By editorial board • 

Not up to commissioners to establish state policy

Only current online subscribers may access this article and/or our N-R e-editions.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3.

For all subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .<0/p>


David Bates

This is a reasonable, level-headed response to the latest nonsense from the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners. Of course, they will ignore it. I do not think Commissioners Springer and Starrett understand the extent to which their displays of ineffectual political grandstanding elicit derisive laughter and contempt from citizens. To that, I'd add this: In all the years of revelations we've had about the National Security Agency's massive program of spying on American citizens, I cannot recall a single instance, nor can I find any mention in the News-Register archives, of Springer and Starrett objecting to this electronic annihilation of the Fourth Amendment, which one court has termed "Orwellian." No fist-pumping resolutions, no indignant speeches, nothing. Which is why, when I hear that commissioners are once again standing up for our constitutionally-protected liberties, my response is: Laughter.


Screed? Look at this Bloomberg-bought, unenforceable mess that Salem just passed, and made even worse by subsequent bills. It is de facto gun registration, no matter how you look at it. And, remember the historical progression in other states, which led to overt registration and confiscation. I say why give them any way in. Here's a project for the editorial staff: ask the democrat leadership in Salem if they are satisfied - if this is the end of their attacks on lawful gun owners. It will be interesting to read their answers - and to witness next year's legislative agenda.

Ilsa Perse

Thanks, Editorial Staff, for expressing what everyone I know has been saying about the latest tempest in a teapot from our Commissioners, "Huh?" We all thought that elected officials swear to uphold the laws of the state. Will we next find resolutions opposing speed limits that the Commissioners think infringe on our rights to drive faster than is currently allowed? I think the NR's comment that if there is nothing more pressing on their agenda, their bloated salaries should be cut is an especially good idea.

Don Dix

Rotwang -- never will they be satisfied, never will it end, no answers will be definitive or discernible, and next year's agenda? ... grab your ankles!


There are so many inaccuracies and problems with this "opinion".

To start with, no LEO nor the Commissioners are going to advocate ignoring a Felon in Possession, nor will they not enforce the felon attempting to purchase. They will not however, expend any money to send an undercover deputy or agent out to see if "Steve, the next door neighbor" will loan him a rifle for a 3 week hunting trip to Eastern Oregon without a background check, and arrest him when he does.
Felon in Possession is a separate law that has been on the books for years and years. Felon attempting to purchase has been on the books since at least 1968, if not before.

"It bemoans recent legislative action to extend instant, computerized background checks to private party gun transactions, not just those initiated by dealers. " Have you even read this bill? The previous laws that this bill(SB941)changes and creates does just the opposite.

The original background check laws that included gun shows, mandated that the Oregon State Police make the phone number for FICS available to private parties selling guns in private party transactions so a background check could be run and provide liability exemptions. This law, removes that provision and BANS the private sale of firearms. Steve can't sell his gun to Bob. Period, end of story. Steve has to take his gun to an FFL, pay a fee and Bob has to go to the FFL, who has entered the gun into his store inventory, and get the gun after he has passed the very same background check that has now been removed from the realm of Steve's ability to do. There also seems to be legal controversy on whether or not Steve has to have a background check run on him to get his own gun back from the dealer should Bob fail the check or back out of the deal, because he just figured out that with the extra fees he could buy a new gun cheaper.

Horse with no name

I'm impressed with this opinion coming from the editorial board. Tell the truth, the emperor has no clothes. All these commissioners do is grandstand on bibles and guns so they are continually running for office instead of working for the betterment of the citizens that pay those salaries. These are not leaders for the future, all they want to do is take us backwards to the good old days which never were.


I agree completely with this editorial. Part of the oath of office that each of the commissioners took was "support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oregon and the laws thereof". If you do not agree with the law work to repeal or alter it. Remember you were elected, by the people of the county, who expect you to uphold all the laws. Shame on all three of you for putting yourselves above the law.


I was very surprised and happy to see this editorial. It might be one of the first ones where I am in totally agreement with the Editor. Nicely put. Well done. Calling it like it is. Finally!

Don Dix

Seabiscuit has it right! The bill is a foolish, knee-jerk reaction that only complicates personal gun rights. And supporting bad legislation because of who is for or against allows the whole issue to be muddled with partisan bickering. SB 941 is a pile of sh*t ... plain and simple!

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable