Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Coos County "Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance" Initiative, Measure 6-151 (November 2015)
| Voting on Firearms |
|---|
|
| Ballot Measures |
| By state |
| By year |
| Not on ballot |
A measure to prevent the use of county resources to enforce certain restrictions on gun ownership and use was on the ballot for voters in Coos County, Oregon, on November 3, 2015. It was approved.
This measure was designed to, according to county ordinance, declare invalid and void any law that violates provisions guaranteeing the right to bear arms in the U.S. Constitution and the Oregon Constitution. Moreover, Measure 6-151 prohibited the use of county funds or resources to enforce any law that impedes the right to bear arms, including, but not limited to, laws which establish:[1]
- Registration requirements for legally owned firearms
- Prohibitions against "assault" type firearms
- Restrictions pertaining to magazine or clip capacity and ammunition type
- Background check requirements beyond those required as of December 2012
- Restrictions against possession, carry or transport of legally owned guns and ammunition
The measure was designed to give the county sheriff discretion over whether or not a particular law violated constitutional rights and, thus, would be precluded by Measure 6-151. The measure was not written to be retroactive against criminal laws regarding firearms. In other words, any criminal laws established before the approval of Measure 6-151 would not be invalidated by the enactment of the initiative. Finally, the initiative provided for fines of $2,000 per violation for individuals and $4,000 per violation for corporations for any efforts to enforce laws, rules or policies prohibited by Measure 6-151.[1]
This law was specifically crafted to prevent the enforcement of Oregon Senate Bill 941, signed into law on May 11, 2015.
Election results
| Coos County, Measure 6-151 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 Yes | 9,061 | 60.86% | ||
| No | 5,828 | 39.14% | ||
- Election results from Coos County Elections Office
Background
Oregon Senate Bill 941
Proponents of this initiative designed it, in part, to prevent the enforcement of Oregon Senate Bill 941, which increased the number of gun control measures in the state, and other bills and laws like it. State Senator Floyd Prozanski (D) was one of the main sponsors of Senate Bill 941. Opponents of the bill submitted signatures for a recall effort against Prozanski.[2]
A counsel for the Oregon State Legislature provided the following summary of Oregon Senate Bill 941:
| “ |
Requires all private transferors of firearms to appear at gun dealer in person with both transferee and firearm and request criminal background check before transfer. Enumerates exceptions for family members, law enforcement, inherited firearms and certain temporary transfers. States that violation of background check law constitutes Class A misdemeanor for first offense and Class B felony for second and subsequent offenses. Provides that if transferor and transferee live over 40 miles from each other, transferor may ship or deliver firearm to gun dealer located near transferee. Allows Department of State Police to notify local law enforcement when background check demonstrates transferee is prohibited from possession of firearm. Allows court to prohibit person participating in outpatient treatment from possession of firearm during period of treatment upon certain findings. Declares emergency, effective on passage.[3] |
” |
| —Jeff Rhoades, counsel[4] | ||
The full text can be read here.
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
Shall Coos County voters adopt the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance?[3] |
” |
Ballot statement
The following statement describing the proposed ordinance appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
A yes vote adopts and makes part of the Coos County Code the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance. If approved, the ordinance requires:
|
” |
Full text
The full text of the initiative is available here.
