Rifles for sale at an Albany gun show last March.
The Albany City Council voted Wednesday to “look into” some kind of local legislation to protect lawful gun owners from further state-imposed restrictions that infringe on their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Councilman Mike Sykes brought it up. He noted moves in the legislature to pass new laws affecting gun owners, and he wants Albany to consider becoming a “Second Amendment sanctuary.”
Sykes said he wanted City Attorney Sean Kidd to look into this possibility. The council voted 5-1 to direct the attorney to do so. Councilman Dick Olsen voted no.
The 2020 legislature is considering two gun bills favored by the Democratic majority. House Bill 4005 would set up a series of requirements for storing firearms and would hold the owner liable if a gun, not securely stored, is stolen and used in a crime. Senate Bill 1538 would allow local governments and schools to ban holders of concealed handgun licenses from being armed in their buildings, and violations would be punishable by up to five years in prison. Sen. Sara Gelser, whose district includes Albany, is a cosponsor. After initial hearings, both bills were sent to the respective Rules committees.
There’s also a proposed initiative that would outlaw a number of common rifles (such as those in the photo above) as “assault weapons.”
In 2015, several Oregon cities and counties including Linn County adopted resolutions opposing any gun restrictions they consider to be violations of the U.S. and Oregon constitutions.
Linn County’s measure, signed by all three commissioners in June that year, says the county opposes any state or federal law that abridges the people’s right to keep and bear arms. And it says the county “is unable to expend any county resources for the implementation of Senate Bill 941.”
That bill, which became law, expanded the requirement for background checks to private transfers of firearms. The law has been in effect for four years, but if anyone locally has been convicted of violating it, it hasn’t come to public attention.
We’ll have to wait and see what if anything the city attorney’s office comes up with in response to the council’s wish. (hh)
“House Bill 4005 would set up a series of requirements for storing firearms and would hold the owner liable if a gun, not securely stored, is stolen and used in a crime.”
Wait a moment. This nation’s president is intervening on behalf of convicted criminals, liars and witness intimidators. The nation is quickly becoming a Trump fiefdom and Sykes, along with four others, are concerned about the Oregon legislature’s propensities. Good God! If Sykes and his loony fellow travelers want to make a REAL difference, turn Albany into a Trump-Free Sanctuary. Better yet, secede from Linn County. Those Commissioners are every bit as out of the loop on most things.
Come on, Albany City Council…. fix the roads instead of wasting my tax dollars discussing gun sanctuaries. You are laughable.
Here’s an example of what passes for leadership in Linn County…wherein the Commissioners (all 3 of em) took a real stand, passing a really meaningless resolution.
“Linn County’s measure, signed by all three commissioners in June that year, says the county opposes any state or federal law that abridges the people’s right to keep and bear arms.”
A real Profile In Courage by Linn County Overlords. A milquetoast, pointless decree only quoted here because the author of this column wanted to stimulate the readership into a Twitter tirade.
Wow! I definitely support this move!
Those are not “assault weapons” please educate yourself and stop spreading this propaganda to make them out as some deadly weapon, an assault weapon is a firearm that can be switched from semi-automatic to full auto. All of those guns in above picture do not have a switch to go full auto because that is illegal without special permitting.
What a load of BS, specifically outlawing rifles like those pictured because what exactly are you banning…aesthetics?
And because the comments were turned off on the Albany Happenings group on FaceBook, something I want to address was a comment made:
“gun nuts have a distorted view of the 2nd Amendment – written at a time when there wasn’t the fire power available now nor did the Founding Fathers envision the kind of weaponry available. With a false sense of security, I find it laughable how the gun nuts cling to their weapons as if they would have ANY chance of success against the technology/weaponry of our military. I support reasonable gun laws. Free form gun ownership is unreasonable.”
The Founding Fathers were not stupid, which is why the Constitution is a living document instead of an archaic piece of history. While they may not have envisioned atomic or nuclear weapons of mass destruction, they knew that the musket would not always remain a musket as gun technology was already changing and it was General George Washington who established the first armory in 1776.
