• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ashland OC Ban

LibertyAshland

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
18
Location
Ashland, Ore
After Monday evening's Study Session there was a discussion outside the chambers between members of both 'camps'.

One of the herbivorous holophobes was lecturing the individual who OC'd both an 1911 and an AR whilst various others listened. The OC'er was polite and articulate, and he had his mother and wife with him.

I interjected and asked if the one talking had authored this. He hadn't. I suggested that this would be quite ineffective, in as much as we all know:

(a) there is no problem,
(b) this ordinance would not and could not stop a "problem"even if there was one, and
(c) CHL permit holders are exempt, etc

They retorted that that was better than nothing, that at least a CHL guaranteed a level of proficiency - which was laughed at, and he smirkingly conceded it was a low bar.

And then, like a magician pulling a rabbit from a top hat I invited the truth to spill forth from their own mouths: they want to change society. They are self confessed social engineers who are fully aware of what they are doing. This is calculated, make no mistake of that fact. 'Politics is a continuation of war by other means' I seem to remember.

Having made their confession I put it to them that their attempt to deny us our natural rights was in itself a very violent action of very violent people. I explained their passive aggressive and coercive social engineering relied on Chief Holderness and his men, with guns, to enforce their will on others. At this point they just walked off in a state of cognitive dissonance. Next time we see them we can invite them to the ranges!

Beyond giving myself props, I feel the take home of this was that there we were again in relatively equal members (interestingly all pro 2A were vets, old and young) - and that given the opportunity to calmly and clearly enunciate our position they cannot win. The 'democratic' system will allow this before the council, and so - if it were down to reason alone we would be assured victory. Sadly it's not, and so we have to play politics too. This has begun... see next post...
 

LibertyAshland

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
18
Location
Ashland, Ore
Tonight (Tuesday) at the Council's regular business meeting two individuals spoke during the public forum, and both spoke against the proposed ordinances.

The first was a satire by a business-owner, resident, and parent of a young child who announced the intent of a new public safety concern group called 'Citizens for a REALLY safe Ashland'.

He suggested that as grass roots initiatives were so in vogue, and that ideals such as liberty and rights were so clearly outmoded that we must not settle for copying other municipalities ineffective and unenforceable ordinances, we should instead take our lead from Europe and ban everything. He mentioned that a draft ordinance is being written by the group and is seeking council support of it. The affiliation's new draft ordinance proposes to ban the public display of all sorts of potentially dangerous, unfamiliar, and even scary items such as chain saws, power tools, knives and ladders. The ordinance would also punish people that allow minors access to said items and others including car keys and alcohol and medications.

A change.org petition with the new REALLY safe ordinance is billed to be up and running by the end of the week. Satire lives.

The other gentleman, a resident of over 35 years, spoke eloquently of firearms, their use, purpose and functionality. He addressed criminal disregard for laws, and concluded that he would not stand for his rights being eroded.

The council then spent an hour and a half deciding to probably not require citizens to apply for a permit to film or video record on their own private property! Liberty Ashland has it's work cut out!
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
LibertyAshland

Thank you for being there and for the reports. I was unable to attend Monday's study session due to classes but was finally able to view the video late this afternoon. Unfortunately, not in time to prepare comments for the public forum at tonight's meeting.

I was particularly interested to see Councilor Voison's non factual plea to emotions and action while providing no data and basically admitting that she hadn't seen any "but it's out there". I plan to take her to task personally.

It was also refreshing to see Councilor's asking for facts, the city manager recommending caution and warning of litigation. It was VERY refreshing to hear that the Chief was proactive and did some preliminary research, perhaps after hearing my previous comments during public forum two weeks ago and anticipating the question of "is there a problem".

I believe if a vote were taken NOW it might well be 3-3 with the Mayor breaking the tie and I think at this point he would go against. However, there is much more discussion and much more politicking to do before a vote is made.

