Skip to Content

Second Amendment sanctuaries facing first court test in Oregon

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — The first court test of whether local governments can ban police from enforcing certain gun laws is playing out in a rural Oregon county. It's one of a wave of U.S. counties declaring itself a Second Amendment sanctuary.

The measure that voters in the logging area of Columbia County narrowly approved last year forbids local officials from enforcing most federal and state gun laws and could impose thousands of dollars in fines on those who try.

Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions have been adopted by some 1,200 local governments in states around the U.S., including Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Illinois and Florida, according to Shawn Fields, an assistant professor of law at Campbell University who tracks them.

Many are symbolic, -- such as one adopted unanimously last week by Jefferson County commissioners -- but some, like in Columbia County, carry legal force.

The group Everytown for Gun Safety is among those urging a judge to invalidate the ordinance that's been divisive in the county, located outside of Portland.

The movement took off around 2018, as states considered stricter gun laws in the wake of mass shootings, including a high school shooting near Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 people and made survivors into high-profile gun control activists.

After President Joe Biden took office, conservative lawmakers in several states proposed banning police from enforcing federal gun measures, and at least one proposal in Arizona has been signed into law.

The movement hasn’t yet faced a major legal challenge. The Oregon case was filed by Columbia County under an unusual provision in state law that allows a judge to examine a measure before it goes into effect. No timeline has been set for a court hearing.

“This will allow the court to tell us whether the county can actually decline to enforce certain state laws, and it will tell us how to abide by the will of the voters, to the extent that we can,” said Sarah Hanson, who serves as counsel in the conservative-leaning county in deep-blue Oregon.

Supporters of the ordinance include the Oregon Firearms Federation, which said in a November statement that “extremists” and “big city radicals” were trying to curtail gun rights.

The group referenced Portland protests opposing police brutality that occasionally turned violent last summer and called the ordinance a “common sense” step that would “ensure your right and ability to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones.”

The ordinance would ban the enforcement of laws like background check requirements and restrictions on carrying a gun, though it would have exceptions for others, including keeping firearms from convicted felons.

Read more at: https://apnews.com/article/us-news-oregon-gun-politics-government-and-politics-1dec173dc5d6d7d5f343b933bb883368

The Associated Press

Comments

69 Comments

        1. Spineless and cowardly gun kooks always yammering about some imaginary imminent and mortal threat that they’ve made up. Boo!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!

  1. Seems that many of the lawsuits involving Oregon Counties and the State- have all been squashed by the media. In addition to this suit- where are the updates on the legal proceedings against the State, county, or even OSHA regarding the mishandling of the Wuhan Bat virus ? We know they’re out there- we get glimpses of them when they go national- so why doesn’t local media keep us abreast on the level of anger and resistance to Brown’s failed leadership and the obvious government over-reach and violations of our civil liberties ?

    1. Perhaps you should start your own news outlet? Seems like you’re constantly dissatisfied with KTVZ – especially when most of the time you complain about their journalism. You seem to believe they don’t share as much as you believe they could/should, perhaps it’s time to see what you can offer of your own accord.

      1. KTVZ is a paid mouthpiece for cnn and ap.
        Fox news is a disgrace by and large, except for their opinion/commentary shows.
        Many news sources to date have been de-platformed, de-funded and subjected to full on attacks for trying to report the news.
        Even Barney has issues with the **** cnn pollutes this website with.

      1. But it does have the power to silence any information getting out to the public. Even if it is something they are “required” to report they can pick the midnight to 3 am time slot to catch the fewest listeners.

    2. Wishy, perhaps you should read and understand the article before letting loose with your unrelated diatribe. Who’s suing here? No one. Where is it said that the media is trying to squash the story? Nowhere. Where does this article discuss any legal proceedings concerning COVID-19? Nowhere. Where were you when God passed out brains?

    3. If you want the truth Karen just ask your dear loser big fat failed and fired donnie!!! Sooooooooooo much whining karen!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!! “The virus is way down and will be gone soon” “I’d like to thank president Xi on behalf of the American people for China’s transparency and the great job they’ve with the virus” excellent karen!!!!!!!

  2. “…Portland protests opposing police brutality that occasionally turned violent last summer…”
    What a ridiculous statement. Millions in destroyed property. Rape, murder, burning & looting in multiple cities.
    All sanctioned by democrats.
    Nothing lies more than a liberal. And the liberal press (as seen on cnn, ap, and outlets like ktvz) set the standard for what heights lying can be taken to.

    1. And guess what? The Millennial generation–almost completely comprised of “liberals”, far outnumbers the old Coservatives who are dying off. Oh sure, the conservatives are trying hard to hold on to their power, but as you are likely aware, their financial and political clout is waning. About the only thing they can do about it is try for a last ditch effort to get their political cronies to enact legislation that will stop the younger, liberal generation from gaining power. Good luck with that! Here’s a wake up call to you old school conservatives–your time is over. And there is nothing you can do about it.

        1. It’s the obese, cowardly and hyper scared little gun kooks that are the real men karen!!!!!!!! Standings g up and protecting us all against their imagined threats!!!ROTFLMAO!!!! Soooooo much losing!!!!

      1. The Millennial generation–almost completely comprised of “liberals” – I am happy to say that this statement is completely false – we are not as far along the downhill slide as you seem to think…

  3. the whole country is supposed to be a 2nd amendment sanctuary. we need to get back to the founding fathers vision of not being infringed

      1. Agreed. The existing background checks don’t seem to do more then collect a measly $10 and that’s it. Maybe if the people that are a known threat/mental case who legally buy guns through a background check are actually flagged then things like gun violence could change for the better. That mechanism has been there for a long time.

