City Hall has been closed to the public, weapons or no weapons.
On Feb. 12, way before everything ground to a halt because of COVID-19, the Albany City Council asked its lawyer to look into protecting townspeople from infringements of their gun rights. Whatever happened to that idea?
Well, the issue has not been forgotten, but it’s obviously been pushed into the background by more immediate concerns caused by the virus outbreak.
You can refresh yourself on the background here. Councilman Mike Sykes, who brought up the idea of making Albany a “Second Amendment sanctuary,” told me sometime ago he had expected City Attorney Sean Kidd to come up with a resolution in response to the council’s request at the session scheduled for March 25.
That meeting was canceled because of corona concerns, and agenda items scheduled for that day were moved to April 8 or later. But the Second Amendment resolution was not listed among the items rescheduled.
On Wednesday I inquired about this, and Kidd replied: “Yes there will be one presented, but I believe we are trying to hold off until the next meeting where we are physically present. If that goes past the April 8th meeting then we may have it on the agenda anyway.”
In mid-February, the legislature was considering a couple of bills adding requirements on gun owners, and the secretary of state had received proposed initiative petitions with similar restrictions. The legislative bills died when the session was adjourned abruptly after Republicans had walked out. As for the initiative proposals, the corona situation is expected to curtail the sponsors’ ability to get the required signatures by the deadline on July 2.
In the meantime, it will be interesting to see just what kind of resolution on gun rights is put before the council, and whether it has any effect other than merely to express the council’s opinion on whatever changes in state law, if any, are proposed or passed. (hh)
I for one hope we do pass a resolution to help preserve our 2A rights, that would have an overall heartening effect. Having said that, it’s sad that we feel it neccesary to do so, but that’s the unfortunate reality. How about a resolution to preserve all our constitutional rights?
I hope this resolution never gets passed. It is not needed. What we do need are laws to prohibit the mentally ill, domestic abusers and children from having guns. BTW, there are guns in my house.
You need to educate yourself on Oregon gun laws. Here is a long list of people who are prohibited from possessing a firearm. The three you cite are included.
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/categories-of-prohibited-people-in-oregon/
Delfina: “It is not needed.” Correct
GS: “Here is a long list of people who are prohibited from possessing a firearm.” Also correct.
Current laws simply need to be enforced IMO.
Thanks to you and Mr.Shadie I stand corrected. I guess I just don’t understand why the laws are not enforced. No one has said they will take all guns away.
The Gov’s order does not include a shut down of gun shops. Washington deemed them non-essential. But not Oregon. I wonder why?
Is the Gov a closet supporter of the 2nd Amendment? (This question is sarcasm, btw.)