We need to energize local and not so local pro rights and pro gun people to contact the Councilors and Mayor. We also need to get OUR facts and figures lined out and have at least a couple of people ready to speak at every public forum and hearing from here until the matter is decided. I also think that we should make plans for strategic protests should the need arise. Ashland depends upon tourism, and should it be deemed strategically advantageous, putting a half dozen open carriers on the streets each Saturday and Sunday (far more than they normally see) MIGHT make some see the unintended consequences of a yes vote.....i.e. MORE visible arms on their streets and at times that it might affect their tourism dollars. If deemed necessary, I'm leaning towards those carriers having signs along the lines of "I have a CHL, I will be exempt from your ordinance".

No, that is NOT a call to inundate their downtown with open carriers at this time. I think that needs to be a politically strategic decision kept available and planned for as a contingency but not yet deployed.

Next post will have a link to Monday's "study session". I do not yet see Tuesday's meeting video and expect it will be up sometime tomorrow afternoon.
 

SteveM

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2013
Messages
63
Location
Beaverton, OR
Thanks for the updates and video links. I am keenly interested in following the arguments for and against this proposed ordinance in Ashland as I am trying to get the Beaverton ordinance repealed. The problem is I struggle to find reasons why others support such an ordinance and can think of several reasons to oppose it. Our city council hasn't given any indication why they have no desire to repeal it so I assume they are in favor of it and I want to challenge those beliefs.

I think Chief Holderness got to the heart of it by saying it was about "community values" and in fact not a public safety issue.
 
Last edited:

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
Thanks for the updates and video links. I am keenly interested in following the arguments for and against this proposed ordinance in Ashland as I am trying to get the Beaverton ordinance repealed. The problem is I struggle to find reasons why others support such an ordinance and can think of several reasons to oppose it. Our city council hasn't given any indication why they have no desire to repeal it so I assume they are in favor of it and I want to challenge those beliefs.

I think Chief Holderness got to the heart of it by saying it was about "community values" and in fact not a public safety issue.

The "arguments" in support are generally all the same. Emotional appeals to "protect the children", "remember Sandy Hook", etc., and made up statistics. For instance, a lot of the time when they give a number for children killed it includes those 24 and under. By redefining "child" to include those under 25, the "statistics" capture the vast majority of deaths among gang members. In criminology circles we KNOW that one aspect of criminal behavior is that, as a group, criminals "age out" at about 26 or so. In other words, they grow up and move on.

Arguments FOR the Ashland gun ordinance are non existent to this point other than the ramblings of the sponsoring Councilwoman. So far her arguments have been:
"I know there are statistics out there but I didn't look them up".
We need to protect the children
Let me read this letter we got from Sandy Hook

When the Chief of Police spoke, he had statistics which didn't point to any problem. Specifically said they had NEVER hand an incident involving and open carrier, and that it was not a tool he needed but was instead a "community values" question.

There have been NO speakers in favor of the supposedly grass roots ordinance. There have been at least three (speakers) opposed, two of whom have spoken twice.

Bottom line, there is no argument coming from supporters. That makes it rather hard to shut down their "arguments".
 

LibertyAshland

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
18
Location
Ashland, Ore
As We The People states, there is no problem - and, even if there were this is neither a viable or lawful solution. I commend the efforts of trying to repeal in Beaverton, and don't doubt it possible with a council stacked in the right manner. It would also require the skillful mobilization of liberty minded citizens (without arousing the social engineers attention). For all these reasons it is essential that we don't let any more of these unlawful ordinances pass, in Ashland or anywhere. It's always harder to undo something that has been done. Harder, but not impossible.

There's a council meeting scheduled on the 18th. WTP - We need fresh faces to speak up, especially if this is not the scheduled discussion of proposed ordinance. If it is, we need to mobilize en masse...
 
Last edited:

SteveM

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2013
Messages
63
Location
Beaverton, OR
Thanks for the video link, I watched those two public comments and the study session. The only argument in favor that I heard is that until it is proven that open carry of loaded firearms helps improve public safety that it must be banned in order to ensure public safety. And later on she said it is a precautionary ordinance, which is to admit that there currently is no problem that this ordinance will address, but some day it might.

This leaves me a bit disheartened because if my city council has bought into this mindset then no amount of logic, statistics, or reasoning of any kind can change that.
 