    1. The great thing about an amendment is it can be amended to whatever is in vogue at the time… If you you are hoping it stays static, you will probably get your feeling s hurt… If the majority wants it, they could amend it to allow hand grenades…

  4. The socialist and communist factions in Oregon will be all over their support for this case hoping to make more citizens defenseless for their drug buddies to rob and assault. But hey, No worries, Sleepy Creepy China Joe Obiden will fix everything!!!! (Just ask Hunter and the ATF!)

  5. I fully believe in the 2nd amendment, “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.” I also believe that, due to the accessibility and significant advancements on Arms, there should be a way to ensure that the individual holding the Arms is safe with it. It’s never the gun, it’s the person pulling the trigger that has raised issues with the 2nd amendment. How can that be regulated better? No idea, probably can’t. In my own opinion, there’s going to be abuse of power somewhere. There’s always 2 sides of the coin. Will this help some individuals feel better, less restricted, on owning a weapon – yes. Will this make some individuals feel less safe due to the lesser restrictions – yes. It’s a vicious cycle – one that will always be in a constant tug-of-war.

      1. The “membership” that I’m thinking is the concealed weapon license. I believe it’s beneficial to have, because from my own understanding there’s a class that goes over safety and responsibilities of handling a firearm. Does that stop potentially irresponsible individuals from still getting a firearm? Nope. We can’t predict the future on what someone may do with a firearm, but in my opinion it doesn’t do us any good just taking away firearms. Firearms are still going to exist and be accessible in some manner.

      2. How about requiring everyone to join a militia, learn about weapons, acquire the skills to use said weapons, and require every household to have firearms on-premises – in a gun safe as required? Or are you one of those slackers that expect someone else to protect you? You understand those people volunteered to combine their skills, knowledge, and equipment to form this militia you speak of, right?

      3. Your interpretation is incorrect and that of some other people on here. The 2nd amendment doesn’t state you have to be in a regulated militia….it states that the people have the right to bear arms in case the people need to create a “well regulated militia”. That is the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

    1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t this article pointed at law enforcement, primarily in being less restrictive with individuals either owning or wanting to own a firearm? How is it perceived as “wants everyone disarmed”?

      1. Unconscience…you are clearly a BETA MALE. You say any of this crap to people in real life? NOPE. You cower to us ALPHA MALES. BOW DOWN NOW!!!!

    2. TWO WORDS….>BETA MALES!!!!! They bow and cower to us ALPHA MALES. THEY CAN ONLY COMMENT ON CRAP NEWS WEBSITES, IN REAL LIFE NOT A PEEP!!!!

  6. Klamath County became a Sanctuary county in 2018. In Crescent Klamth Falls have told us it can take 90 minutes for them to respond. 3 weeks ago I called on a Saturday night to report someone in an abandoned house. 90 minutes to get there they told me. As usual I grabed my gun, texted my neighbors and went over to ask why he was trespassing? He said he was from Seatlle and was a Photograph Student just taking pictures. I asked him if he was armed and said no. I looked over at my house and gave a thumbs up. “What was that for” he asked. I explained that there were very high end cameras looking at us and my armed neighbors want to know if I need backup. I then showed him the outbuildings where people lived and even had stalls in there house for their horses. It’s called de-escalation.

    1. What were you going to do with your gun against a person in an abandoned house? Is deadly force appropriate when confronting people committing crimes against abandoned property? How about your property? Do you know if it’s legal to shoot someone if they’re breaking into your shop? Stealing something from your house? Driving off in your car? I enjoyed the part about your Ring doorbell being a ‘high end camera’, but otherwise hope you’ll attend a conceal carry class from your local sheriff so you can get some advice before you get yourself into some real legal trouble. You might also consider the teachings of your church about the idea of killing a person, and what that may do to your soul.

      1. Well stated. The ONLY time you have the right to use deadly force in Oregon is if it’s about to be used against you or someone you are protecting. You wake up and someone is in your house, they run, you shoot them in the back, expect to be locked up for murder. Manslaughter at the least. Either way, you will be gone for a while. Why this person would confront them is beyond me. Vigilante law? Many years ago I was on a COID road east of Redmond, legally with permission (actually contract work for them) and a farmer/rancher meets me with a shotgun wanting to know who I am and why I was there. I wound up calling 911 and he was arrested. I am pro 2nd amendment, but be wise to how you use it and do it legally.

      2. Unless requested by the owner to check on the property, technically you were trespassing as well and had no right to even question the person. But Crescent is a “little different”. As much theft has occurred there in the last six months, I would be jumpy as well. Crescent, with the new sewer line is poised to become something worth seeing. Hopefully the crime can be curtailed.

      3. @Keyser Soze – A lot of misguided assumptions in your comment. Who was to says the trespasser was alone? Who was to say the trespasser was not injuring someone? Who was to say the trespasser was not raping someone? Who was to say the trespasser was not abusing a child? Who was to say the trespasser was not a dead body? I would rather he went armed and with backup. Another classic example of when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. I hope my neighbors are as concerned about my stuff as this guy is.

  7. I’m sure there will be an equal effort to repeal sanctuary status that cities and counties passed regarding illegal immigration and federal. 😂
    .
    I’ll stick with 2A and “shall not be infringed.”

  8. This is an interesting and responsible approach by Columbia County – to request a determination that a controversial piece of legislation be found to be (or not to be) legal prior to implementation/enforcement. It doesn’t necessarily prevent a lawsuit at a later date, but should give some guidance on what local governments can do to limit or ignore state and federal restrictions.

  9. Pretty sure it’s fine to locally decriminalize. Overriding a law won’t work, but ignoring it seems to be ok. Works for drugs, after all.

Leave a Reply

Skip to content