Event catered by Bon Apetit
Come Join the Bay Area Chamber of Commerce, The Campaign to elect Teri Grier to Oregon's House Seat Nine, and the Coos County Republican Central Committee for a ribbon cutting ceremony at our Patriot Place headquarters. Event catered by Bon Apetit These are the documents filed with the Coos County Clerk:The petition sheets will be available soon:
The Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance was designed to replace the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance that the voters of Coos County enacted in the election of 2015. 2018 Coos County State of Oregon Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance SECTION 1. TITLE The title of this ordinance shall be known as the "Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance,” or “SASO.” SECTION 2. FINDINGS The people of Coos County Oregon find and declare: A. Acting through the United States Constitution, the people created government to be their agent in the exercise of a few defined powers, while reserving the citizen’s right to decide on matters, which concern their lives, liberties, and properties in the ordinary course of affairs; B. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states, “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”; C. The rights of the people to keep and bear arms are further protected from infringement by State and Local Governments under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America as well as Article 1 of the Constitution of the Great State of Oregon; D. Article 1, Section 27 of the Constitution of the Great State of Oregon states, “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power”; E. Article 1, Section 33 of the Constitution of the Great State of Oregon states, “This enumeration of rights and privileges shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people”; F. The Supreme Court of the United States of America in District of Columbia v. Heller upheld the individual rights to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Justice Scalia’s opinion stated that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; G. Justice Thomas M. Cooley in the People v. Hurlbut 24 Mich. 44, page 108 (1871) he surmises: “The State may mould local institutions according to its views of policy or expediency: but local government is matter of absolute right; and the state cannot take it away”; H. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America Section 1 it states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”; I. There is a right to be free from the commandeering hand of government that has been most notably recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Printz v. United States. The Court held: ‘The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. The anticommandeering principles recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Printz v. United States are predicated upon the advice of James Madison, who in Federalist #46 advised “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” in response to either unconstitutional federal measures or constitutional but unpopular federal measures; J. It should be self-evident from the compounding evidence that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right that shall not be infringed and all local, state, and federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition are a violation of the Second Amendment; K. Local governments have the legal authority to refuse to cooperate with state and federal firearm laws that violate those rights and to proclaim a Second Amendment Sanctuary for law-abiding citizens in their cities and counties; L. Therefore, through the enactment of this document Coos County Oregon is hereby a Second Amendment Sanctuary County; SECTION 3. PROHIBITIONS A. Other than in compliance with an order of a District or Circuit court, and notwithstanding any other law, regulation, rule or order to the contrary, no agent, department, employee or official of Coos County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, while acting in their official capacity, shall: 1) Knowingly and willingly, participate in any way in the enforcement of any Extraterritorial Act, as defined herein regarding personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition. 2) Utilize any assets, county funds, or funds allocated by any entity to the county, in whole or in part, to engage in any activity that aids in the enforcement or investigation relating to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition. SECTION 4. PENALTIES A. All local, state and federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations, which restrict or affect an individual person’s, or The Peoples’, general right to keep and bear arms, including firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition shall be foreign laws and defined as Extraterritorial Acts, and are invalid in this county. Such Extraterritorial Acts shall not be recognized by Coos County, are specifically rejected by the voters of this county, and shall be considered null, void and of no effect in Coos County Oregon, and this includes, but shall not be limited to the following: 1) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services on the purchase or ownership of those items by citizens; and 2) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition; 3) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition; 4) Any registration and background check requirements