LibertyAshland

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
18
Location
Ashland, Ore
Thanks for the video link, I watched those two public comments and the study session. The only argument in favor that I heard is that until it is proven that open carry of loaded firearms helps improve public safety that it must be banned in order to ensure public safety. And later on she said it is a precautionary ordinance, which is to admit that there currently is no problem that this ordinance will address, but some day it might.

This leaves me a bit disheartened because if my city council has bought into this mindset then no amount of logic, statistics, or reasoning of any kind can change that.

Don't ever say never Steve! Then the Bustards have won without a fight!

Although illogical, and anti-ethical to the egalitarian way of life traditionally enjoyed in the Anglosphere - having to prove ourselves RIGHT may be a pain and not a duty of a free people, but it is possible and can be effective.

Start with this book: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391904203&sr=1-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime

This is an excerpt from the 'best' review of this book on Amazon: "I was drawn into that research almost immediately by the sheer force of my own disbelief. I discovered fact after fact that starkly disproved the claims and "facts" so many teachers and colleagues had expressed about firearms and their relationship to violence, and which, during my long trip through academia, had led me to believe stricter gun control was just plain common sense. For two years, I read thousands of pages of information, starting with raw data from the FBI and CDC so that I would be better able to assess the claims I subsequently read in books, peer-reviewed journals, news publications, blogs, and so forth. In the course of that research, I came across numerous references to John Lott's studies, but so many of them suggested there were "fatal flaws" in his methodology (and questions about his motives) that I never bothered to read him. I simply assumed based on the sheer number of such comments that his work was indeed more propaganda than serious study. Nonetheless, I turned up enough information over the course of two years to completely change my view about guns. I now believe wholeheartedly in the right to carry, the wisdom of the 2nd Amendment, the particularly important benefits of concealed carry for women, and the notion that more firearms in law-abiding hands does make society demonstrably safer."

I just ordered this book to give to The City Council to assist them with their FACT based assessment. For, while they may have a public safety remit - they DO NOT have one to socially engineer society. Society won't stand for that!
 
Last edited:

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
To view an OCDO member speaking to the Council and making a very effective satirical presentation that had the rapt attention of the Council, here's a link to just that 5 minute part of the long meeting on the 4th.

This is NOT me. I don't think he has an issue with us knowing his member name but I'll leave that to him to acknowledge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhsuB6xMR8
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
I fully and publicly applaud this individual doing the satirical presentation for his actions on this. I hope he successfully got his point across to the council members of Ashland.
 
Last edited:

LibertyAshland

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
18
Location
Ashland, Ore
To view an OCDO member speaking to the Council and making a very effective satirical presentation that had the rapt attention of the Council, here's a link to just that 5 minute part of the long meeting on the 4th.

This is NOT me. I don't think he has an issue with us knowing his member name but I'll leave that to him to acknowledge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhsuB6xMR8

Thanks WTP! ;)
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
Time will tell. That though was just the beginning!

Time and properly handling things on the political front. We need to play the politics game at this point and try to get them to "see the light". I actually think that's not going to be too hard as the Council doesn't seem to be for this.

Lemhouse - Former police, concerns over the inspection provision and how officers would develop RAS as well as wanting to see statistics that show there is a problem.

Morris - Wants to see stats, he knew that there were 189,000 CHL's in Oregon. Said something about (paraphrased) if this is where the crime is and that's what we're being told.......sounded like "yeah right, show me".

Slattery - Doesn't think is should go through on a Council vote and should be presented to the voters if anything. In other words, he'll vote no unless it's sent to the voters. If it goes to a ballot there is plenty of time to get the protests and campaigns against it.

That's THREE against if I'm reading them correctly.

Rosenthal - Hard to read but the only meeting so far is NOT supposed to be debating, only getting information and he seemed to ask questions that indicated he would be easily convinced that the ordinance is unnecessary.


Marsh - Hard read and could go either way. Hearing her in open session debating the issue will tell.

Voisin - Obviously a vote for.

Mayor Stromberg - He didnt' seem convinced but did seem to be playing the "don't debate it" game. Brought up good points and tough questions. Also mentioned that it could end up being just a symbolic gesture. If it comes to a tie vote in the Council I think we can count him to kill it.