Support
Supporters
A group called the Coos County Watchdog was behind this initiative.[5]
Arguments in favor
A campaign flyer created by the Coos County Watchdog group in support of Measure 6-151 made the following arguments:
| “ |
To preserve the right of the People of, on, and in Coos County to: 1. Keep and bear arms as originally understood; in self-defense and preservation, and in defense of one's community and country. 2. Freely manufacture, transfer, sell, and buy firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition, which are designed primarily for the same purposes. The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance Defunds SB941 in Coos County. Does Senate Bill 941 close a loophole allowing criminals to obtain a gun? Bottom Line: No. SB 941 does not prevent a criminal from obtaining a firearm. Criminals can still obtain firearms, either by stealing a firearm from a law-abiding citizen who legally owns the firearm or through illegally obtaining a firearm on the black market. Bad people will find ways to do bad things and will use whatever devices they have at their disposal to commit crimes, no matter what the law says. Criminals have already disregarded the law; they will not submit themselves to a background check that they know they will not pass. What SB 941 does do is force responsible, law-abiding Oregonians, including those who want to trade or transfer guns for hunting or recreational shooting, to jump through additional hoops and pay additional fees to participate in legal, responsible activities. Does Oregon’s law enforcement community support Senate Bill 941? Bottom Line: Coos County’s Sheriff, Craig Zanni, and at least 12 other sheriffs around the state, have deemed SB 941, at best, a deeply flawed law, and at worst, an unenforceable law that would further stretch resources in financially-strapped counties and communities. Two of these sheriffs have testified that they can’t enforce the law and therefore will not use their department resources to attempt to enforce the law. There is simply no way for law enforcement officers to track private firearm sales or transfers if they are conducted behind closed doors or out of plain sight. Does Senate Bill 941 effectively address mental health? Bottom Line: No, SB 941 provides no funding, resources, or tools for Oregonians dealing with mental health crises. Minority Report 2, submitted by House Republicans, secured $44 million in funding for mental health services. This proposal represented a significant investment of taxpayer dollars and took anticipatory action to prevent tragedies involving firearms, including suicides, homicides, domestic violence, and even accidents. House Democrats voted down the Minority Report along party lines.[3] |
” |
| —Coos County Watchdog[6] | ||
Opposition
Opponents
The Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety supported Senate Bill 941 and provided a list of editorials in support of the law.[7]
Arguments against
The Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety wrote:
| “ |
Newspapers across Oregon are coming out in vocal support of SB 941 – a background check on the sale of every gun. To these editorial teams, the benefits of closing the "private sale" loophole far outweigh the inconvenience of background checks for firearms transfers between friends.[3] |
” |
The alliance went on to list excerpts from editorials from six Oregon newspaper endorsing the passage of the background checks and gun-sale restrictions found in Senate Bill 941. Below are some of the arguments posted:
- The Oregonian:
| “ |
Thoughtful steps to help ensure guns are in good hands make sense. SB941 is one such step and should become law. If even one tragedy is avoided owing to its requirements, the extra paperwork, costs and delays will have been worth it.[3] |
” |
| —The Oregonian[7] | ||
- Dalles Chronicle:
| “ |
The private gun sale market may be the last refuge of would-be gun owners who know they are ineligible, because of their criminal or mental health history, to buy a gun in Oregon by the other two means. We should not maintain this hands-off marketplace for them.[3] |
” |
| —Dalles Chronicle[7] | ||
Recall of Supervisor John Sweet
The Committee to Recall John Sweet was motivated by Commissioner John Sweet's stance on gun control and his refusal to support a county resolution opposing Senate Bill 941. SB 941 proposed stricter background checks for prospective gun owners.[8]
Path to the ballot
On August 4, 2015, petitioners submitted a second batch of signature petitions to the Coos County clerk's office, bringing the total number of raw signatures submitted up to 2,663. On August 6, 2015, the Coos County clerk verified that 1,922 of the submitted signatures were valid signatures from registered voters in the county. To qualify the initiative for the ballot, petitioners needed 1,436 valid signatures.[9]
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Coos County Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- Coos County, Oregon ballot measures
- November 3, 2015 ballot measures in Oregon
- John Sweet recall, Coos County, Oregon (2015)
- Floyd Prozanski recall, Oregon State Senate (2015)
External links
- Coos County Elections website
- Oregon State Legislature: Oregon Senate Bill 941
- Coos County Watchdog website and Facebook page
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Coos County Watchdog, "Initiative ballot question," accessed September 4, 2015
- ↑ Recall Floyd Prozanski, "Home," accessed September 4, 2015
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Oregon State Legislature, "Staff summary of Senate Bill 941," accessed September 4, 2015
- ↑ Coos County Watchdog, "Home," accessed August 25, 2015
- ↑ Coos County Watchdog, "Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance campaign flyer," accessed October 5, 2015
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety, "Editorial Support of Senate Bill 941," accessed September 4, 2015
- ↑ Coos County Watch Dog, "John Sweet Recall Petition," accessed August 18, 2015
- ↑ Coos County Watchdog, "Official notification of affirmative verification," accessed September 4, 2015
| ||||||||||
