Deschutes County residents could vote on a ballot measure in November to prohibit the county from enforcing gun laws. Sponsors of an initiative petition called the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance will begin collecting signatures to place it on the ballot. (See a version of the petition at the bottom of this post.)
The proposed measure would broadly re-interpret the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions’ right to bear arms and add “ancillary firearms rights.”
The Deschutes County sheriff would decide whether any local, state or federal gun law is unconstitutional under the measure’s broader interpretations of those rights. And if the sheriff thinks a law is unconstitutional, the measure would forbid the county from enforcing it. Individual violations could result in a fine of up to $2,000.
The measure defines ancillary firearms rights as “rights that are closely related to the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment; including the right to manufacture, transfer, buy and sell firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition.”
The Deschutes County version of the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance is somewhat vague on the specifics, but a version already adopted in other Oregon counties was clearer.
In 2015, Coos County voted 61 percent to 39 percent to adopt a similar measure. The same year, the Wheeler County Court unanimously adopted one without even going to voters. Those counties’ versions explain that laws regulating semi-automatic weapons, assault style firearms, magazine size, ammunition types and modifications such as bump stocks are all unenforceable in the counties. They also remove background check requirements for private and Internet sales.
Four Redmond residents are sponsoring the petition, including chief petitioner Jerrad Robison and B.J Soper, who is involved with the Pacific Patriots Network and Oregon Oath Keepers.
Supporters plan to submit the same initiative in counties across Oregon.
If it makes the ballot, the measure could compete with a statewide ballot initiative to forbid sales and transfers of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines that will soon begin collecting signatures.
Supporters of the Deschutes County Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance must collect 4,144 verified signatures by Aug. 6 to place the measure on the Nov. 6 ballot.
Gun rights advocates will hold a “Second Amendment Rally” at Redmond City Hall on Saturday, April 21 starting at 11 a.m.
We’ll update this story as we learn more.
Editor’s note: This story has been altered from the original version, to add the name of Jerrad Robison and remove the name of a person who has been removed from the Deschutes County petition.
This article appears in Apr 11-18, 2018.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
It’s amazing that we even have to do things like this. So sad.
“if the sheriff thinks a law is unconstitutional …”
Are sheriffs somehow now lawyers or constitutional scholars? Instead of this kind of silly guesswork, why not simply challenge a law in court and find out for real, for everyone? That way, either every follows the law, or the law is withdrawn.
Why not Chas.. Brown does it all day long and twice on Sunday.
Tom, that doesn’t really address the point. A sheriff is neither qualified nor equipped to judge whether a law is constitutional. Separation of powers reserves this responsibility to a different branch of government. If you don’t like it when a Governor does it (and an example would be nice), you shouldn’t like it when another elected official does it.
The existing laws cover the problems if the people in charge would enforce them and do their job and leave the law abiding citizens alone.
its either anti constitutional or it isn’t… the final say shouldn’t be in the hands of any one individual. Its quite simple to tell whether or not a new restrictive law infringes upon the 2nd amendment. A system where one individual, sheriff or not, has the final say so in whether or not a law is to be enforced is a system destined for corruption. We need less corruption. not more..
I’ll put my faith in county sheriffs at this time rather than a judicial system that has shown time and again that their agenda is to legislate from the bench. And you cannot judge whether a law violates the 2nd amendment unless you understand the full intent of the 2nd amendment, which most do not. It’s too bad that the liberal majority of Portland and Salem hold the rest of the state hostage.
When you read the language of this militia wet dream, it strikes me as funny that the County is the only named entity responsible for non-enforcement. It is also named as the one to penalize infractions. So the County has to penalize itself??
The Militia mentality also depends on their faith in local control through the Sheriff. While most Sheriff elections are uncontested, a rogue sheriff who attempted to take over Constitutional sovereignty would soon find he had poked a bees nest that’s a lot bigger than he imagined.
Please be aware that any resident of Deschutes County can file an objection to this proposed ordinance by means of a “Petition for Review of Ballot Title.” Even to non-attorneys, there seem to be various legal problems with the way this ordinance is written: (1) It grants judicial powers to the Sheriff. (2) It appears to strike down background checks (in contravention of the existing Oregon Firearms Safety Act). (3) It appears to violate an existing state statute (2017 ORS 166.170) that gives authority for gun legislation EXCLUSIVELY to the State Legislature and that prohibits Counties and Cities from enacting civil or criminal ordinances of their own related to firearms. Challenging this proposed ordinance is a 2-step process. First, submit your written objection to the Deschutes Circuit Court (1100 NW Bond St.) by 5 PM Friday, April 27, 2018. Second, notify County Clerk Nancy Blankenship in writing by 5 PM the following business day that you have filed the objection. Her office is in the Deschutes Services Building at the corner of NW Hill and Lafayette.