As for the second part…that’s what the British thought about the Colonists and lost both times. The simple fact, having a missile that can pick a flea off a dog’s back 10 miles away does you no good when the dog is in your yard. But more importantly, you’re talking about brother fighting brother…been there, done that…won’t happen again.
We do live in interesting times!
Talk about absolute rampant paranoia! This (gun sanctuary proposal) is an amazing bit of meaningless chutzpah to say the least!… It’s AKA to “Linn County’s measure, signed by all three commissioners in June that year [2015], says the county opposes any state or federal law that abridges the people’s right to keep and bear arms.” (As if the city [or Linn County] gets to determine what is or is not “constitutional.”)
What’s next? “Prior to living in the city limits, all able-bodied citizens will be mandated to purchase a handgun or rifle of their choosing with zero limitations on to type (proof of purchase required to be carried at all times), swear an oath to the City Council, join the NRA, and disavow any/all left-of-center tendencies under pain of expulsion – because Albany’s City Council (and Linn County commissioners) know best?
I do wait to hear/read what the City Attorney comes up whether or not this “sanctuary” is even legally defensible. If not, it’s not worth the paper it would be written on…
Yes, we have just entered The Twilight Zone…
I am a strong 2A advocate and would support such a measure just as I supported Linn Counties SAPO. That said, these are more “feel good” ordinances and anti-gun laws will likely be enforced anyway, out of shear liability reasons alone. It will be interesting to see what the City Attorney says about this. Readers that are Pro2A should be aware of all anti-gun legislation we are faced with right now: IP’s (initiative petitions) 40, 60, 61 & 62. HB4005 and SB1538 that would limit where honest CHL holders could carry their guns. What I want people to ask: Why are we always going after the law abiding gun owner?…WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. Why don’t we not strengthen laws in the areas of; crimes committed with a gun, additional sentence when a gun is used, gang gun crime, enforce our death penalty and enforce the gun laws we have now (many are not)? CRIMINALS with guns are the problem, not honest citizens.
I don’t often agree with you, Ray K., but I agree 100% on this gun nonsense.
Keep after them.
Hasso knew (Hasso is smart; we all know that) that this post would rile his base and keep his blog going.
Hering writes: “In 2015, … Linn County adopted resolutions opposing any gun restrictions they consider to be violations of the U.S. and Oregon constitutions.”
This begs the obvious question: Why would anyone put their faith in the current crop of County Commissioners? Are they the complete and final source for all matters legal? Are the Constitutional Law experts? Or is this “resolution” mere pandering to the gun-toting Linn County residents?
County Commissioners should remain focused on matters relevant to their position. Keep the roads repaired and hire a few sheriffs. Outside of their basic functions, any opinion the County Commissioners blurt out is just that – mere opinion.
Thank you. And I don’t even own a gun.
This state and Gov. Brown with help from Bloomberg are working to make it impossible to own a gun.
I fail to really see what this accomplishes. If a law is made that is unconstitutional that needs to be litigated in the courts. I guess it gins up support from the voters but that doesn’t seem like a great use of scarce resources either.
One big issue with HB4005: The Supreme Court in Heller already decided you cannot force the locking up of guns: “On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[4][5] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are “arms” for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.”
I fail to see where defying state and federal gun laws by a city can be beneficial to anyone. I only see conflict and expensive court battles that the people of the city have to fund and ultimately lose. Fight your battles in the correct place not in our city!
But don’t you know the city is awash in surplus $$ to chase this chimera?
Slightly off the subject. Is there any evidence our new police chief from Washington State wants to embrace sanctuary city policies wrt illegals?
Good question.
Mike Sykes needs to be replaced during the next election by a sound leader willing to address relevant issues that move the city and citizens forward and up not backwards and into the shadows. Security and law enforcement is best addressed by the chief of police.