NEWS
BY M E E R A H P O W E L L
GRAY WAVE
ʻTHE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
HASN’T BEEN ABLE TO STOP
Pro-gun ordinances passed
in eight rural Oregon counties
this past election
ANY CITY FROM BECOMING A
SANCTUARY CITY BECAUSE
T
hough many Democrats around the nation were
celebrating a “blue wave” during the midterm
elections earlier this month, another type of wave
took hold of Oregon — a wave that might leave
gun control advocates seeing red — the passing of
multiple pro-gun ordinances.
These ordinances protect the right to bear arms and give
the county sheriff the power to determine if a gun law or
restriction is a violation of the constitution. The ordinances
are being updated to include legal language similar to that
used by sanctuary cities to protect their rights to safely
house illegal immigrants.
Voters approved “Second Amendment Preservation
Ordinances” (SAPOs) in eight Oregon counties, including
three counties that border Lane County: Douglas, Linn and
Klamath counties. Lane County had no similar measure up
for vote.
During the midterm elections, SAPOs also passed in
Baker, Columbia, Lake, Umatilla and Union counties. The
ordinances failed in Lincoln and Jackson counties.
These ordinances say they preserve the Second Amend-
ment of the U.S. Constitution (the right to bear arms), void-
ing any laws or orders that would violate it; this includes
preserving the right to own firearms without registration
requirements and possessing semi-automatic firearms and
high-capacity ammunition.
The ordinances also give county sheriffs the power to
determine whether a gun law or regulation violates the
Constitution — and thus to decide whether to enforce them.
Eugene Weekly contacted the Douglas County Sheriff’s
Office for comment; they did not respond before print time.
Oregon Sen. Floyd Prozanski (D), representing south
Lane County and north Douglas County, says he hasn’t
spoken recently to Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin,
but his understanding is Hanlin is not planning on taking
on that determinative role.
“I can’t speak for John [Hanlin],” Prozanski says. “I
have heard and I think I have read that he personally did
not believe that he would have the authority, or the desire,
to be put in the position that the ordinance attempts to put
the sheriffs in those counties into.”
He adds: “My read is that he was not planning to active-
ly engage under the authority that the ordinance appears to
give to him.”
Prozanski says SAPOs have had no real effect in other
counties where they have passed. He believes these coun-
ties have not attempted to utilize the ordinances, especially
in the case of the sheriffs’ involvement.
“I think Coos would be a good example. Here’s some-
where who has had it on the books for at least a couple of
years and at this point it doesn’t seem that it has been used
for the position by a sheriff to not enforce any state or U.S.
law,” Prozanski says.
Because some county sheriff’s offices are underfunded,
he says, they may not be enforcing some rules already.
“Basically, they can decide not to enforce without need-
ing that ordinance,” Prozanski says.
The Lane County Sheriff’s Office had no comment on
the ordinances. “Lane County was not one of the coun-
ties that voted on this issue,” says Carrie Carver, the Lane
County Sheriff’s Office’s public information officer.
These recent SAPOs were in part drafted and supported
by the Committee to Preserve the Second Amendment, a
political action committee. Rob Taylor is the founder of
that committee, and he says there is a chance a similar or-
dinance could pass in Lane County.
“If Linn County can do it, there’s a chance. There’s al-
ways a hope,” Taylor tells EW.
8
November 21, 2018 • eugeneweekly.com
THEY ARE STANDING ON
A VERY VIABLE LEGAL
PRINCIPLE. SO WHY NOT USE
THAT SAME PRINCIPLE FOR A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO KEEP
AND BEAR ARMS?’
— ROB TAYLOR
“Lane County is going to be a surmountable challenge,”
he says, specifically with the amount of signatures it would
take, in a county of its size, to create an initiative petition
and get it on the ballot.
According to the Lane County Clerk, Cheryl Betschart,
the required amount of signatures for a county initiative
petition is 6 percent of the county’s votes cast for the
governor (where the governor was elected for a four-year
term). That would mean about 10,000 signatures to put
such a measure on the ballot here.
Taylor says the petition process would be the biggest
challenge.