The SAPO keeps the Oregon State Consitution Sec 27 exactly as it is now. Protecting Deschutes Co from having to comply with IP 43 WHICH changes Sec 27 of the Oregon State Constitution. Ask ODFW why they oppose IP 43. ODFW stands to lose 20 Million in proceeds from firearm and ammo sales which they use for Conservation. Conservation. Remember 3 mornings ago? When someone broke into a 79 year old mans home? Did he subdue the attacker with a fireplace poker? Nope. Probably a firearm that would be deemed Illegal by IP 43. Step back for a minute and think about what your world will look like when what you Chose to do has resulted in the criminal breaking into your home has in their hands what you voted to take out of your own.
Mr. Poe, no one is attempting to ban handguns for self defense or conventional rifles for hunting. On both sides of this issue, we need to stop giving vent to our feverish paranoid fantasies. We should start, I think, by agreeing to reasonable gun safety measures–such as background checks, which in poll after poll are supported by the public (even by gun owners) by percentages in the high 80’s. Unfortunately, the ballot title of Initiative Petition #9-2018-1 (and the ordinance–the SAPO–it would spawn) would give Deschutes County the “right” to disallow enforcement of background checks now contained in the Oregon Firearms Safety Act. How else can you interpret a ballot title that includes the question, “Should Deschutes County expand constitutional definition of firearms and prohibit enforcement of laws that regulate their manufacture, sale, and possession?”? How else interpret language that “would make unconstitutional in Deschutes County any law or regulation that restricts a person from possessing firearms . . .” I think the writers of this ballot measure should, at the very least, change its language to require Deschutes County to recognize and enforce currently lawful background checks. Such a change would clear up any confusion about what the Sheriff can or cannot do, and would strike a more reasonable tone. Are the writers of this ballot measure willing to make this change?
First of all, I am a Ms. 😉 LOL Unless, you have read IP 43, which is precisely Why this SAPO is being filed, our conversation is a moot point. I say this because IP 43 makes no mention of Background check..nor does it mention Mental Health provisions. The sole purpose of IP 43 is to remove Legal firearms from legal Background checked owners. Semi auto rifles and pistols. Firearms that are designed and Legally sold with a Standard 10 round or more magazine. With that established, we can move on to Sec 27 of the Oregon State Constitution, which the SAPO would protect and keep in place. You see, IP 43 would Rewrite Sec 27 of the Oregon State Constitution. In IP 43.. it also calls for Firearm and Firearm parts manufacturers, we have many here in Central Oregon, to cease production unless they have a Govt. contract. None of the regulations they are now beholden to “go away”. The SAPO keeps things just as they are. Another thing to consider is why the ODFW is Opposed to IP 43..in their statement they could stand to lose 20 million dollars a year that are generated off of Firearms and Ammo sales. Now, not that many hunters purchase hoardes of Ammo.. but, who does? Sport Shooters. They blow through rounds at the range training for competitions. Why bring this up? Conservation and ground crews are supported by those dollars gleaned. Trails closed? No new research on the newest favored animal/fowl? Legal Gun Ownership works hand in hand with Conservation. Back to the Sheriff 😉 He swore to uphold the Oregon state Constitution. IP 43 looks to rewrite Sec 27. And, if you have ever purchased a firearm the background check is thorough. I might contend that the Govt Dept overseeing adjudication entry into NICS may be what you have issue with. 🙂
Mr. Poe–and I am glad we are communicating in this way–the issue is not with SAPO, but with the the ballot measure designated as Initiative Petition #9-2018-1. The SAPO (Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance) will not be on the ballot, just the ballot measure that can give rise to it. The language of IP #9-2018-1 is now too vague and might (unless clarified) justify non-enforcement of background checks in Deschutes County. It is already difficult enough to enforce background checks; why make it tougher? For the full text of this ballot measure (also referred to as the ballot “Title”) go to . . .
https://www.deschutes.org/sites/default/fi…
. . . and see for yourself. Thanks, Mr. Poe, for the chance to interact; I hope we have future opportunities to communicate.
Again, I am a Ms….. 😉 LOL check out my profile pic 😀 Would you please provide me the entirty of where you found that Clerks acceptance letter. I would like to research who submitted this ?? Proposal?? And read the proposal. As you may deduce, I am up on most current 2a processes and involved but what you provided me, and it’s information, is not part of what even I would support. Links would be awesome 🙂 I believe, as I deduce you do as well, Clarity on such an important issue as 2a Rights is vital. Thanks for the dialogue
Again… I am a Ms. 😉 Check my profile pic LOL The information you provided .. the link does not allow me to surf around and find application/submitter information. I concur that to strip away any background checks, would be ..Ummm… Crazy? 😉 Fixing the system we have now will solve many ills. I am going to have to do a bit of research on this IP from the beginning. As it is not either of the 2 issues I am currently active in in regards to 2a Rights 🙂 I think we both agree that Complete and Clear, Non Emotional Information on 2a Rights is the only way to achieve the goal of everyone’s safety.