That's just my take. Others may have different opinions. However, having served "behind the big desk" I think the best course of action is to continue to address the Council in public forum time when the ordinances aren't on the agenda or public hearing time when they are. It takes more than one meeting to pass an ordinance. At least two readings of the final proposal and they don't even have an acceptable first one yet as the city attorney is going to make changes. While Voisin may want this rammed through fast, I don't see the caution of the other Councilors allowing that even if they are inclined to vote for it.

This thing is early in the game and while we should be organizing for the potential need to protest should it look like it's going forward, I don't think now is the time to start protesting en masse. We don't want to push any unsure votes the wrong direction or rile up the citizens to call for them to "do something".
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
Myself and the silver tongued satirist "appeared" on the Bill Meyer radio talk show this morning at 7:35ish. It seems staff didn't tell him his 7:30 guests were waiting in the lobby until I asked "did anyone tell him we're here?" Oooops.

I'm waiting for the audio file and will get links and times as soon as possible. I think it went well and the case was made that the ordinance is unnecessary.

To date I haven't seen or heard anything from those supporting this ordinance. Hmmmmm
 

DaveT319

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
274
Location
Eugene, OR
3. Discussion of an ordinance prohibiting the unlawful carrying of loaded firearms in public places and an ordinance to prohibit endangering a child by allowing access to a firearm (Request of Councilor Voisin)

I really don't like the wording of that. "...prohibiting the unlawful carrying of loaded firearms..." Uhm... news flash... the UNLAWFUL carrying of loaded firearms is ALREADY prohibited. This would include carrying concealed without a license, and being in possession by a felon. What they are in fact trying to do is prohibit the LAWFUL carrying of loaded firearms, and THAT is what we have a problem with.
I also heard that there was someone at the meeting with an AR and pistol. While that's their right, it's not politically savvy as it only whips up the opposition. Out on the streets would be far less antagonistic, though still ******* off the anti's.

I personally think ANYONE open carrying a rifle is an idiot and hurts the cause and helps to erode our rights. An AR is not a practical nor reasonable defensive weapon, at least as far as carrying one in public is concerned. Does anyone here really think it should be ok and accepted for someone to have a semiautomatic rifle sling over their shoulder like a soldier? While it may fit in with your "rights", it's not "right". Rifles like that are already demonized; carrying them around in public isn't going to turn the tide of public opinion regarding them.

There's no denying it's your right. If you choose to do that, you may. But understand that you are probably doing a disservice to the open carry community by doing so.
 

SteveM

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2013
Messages
63
Location
Beaverton, OR
There was a time when open carrying a rifle meant you were going somewhere to use it in a safe and lawful manner and no one looked twice. The rifle carrying activist may not be on his way to the gun range, but the panicked person calling 911 doesn't know that. Does the breastfeeding activist sit discreetly in a corner hoping to not disturb anyone or purposely pick a park bench next to a busy walkway so as to be noticed?

I'm not a proponent of open carrying a rifle, but I'm also not re-defining open carry to fit what I feel people should do in public. It just seems a contradiction for so many to say that the purpose of a handgun is to allow you to fight your way to a rifle, then we turn around and say that a rifle has no defensive purpose and should only be carried by soldiers. Personally I'd love for all the bad guys to know that my neighborhood was patrolled by a "gun nut" carrying a rifle.

When I attend Beaverton city council meetings to request they repeal the loaded carry ban I could carry openly a handgun, but I bet they'd get very indignant and claim people like me are the reason for the ordinance. When in their chambers I dress nicely, speak respectfully, and don't display any weapons. When I'm walking down the street in public I'll carry whatever pleases me in a safe manner.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
As far as I'm concerned, ANYONE who says "I support the 2nd amendment BUT...." does not support the second amendment. You either support it and the right of people to exercise their right as they see fit or you do not support it. There is no middle ground, no compromise. "Compromise" is what's gotten us to where we are now.

As for appearing before the politico's, with a very few exceptions I ONLY open carry and when I go before a political panel I'm carrying openly. I refuse to be "reasonable" with those who are doing everything within their power to very unreasonably strip me of my rights.

While long gun open carry may be verboten on this forum, it IS a legal activity in many locations and it is not up to us to decide how others exercise their rights.
 
Top