on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition for citizens; and 5) Any Extraterritorial Act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by citizens of the legal age of eighteen and over; and 6) Any Extraterritorial Act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from citizens; and 7) Any prohibitions, regulations, and/or use restrictions related to ownership of non-fully automatic firearms, including but not limited to semi-automatic firearms; including semiautomatic firearms that have the appearance or features similar to fully automatic firearms and/or military "assault-style" firearms by citizens; and 8) Any prohibition, regulations, and/or use restrictions limiting hand grips, stocks, flash suppressors, bayonet mounts, magazine capacity, clip capacity, internal capacity, or types of ammunition available for sale, possession or use by citizens; and 9) Any restrictions prohibiting the possession of open carry or concealed carry, or the transport of lawfully acquired firearms or ammunition by adult citizens or minors supervised by adults. B. Anyone within the jurisdiction of Coos County Oregon accused to be in violation of this ordinance may be made a defendant in a civil proceeding pursuant to ORS 203.065. C. Fines recovered under ORS 203.030 to 203.075 shall be paid to the clerk of the court in which recovery is had. After first deducting court costs in the proceedings, the clerk shall pay the remainder to the treasurer of the county for the general fund of the county, pursuant to ORS 203.065. D. A civil offense against this ordinance is a Class A violation, per ORS 203.065, with a maximum fine of $2,000 for an individual, and $4,000 for a corporation, per ORS 153.018. E. Any peace officer, as defined by ORS 161.015, may enforce this ordinance, adopted under ORS 203.035. F. Exceptions: a. The protections provided to citizens in Section A(1)-(A)(9) of this ordinance do not apply to persons who have been convicted of felony crimes. b. This ordinance is not intended to prohibit or affect in any way the prosecution of any crime for which the use of, or possession of, a firearm is an aggregating factor or enhancement to an otherwise independent crime. c. This ordinance does not permit or otherwise allow the possession of firearms in State or Federal buildings. d. This ordinance does not prohibit individuals in Coos County from voluntarily participating in assisting in permitting, licensing, registration or other processing of applications for concealed carry permits, or other firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition licensing or registration processes that may be required by law in other legal jurisdictions outside Coos County or by any other municipality inside Coos County. SECTION 5. PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION A. Any entity, person, official, agent, or employee of the Coos County Government who knowingly violates this ordinance, or otherwise knowingly deprives a citizen of Coos County the rights or privileges ensured by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon State Constitution, while acting under the color of any state or federal law, shall be liable to the injured party in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. B. In such actions, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the government of Coos County Oregon or any political subdivision of the county, reasonable attorney's fees and costs. C. Neither sovereign nor official or qualified immunity shall be an affirmative defense of the County in cases pursuant to Section 4 or 5 of this ordinance. SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY A. The provisions of this act are hereby declared to be severable, and if any provision of this act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this act. SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE A. The effective date of this ordinance, The Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance or SASO shall be effective immediately upon certification of approval by the voters of Coos County. Related Posts: Buy a Sign & Support the Right To Keep & Bear Arms! ~ Vote Yes for the SAPO!!! Press Release: Constitutional Measure IP#8 The Common Firearms Act County Status for the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance July 16, 2018 SOS 2020 Initiative Petition #6 School Gun Safety Act Douglas County Ballot Question on the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance SOS ~ 2018 Initiative Petition #43 Withdrawn by Chief Petitioners Gun Owners of America Requesting Donations for Oregon Firearms Federation Grant County SAPO Challenged in Court and County Responds to the Challenge 2018 Initiative Petition #44 Certified Ballot Title Tom McKirgan ~ Man Behind the Douglas County Second Amendment Ordinance Status of the Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties May 26, 2018 SOS ~ 2018 Initiative Petition #43 Certified Ballot Title ~ I WILL NOT COMPLY LTE ~ Speaking Loud & Clear One County at a Time Every election seems to come with the promise of more tax increases. The government never seems to have enough. Even with record revenues, the Oregon state government finds itself with shortfalls and more unfunded liabilities left for the repayment of future generations. Our own Coos County commissioners are always mulling over new taxes. The museum tax, the transient tax, the road tax, the marijuana tax and of course the urban renewal tax