.3.3 Public Works Report for October 2017
6.3.4 The Barn Report for September 2017
6.3.5 Planning Department Report for October 2017
6.3.6 Police Department Report for September 2017
6.3.7 Consolidated Municipal Utility Report
6.4   INFORMATION ONLY: OTHER ITEMS
        6.4.1 Appointment to Committees & Commission    

• Parks & Recreation Commission – Christine Hall

7.  PUBLIC COMMENT - The City of Bandon offers this time for citizens to comment on municipal issues not already on the agenda. After the Mayor asks for comments, rise or raise your hand for the Mayor to acknowledge you. Come to the podium and state your name and address. Please be sure to speak into the microphone. Comments should be limited to 3 minutes. Please supply 16 copies of the material brought to the meeting for distribution.
8.  OTHER: COUNCIL/MAYOR/STAFF REMARKS
9.  ADJOURN TO JOINT URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY REGULAR MEETING


JOINT CITY COUNCIL /URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY REGULAR MEETING
1.  CALL TO ORDER
2.  APPROVAL OF JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND U.R. MINUTES
2.1 August 7, 2017 Joint City Council and U.R. Meeting
3.  ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION RE: 192.660(2)(e), To conduct deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property transactions.
4.  ADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION
5.  ANY ACTION, IF NECESSARY FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION
5.1 Potential direction to staff regarding real property.
6.  ADJOURN


******************************************************************
Council Chambers is accessible to the disabled. 
For special services contact City Hall 48 hours in advance at
347-2437, Voice ˜ 711 TTR ˜
e-mail: citymanager@cityofbandon.org ˜
web: www.cityofbandon.org ******************************************************************

Supporting Documents
3.2 Recognition for Bandon being Named #2 Safest City in Oregon (55 KB)
3.3 Introduction of New City Staff (47 KB)
4.1 Public Hearing Proposed Amendments to BMC 16 & 17 - Recreation Marijuana (1 MB)
5.1.1 Oregon PERS Update (957 KB)
5.2.1 Resolution # 17-09 Establishing a Policy for Serving Alcohol at City Facilities (99 KB)
5.2.2 Resolution # 17-10 Adopting a New Electric Rate Schedule Effective December 1, 2017 (949 KB)
5.3.1 Ordinance #1621 Propose Amendments to BMC Title 9 Drinking in Public Places (288 KB)
5.3.2 Ordinance #1623 Propose Amendments to BMC Title 16 & 17 - Providing for Recreational Marijuana (226 KB)
6.1.1 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes - October 3, 2017 (244 KB)
6.1.2 City Council Study Session Minutes - October 3, 2017 (94 KB)
6.2.1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 24, 2017 Work Session (91 KB)
6.2.1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 24, 2017 Regular Meeting (83 KB)
6.2.1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 28, 2017 Regular Meeting (194 KB)
6.2.2 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes - October 12, 2017 (176 KB)
6.3.1 Accounts Payable Report for September 2017 (366 KB)
6.3.2 Library Report for September 2017 (147 KB)
6.3.3 Public Works Report for October 2017 (35 KB)
6.3.4 The Barn / Community Center Report for September 2017 (348 KB)
6.3.5 Planning Department Report for October 20174 (82 KB)
6.3.6 Police Department Report for September 2017 (161 KB)
6.4.1 Parks and Recreation Commission Appointment - Christine Hall (167 KB)
2.1 Joint City Council and Urban Renewal Meeting Minutes - August 7, 2017 (81 KB)

Remember that the NRA endorsed State Representative Caddy Mckeown and she voted for the Gun Confiscation Bill, SB719, while her opponent, Teri Grier was one of the Chief Petitioners for the referendum of the new law. 
 
Please consider giving a donation to the Oregon Firearms Association.  The founder, Kevin Starret is an unwavering champion of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  In addition, please give a huge THANK YOU to Mike Nearman and Bill Post for their effort to destroy a very bad piece of legislation…..Rob T.   

Related Posts:
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
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

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