-
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.
-
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.
Corvallis considering open carry ban
- Thread starter bigtoe416
- Start date
We-the-People
Regular Member
The full city council will be considering the proposed ban on November 3rd.
Anyone that can make it should attend. Those with CHL's should open carry.
This proposal, like the one in Ashland, is being pushed by one woman with no logic, no factual basis, just "feelings". In fact, she openly admits that he stance and push for this ordinance is due to knowing five people who died from guns......FOUR were suicides and ONE was a hunting accident.
So.....
No problem within the city that the proposed ordinance would address.
Desires to infringe upon ALL citizens INALIENABLE RIGHTS because of her "feelings".
Has no concept of the unintended consequences of attracting MORE open carriers.
Sounds just like Councilor Voison in Ashland.
Let's make sure she gets the same treatment!!!!!!
HareTigger
Regular Member
We-the-people (opencarryusmc on YouTube) and I are heading to Corvallis now from Medford. Challenging all other open carriers to make the trip. Does anyone want to meet up before the meeting? Perhaps for an open carry walk?
Cremator75
Regular Member
Really wish I could go but work just won't stop.
No vote last night. The issue was sent to committee (Administrative committee?) to investigate the best way of putting the issue before the community versus the council deciding on a potentially contentious issue themselves.
There were quite a few anti-gun people but a significant majority were pro-gun. The general consensus of the anti-gun people ranged from "just not wanting to see guns" to open carrier's violating their "right to feel safe." There were numerous people speaking about gun violence in general that had little to do with open carry.
The pro-gun people were well represented by oathkeepers, veterans, Kevin Starrett from OFF, a handful of NRA firearms instructors, and various citizens of Corvallis and elsewhere.
There were quite a few anti-gun people but a significant majority were pro-gun. The general consensus of the anti-gun people ranged from "just not wanting to see guns" to open carrier's violating their "right to feel safe." There were numerous people speaking about gun violence in general that had little to do with open carry.
The pro-gun people were well represented by oathkeepers, veterans, Kevin Starrett from OFF, a handful of NRA firearms instructors, and various citizens of Corvallis and elsewhere.
We-the-People
Regular Member
Good turn out. Speakers were 37 against the ordinance and 12 for the ordinance. A number of those against were not local residents (including yours truly) but made great points.
Those for the ordinance resorted to the typical lines about being afraid, their right to not be afraid trumping our right to carry, and of course THE CHILDREN. Oh you should have heard some of the "statistics" they threw out there.....
guns are the leading cause of death for children
America has 20 times the firearms deaths of other countries
Guns kill more children than all diseases combined
And the list of lies went on and on and on.
In the end, the Council decided to send the matter back to another committee to examine all options and return with a recommendation. Some possibilities mentioned were:
Having citizens place an initiative on the ballot (requires 2500 sigs)
The Council placing a ballot question for community guidance
Passing the "ban"
Coming up with something real rather than symbolic
Basically, they punted, just like Ashland, and it will be back in some way, shape, or form.
One Councilor was so attentive to the voices of the people speaking that he rarely even looked away from his computer. Another sat there with his Cuban flag facing the audience, taunting us with his apparent hatred of America.....he also faced away from the flag and refused to participate in the pledge.
Now you or I have that freedom, but an elected official who has sworn an oath? I'm not so sure this man is legally qualified to hold that office. He was questioned on the matter, avoided it, and the Mayor admonished the speaker presenting the question.
The OathKeepers were present in force as was Kevin of Oregon Firearms Federation, Laughing at Liberals (YouTube) and OpenCarryUSMC (YouTube).
The Corvallis locals are working with Liberty Ashland on squashing this thing. Activists like me can help but there must be grass roots support from those in the community or their rights will be infringed!
I'll try to have video up on YouTube soon. There is also a petition that can be signed which will send an email to each councilor.....hit that puppy!!!!! LINK BELOW
https://www.change.org/p/city-of-corvallis-oregon-maintain-and-protect-the-right-to-self-defense-of-all-residents-and-citizens-through-the-lawful-open-carry-of-loaded-firearms-in-corvallis-oregon
Those for the ordinance resorted to the typical lines about being afraid, their right to not be afraid trumping our right to carry, and of course THE CHILDREN. Oh you should have heard some of the "statistics" they threw out there.....
guns are the leading cause of death for children
America has 20 times the firearms deaths of other countries
Guns kill more children than all diseases combined
And the list of lies went on and on and on.
In the end, the Council decided to send the matter back to another committee to examine all options and return with a recommendation. Some possibilities mentioned were:
Having citizens place an initiative on the ballot (requires 2500 sigs)
The Council placing a ballot question for community guidance
Passing the "ban"
Coming up with something real rather than symbolic
Basically, they punted, just like Ashland, and it will be back in some way, shape, or form.
One Councilor was so attentive to the voices of the people speaking that he rarely even looked away from his computer. Another sat there with his Cuban flag facing the audience, taunting us with his apparent hatred of America.....he also faced away from the flag and refused to participate in the pledge.
Now you or I have that freedom, but an elected official who has sworn an oath? I'm not so sure this man is legally qualified to hold that office. He was questioned on the matter, avoided it, and the Mayor admonished the speaker presenting the question.
The OathKeepers were present in force as was Kevin of Oregon Firearms Federation, Laughing at Liberals (YouTube) and OpenCarryUSMC (YouTube).