they are insatiable in their appetite for the people’s money. In late March of this year, the commissioners bypassed the people and voted unanimously to renew the county’s North Bay Urban Renewal plan, which has the potential of going into thirty-two million dollars of debt. The commissioners give the same cheesy excuse that only the people living in the UR area are paying the UR tax, but that is a half-truth. It is true that only the property owners in a UR area pay their property taxes directly to that area’s UR agency over the frozen tax base. Anything over the frozen base is the increment of taxes that goes to finance the UR agency, hence the term tax-increment financing. However, those tax dollars were supposed to go to several other overlapping taxing districts to cover the cost of the services provided by those districts. Everyone in the county uses the services provided by those districts, including the owners of the properties inside the UR area. When taxpayers of the property inside the UR taxing area do not pay for the services they are using because the system has redirected the money to the UR agency, other taxpayers in the other overlapping countywide districts have to cover the cost of those expenses. Therefore, everyone who pays property taxes in Coos County pays taxes directly or indirectly for the debt accrued by all seven urban renewal areas that exist in the county through this process of tax increment financing. Otherwise, property owners would not see UR taxes listed on their tax bill. The county loses $3 million annually in tax revenue to urban renewal, which represents 5% of the total amount of property taxes collected in the county. Multnomah County, which is essentially Portland, dedicates about 25% of their total annual property taxes to urban renewal, and their number one complaint is affordable housing, which is partially due to TIF. There is no such thing as free money. Since the politicians are going to use most of this money to facilitate the development of private corporations, it then comes down to a simple question. Should the government use public tax dollars to gamble on private development or should corporations gamble with their own money? Politicians are neither lucky nor skillful enough to be rolling the dice with the people’s money, and that includes the three political hacks currently serving on this county’s Board of Commissioners. People rarely get a chance to rescind an ordinance that continues a tax, and once the government enacts a tax, it is impossible to stop. In the November election, the people will have a chance to repeal the county’s urban renewal plan and the tax debt that goes along with it. The voters of Coos County should take advantage of this possibly once in a lifetime experience and vote yes to repeal. VOTE YES for Measure 6-168 and feel-good about repealing a tax because it is the right thing to do. Anyone interested in finding out more information on urban renewal and tax-increment financing can go to www.CoosCountyWatchdog.com. Related Posts: Coos County Commissioners Approve Tax Free Living in Bay Area Enterprise Zone Coos County Clerk Certifies Petition to Repeal the North Bay Urban Renewal Plan Commissioners Cribbins & Sweet Deserve Public Reprimand for Deception Commissioner's URA Vote Triggers Tax Referendum ~ Meeting on Friday the 13th Coos County Considering Ordinance to Extend UR Tax Debt March 27, 2018 Board of Commissioners Postpones Vote on Coos County Urban Renewal Agency Update on The Campaign to Shut Down the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency Coos County Public Hearing on Extending the Urban Renewal Tax Debt Dec. 13, 2017 The Continuing Saga of the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency Coos County Board of Commissioners FINAL VOTE on Extending the URA Debt Information on the Campaign to Shut Down the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency Coos County Proposed Ordinance Adopting North Bay UR Plan ~ FOREVER Coos County Commissioners Hearing on Extending the Debt of the North Bay URA Cribbins & Sweet Utilize Voter Suppression on Urban Renewal Extension Secretary of StateElections Division oregonvotes.gov Contact: irrlistnotifier.sos@oregon.gov | 503-986-1518 | Toll Free 1-866-673-VOTE Initiative Petition SALEM –Signature verification for the 2018 petition cycle has been completed and the following measure numbers have been assigned to the legislative referral from the 79th Legislative Assembly and those petitions qualified to the November 6, 2018, General Election ballot. They are: Measure 102 Referral 401 (HJR 201) Amends Constitution: Allows local bonds for financing affordable housing with nongovernmental entities. Requires voter approval, annual audits Measure 103 Initiative 37; determined to contain 119,744 valid signatures Amends Constitution: Prohibits taxes/fees based on transactions for "groceries" (defined) enacted or amended after September 2017 Measure 104 Initiative 31; determined to contain 124,428 valid signatures Amends Constitution: Expands (beyond taxes) application of requirement that three-fifths legislative majority approve bills raising revenue Measure 105 Initiative 22; determined to contain 96,700 valid signatures Repeals law limiting use of state/local law enforcement resources to enforce federal immigration laws Measure 106 Initiative 1; determined to contain 117,799 valid signatures Amends Constitution: Prohibits spending "public