Multiple Cities Come Together to Pass Ordinances Making it Illegal to Ban Guns

By Jack Burns

 A showdown  is brewing in the State of Oregon following gun control advocates’  proposed assault weapons ban called Initiative Proposition 43 (IP43).  Under the guise of “gun control” and “safety of our children,” proponents of the measure aim to effectively ban all weapons produced since the Civil War. But several counties are pushing back with their own Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances. 

Klamath and Deschutes Counties are attempting to push back against  the ordinance by passing their own county-wide ordinances to disallow  the county sheriff from enforcing any state or federal law which would  infringe on county residents’ rights to keep and bear arms. It’s  effectively a ban on gun bans. Klamath County resident Timothy Harris filed a petition titled K-18-1 to: 

Preserve the right of the People of, on and in Klamath County to:
Keep and bear arms as originally understood; in self-defense and preservation, and in defense of one’s community and country.
Freely manufacture, transfer, sell and buy firearms, firearm accessories  and ammunition, which are designed primarily for the same purposes.

Deschutes County resident Jerrad Robinson filed a similar Second  Amendment Protection ordinance. Another ordinance was filed in Columbia  County. 

All three ordinances would ban local law enforcement from  enforcing State or Federal laws which would essentially ban all  semi-automatic firearms under the proposed state ban, IP43. Oregon’s IP43 is being billed as an “asssault weapons” ban, something  even gun owners might support. But in essence, the proposed ban would  make illegal nearly all semi-automatic weapons, make criminals out of  Oregon residents who prefer to hold on to their guns, and put fear in  others who refuse to register their firearms with local law enforcement. 

Representative Bill Post, a Republican, is apparently attempting to  sound the warning alarm for residents about the severity of the law and  the gun confiscation implications which will result from the passage of  IP43 currently being planned for the November ballot. He said: 

This is completely out of hand — I couldn’t believe it. I’ve  been told so many times by people in favor of gun control: ‘no one is  coming to take your guns.’ This (IP43) explicitly comes for your guns…This  got zero comment or help from anybody in Oregon’s Democratic  leadership. The reason they’re not supporting this is that they’re not  stupid. They know this would bring out the greatest red (Republican)  wave of votes in Oregon history…We must do something. But this is crazy.

The National Rifle Association’s spokesperson Lars Dalseide said: 

This ballot initiative classifies practically every  semi-automatic firearm as an assault weapon – rifles, shotguns, and even  handguns. These are firearms you’ll find in every gun store in America.  Should this pass then you’ll have to choose between  surrendering your only means of self-protection or registering them with  the authorities. Then, when the next ballot initiative  passes, they’ll know exactly what you have, where it is, and come to  take it. Maybe now when we say they’re coming for you’re [sic] guns  you’ll believe us.

The county measures intended to preserve county residents’ rights to  keep the firearms they own are not likely to be able to stand up in  court if IP43 is passed in November. 

Just as IP43 would make criminals  out of law abiding citizens across the State of Oregon, so, too, would  the counties’ Second Amendment Preservation ordinances make criminals  out of duly elected law enforcement officials such as sheriffs. Few sheriffs, even if the county ordinances pass in response to IP43,  would dare to place their liberty and career on the line to comply with  a local ordinance. 

Rather, they would likely cow tow to state and  federal laws and begin enforcing the new law. America seems to be prisoners of their own devices. Just as the  so-called War on Drugs has made criminals out of citizens who chose to  use a plant to heal themselves, the War on Guns make criminals out of  citizens who choose to flex their rights and hold onto their guns.

 As TFTP reported in April,  one Illinois town, Deerfield, already passed a gun grabbing local  ordinance which gave its citizens 60 days to turn in their guns or face  $1000 fines per gun per day. Now, it seems, an entire state, the State  of Oregon, is attempting to pass its own gun grabbing scheme (IP43), and  is using fake promises to do so, saying it will keep kids safe by  banning guns. Banning guns does not keep citizens safe. London has a near total gun ban yet murders, have since surpassed New York City’s crime rates. 

Banning guns does not keep citizens safe. Banning government from  making criminals out of law-abiding citizens, however, does keep  citizens safe. When law enforcement sets its sights on drug users and  those who are impoverished, citizens not only lose their freedom, they  lose their wealth as well. Civil asset forfeiture is often used to take  wealth from those convicted under the War on Drugs, and those who are  impoverished. 

If a War on Guns is launched in the U.S., citizens will  lose much more than their semi-automatic weapons. They will lose safety,  freedom, and assets to a government all too eager to take it from them. 

TFTP recently spoke with a Tennessee man who was convicted of dealing  marijuana. He said the FBI, the DEA, and local law enforcement kicked  in his door, pocketed over 40,000 dollars in cash, and, as part of his  plea deal, forced him to pay the government over $200,000 in a  promissory note, all because he was attempting to help people treat  their illnesses with a plant. 

Not only did they take nearly all of his possessions, label him a  felon for life, but they have placed him into a state-sponsored form of  indentured servitude for life. He fears revealing his identity for  worries he will again be targeted. State officials will likely do the same to individuals who attempt to  keep their weapons—their only form of self-protection under the Second  Amendment to the US Constitution. If they get away with it in Oregon,  they will likely get away with it all across the so-called Land of the  Free. 

---

 We are the Free Thought Project — a hub for Free Thinking conversations about the promotion of liberty and the daunting task of government accountability. All of our content was created by our team of artists and writers. Learn more about us on our website thefreethoughtproject.com.