The Corvallis locals are working with Liberty Ashland on squashing this thing. Activists like me can help but there must be grass roots support from those in the community or their rights will be infringed!
I'll try to have video up on YouTube soon. There is also a petition that can be signed which will send an email to each councilor.....hit that puppy!!!!! LINK BELOW
https://www.change.org/p/city-of-corvallis-oregon-maintain-and-protect-the-right-to-self-defense-of-all-residents-and-citizens-through-the-lawful-open-carry-of-loaded-firearms-in-corvallis-oregon
We-the-People
Regular Member
Video of my testimony in Corvallis...... I did NOT address the new proposal but rather unlawful (preempted) ordinances that they already have on the books.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_yO9ZeSg0I&list=UU7EBNPqafXDoUn_ZE1ncy_A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_yO9ZeSg0I&list=UU7EBNPqafXDoUn_ZE1ncy_A
I don't see what the big deal is and I think those that questioned him on it acted in a manner which reeked of McCarthyism. If he's a communist so what? He's an elected official (and he just got re-elected by a wide margin last night) and if his constituents see fit to elect a communist or whatever, so be it. Personally I just think he sympathizes with Cuba and that's all. In either case he has a first amendment right to say whatever he chooses or put whatever he desires on his laptop.
Regarding the flag salute, there are a variety of reasons he may choose not to participate. He could be a member of a religion which refuses to swear or pledge (like a Quaker) or he could be a Jehovah's Witness or he could be an atheist who silently protests the inclusion of "under God" by just not participating. I haven't said the pledge for 16 years and I never want to stand for it. Our country these days is not something I respect enough to pledge my allegiance to, although I do respect the ideals it used to stand for and the people that made it what it used to be.
Point being, if we are going to argue that our right to carry a firearm trumps somebody's feelings then we shouldn't be getting upset over somebody exercising their right to speech. We should either be champions of all rights or champions of none IMHO.
We-the-People
Regular Member
I can understand your points but I can't see how someone can be a communist and take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the US and of Oregon. There is a video of him on YouTube from after the meeting where he is answering questions from Laughing at Liberals. I don't think his definition of communism is the standard definition but he certainly appears to be a leftist nut job.
Yes, he has the right to his opinions but the conflict with his oath is problematic.
I actually have more of a problem with the Councilor who wouldn't even acknowledge the speakers and appeared to be bored with having to listen to the "peons".
That's an interesting point about communism conflicting with the oath of office. I'll have to give that some thought.
And yes, the Council member who was on his computer for more than 90% of the time was reprehensible.
I was curious how wrong this was. According to the latest statistics from childdeathreview.org (morbid website name eh?) the number of firearm deaths for ages 0-19 (not 18 as it should be) for a population of 100,000 are:
134 Unintentional injury
1790 Homicide
749 Suicide
2673 Total firearm deaths per 100,000
So are firearms the leading cause of death? Nope. Perinatal conditions are, followed by congenital anomalies, followed by motor vehicle accidents, and then firearms.
Do firearms kill more kids than all diseases combined? Nope. Just circulatory and nervous system diseases combined total 2895. Respiratory diseases bring that number to 4209.
Interestingly, this might be the only age group where homicide firearm deaths outpace suicide firearm deaths.
We-the-People
Regular Member
Where the hell did they get their numbers?
Extrapolating the 2,673 total firearms deaths per 100,000 to the US population (est at 320 million) would equate to 8,553,600 firearms deaths. A number so out of touch with reality it's not even in the universe.
Anti's do manipulate and cherry pick data but they are far more inclined to outright lies like these.
Heh...that's a great point. Maybe I interpreted the numbers wrong and the values I listed above are national figures, not per 100,000 figures. That would put the total firearm deaths at 3.2 per 100,000. Thanks for the sanity check.
We-the-People
Regular Member
After reviewing the page you provided in your link, it appears that they did a piss poor job of delivering the information clearly. That could be by design or simply because they're idiots. Either is possible but I tend not to think our opposition are idiots, just ignorant.
The numbers in the second column are total deaths in the country and the third column is RATE per 100,000. The titles of the various charts and columns however make no indication that the raw numbers provided are nationwide. This puts bigger, scarier numbers up which helps anti-gun types inflate emotions.
An interesting thing to observe are the mechanisms of unintentional injury.
44,419 Motor vehicle
1,176 Suffocation/strangulation
1,027 Drowning
838 Poisoning
365 Burns
134 Firearm
A "child" (as defined 0-19) is:
33,000 percent more likely to die in an auto accident than from a firearms accident.
877 percent more likely to die from an accidental suffocation or strangulation.
766 percent more likely to die from an accidental drowning.
625 percent more likely to die from an accidental poisoning.
272 percent more likely to die from an accidental burn.
The data are clear. We must BAN CARS. If can save just one child....it's worth it.
This has been a Public Service Announcement brought to you by
We-The-People in conjunction with OpenCarryUSMC and Little Brother: Solutions to Big Brother.
Jeff. State
Banned
According to the bubblehead at a local Fox affiliate, "Open Carry Permit holders" are facing possible restrictions. Complete imbeciles!!
Corvallis Open Carry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8cXyTW1yfc
Corvallis Open Carry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8cXyTW1yfc
We-the-People
Regular Member
I saw that on Facebook. No one ever accused the main stream media of having any brains.