funds" (defined) directly/indirectly for "abortion" (defined); exceptions; reduces abortion access Additional information is available at www.oregonvotes.gov. Support the Right To Keep and Bear Arms! Donate for campaign signs in support of the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance. These TEN counties tentatively have a SAPO measure on the November Ballot: Baker---------- Measure 1-84 Columbia----- Measure 5-270 Douglas------ Measure 10-165 Jackson------ Measure 15-181 Klamath------ Measure 18-110 Lake----------- Measure 1-84 Linn----------- Measure 22-174 Lincoln------- Measure Umatilla------ Measure Union---------- Measure 31-96 Put the name of the county on the donation form in the designated space. The average cost of one 4-foot by 8-foot sign is $35 and a Yard Sign costs $2.75 each. The minimum donation is $5. Buy a sign for the campaign so they can put them out.Disclaimer: These signs will be put out by the campaign and not shipped to any individual donor. Click the button to donate to |
|
Coos County Planning Approves Extension Request for LNG Natural Gas Pipeline
Coos County Regular Board Meeting Tues 9:30am Dec. 5, 2017 ~ LNG on Agenda
FERC Notice of EIS for JCEP Public Comments & Meetings ~ Coos Bay June 27, 2017
Coos County Grants One Year Extension Approval for LNG Pipeline for the JCEP
BOC ~ Notice of Deliberation on JCEP Tuesday August 16, 2016
Public Meeting for Coos County April 19 & North Bend April 26, 2016 on JCEP
Open Letter to the Coos County Board of Commissioners Concerning the JCEP
LTE ~ Leshley Don't Know Dick About the JCEP Work Camp
Jody McCaffree Appeals LNG Road Construction Coos County Planning Oct. 9, 2015
Do Enterprise Zones Work? ~ An Ideopolis Policy Paper February 2011
Educational Enterprise Zone Workshop Roseburg OR Thursday, September 17, 2015
Coos County Planning Decisions on LNG & Effected Roads
LTE ~ CEP appears to be great for Canadian Veresen / JCEP
LTE ~ LNG Pipeline Man and His Bag of Money
LTE ~ Should We Be Worried Dealing with Veresen and the LNG
LTE~ A Package of Rancor for Coos County Commissioner John Sweet
Critique of the BOC Town Hall in Bandon---"PUT IT ON THE BALLOT"
BOC---MGX---Jordon Cove Made Commitment to Pay $30M Annual Taxes Despite EZ
Public Meetings on South Coast Community Foundation "Put it on the Ballot"
BOC---Public Meeting for Vote on South Coast Community Foundation April 1, 2014
Letter to Editor---South Coast Community Foundation Scam will Top All Past
MGX---Geddry Slams Koch over Forced Cooperation & Jordon Cove Funding
League of Oregon Cities Class of Slanted View on History of Urban Renewal in OR
City of Bandon---Expanding Government Cheese
Urban Renewal---King Hales of Portland Master of Government Development
FBI Press Release on Charges Against Local Bandon Developer Michael Drobot
Urban Renewal---Read How Schools suffer to Support Wealthy Foreign Companies
City of Bandon---Local Developer Michael Drobot Admits to Bribery & Conspiracy
Preserving the American Dream: Lessons in Beating Boondoggles
Agenda 21---Sustainable Development & Regionalism
City of Bandon---Votes on the renewal of City Manager's Contract
The County certified the initiative, so they will have to defend the challenge in court. The challenge and the county's response is included in the following post. It makes good reading for anyone interested in learning the legislative process at the local level....Rob T.
2018-05-14 Grant County Petition Challenging Measure 12-72 | |
File Size: | 1131 kb |
File Type: |
2018 Initiative Petition #44 Certified Ballot Title
Tom McKirgan ~ Man Behind the Douglas County Second Amendment Ordinance
Status of the Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties May 26, 2018
SOS ~ 2018 Initiative Petition #43 Certified Ballot Title ~ I WILL NOT COMPLY
LTE ~ Speaking Loud & Clear One County at a Time
OFF ~ Another Anti-gun Ballot Measure
Second Amendment Rally for the Rights of Young Adults
LTE ~ Young Adults Eighteen to Twenty-one have a Right to Own a Gun
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
Coos County State of Jefferson Meeting May 16, 2018 in Coquille Oregon
SOJ News ~ Citizens for Fair Representation's Court Case Moves Forward
We the People Rally in Sacramento at the California Capitol May 31, 2017 ~ SOJ51
Citizens for Fair Representation File Lawsuit in California to Leverage for SOJ51
Coos County for the State of Jefferson Public Meeting Friday March 3, 2017 7:00pm
Curry County State of Jefferson Meeting Wednesday February 8, 2017
Categories
All
A.F.P.
Agenda 21
Bandon
B.I.A.
B.L.M.
Coos Bay
Coos County
Coos County
Coquille
County Charter
Curry County
C.W.A.
Democratic Party
D.E.Q.
Eco Devo
Eco Devo
Economic Development
Educational
Elections
E.P.A.
F.D.A.
F.E.M.A.
Individual Rights
I Spy Radio
Jury Nullification
Legislation
Letter To Editor
Mary Geddry
N.D.A.A.
News Wave
N.O.A.A.
North Bend
O&C Land
O.D.F.W.
O.D.O.T.
O.F.F.
O.H.A.
O.P.R.D.
O.R.C. Mining
O.W.E.B.
P.E.R.S.
Petitions
Port Of Coos Bay
Public Comments
Public Events
Regulation
Republican Party
S.A.O.V.A.
State Of Jefferson
The Bandon Marsh
The Economy
The Rob Taylor Report
The Supreme Court
The Tea Party
Urban Renewal
U.S.A.C.E.
U.S.D.A.
U.S.F.S
U.S.F.W.S.
Send Letters to:
cooscountywatchdog@gmail.com
Letters to the Editor must be attributed with a name, address, and contact phone number.
WARNING:
Political correctness is not practiced on this
page & some content is inappropriate
Archives
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011