“I know a lot of people may think it’s too much of a
‘blue county,’ but there are so many Democrats who own
guns and believe in their rights too,” Taylor says. “It’s an
issue that I think transcends party lines a lot more than
people would think.”
The SAPOs also received news coverage due to their
support by militia groups such as the Oath Keepers and the
Three Percenters; both groups are adamant about defend-
ing constitutional rights. Local members of both groups
were present at the Bundy-led Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge occupation.
Taylor says militia members supporting the ordinances
are doing so as individuals, not as a part of their groups.
Taylor was the chief petitioner for the initiative peti-
tion that got a SAPO passed in his home of Coos County
in 2015.
He created the Committee to Preserve the Second
Amendment a few months ago.
“People started contacting me on how to do it in their
area,” Taylor says. “I would give them tutelage on how to
maneuver the process. It really grew and took off.”
Oregon Sen. Prozanski says the SAPOs could eventu-
ally run into legal problems.
“The logistics or the legality of that type of ordinance I
think runs right into multiple issues of constitutionality in
the sense of the authority of the state,” Prozanski says. “In
1995, the state did a pre-emption at the local level of gun
bills and ordinances and basically said that they needed to
be done on a uniform basis at the statewide level. So that
would be one issue.”
Another issue, Prozanski says, “is this delegation of
authority and power to the executive branch, in this case
the sheriff, to determine what is constitutional. I think that
could run into a very stiff, significant challenge as well.”
Taylor says he has also thought about legal challenges
and, he says, the committee is working on getting new,
amended ordinances.
“We’re going to reintroduce the SASO — the Second
Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance,” Taylor says.
The SASO would tweak the original ordinance, taking
the sheriff’s determination out of the picture and only
focusing on the county government. It also would adopt legal
language similar to that used by sanctuary cities — cities
that attempt to protect illegal immigrants from federal action
— specifically the legal principle of “anti-commandeering,”
an idea that leans heavily on sovereignty for cities, counties
and states against the federal government.
“The federal government hasn’t been able to stop any
city from becoming a sanctuary city because they are
standing on a very viable legal principle,” Taylor says. “So
why not use that same principle for a constitutional amend-
ment such as the right to keep and bear arms?”
Taylor says he and other chief petitioners will be gath-
ering signatures for new initiative petitions for the SASO
with that amended language in order to get it on the ballot
and get it voted on again to supersede the old ordinance.
So far, Taylor says, his home of Coos County, which
passed the SAPO in 2015, has seen no legal challenges to
the ordinance.
He adds the first two counties to pass a SAPO, Wal-
lowa and Wheeler, “have not faced any legal challenges
as well.”
As far as the SAPOs' effectiveness, Taylor confirms
Prozanski’s claims that it hasn’t made a huge difference in
Coos County.
“The sheriff’s office has limited funding and did not en-
force most of these firearms laws anyway, as well as many
other violations, so the ordinance just codifies this practice
for the agency,” he says.
Prozanski, who was one of the lead sponsors of Oregon
Senate Bill 941 — a bill which requires a criminal back-
ground check when transferring ownership of a firearm—
says he understands why citizens, especially in rural coun-
ties, would push forth a SAPO measure.
“I’m from Texas. I’ve owned a gun since I was 15. I
still own a gun and I understand in a more rural geographic
area, individuals are more concerned as to mandates placed
on them or others that they feel somehow interfere with
their quality of life and their culture,” Prozanski says.
But, he says, gun control measures and bills created by
lawmakers are ultimately meant to provide safety, not to
strip rights away.
“During those discussions and having town halls in more
rural areas, once individuals understood what we’re trying
to do — limit easy access to felons, murderers, burglars, rap-
ists, people who have been declared mentally ill — they had
no problem with that,” Prozanski says. “When you look at
the [gun control] measures that come forward, they are re-
ally dealing with regulatory action over people who we as a
society think should not have access to guns.” ■
For more information about SAPOs, visit Sanctuaryordinance.com. For
info on gun control, go to Everytown for Gun Safety, Everytown.org.