Posted on



open carry


 A subcommittee of the Corvallis City Council held a hearing on Tuesday to discuss a ban on open loaded carry of firearms.

Second Amendment supporters were well represented and we thank everyone who took time out of their busy day to show up and speak in support of liberty.

While this issue is by no means resolved, early indications are that the council members are realizing an ordinance of this kind would create nothing but confusion and open the door to endless lawsuits.

Your activism convinced the City of Ashland to abandon its plans for a similar rule and your continued efforts may well get Corvallis to give up on this pointless attack on your rights and common sense. Here are some quotes from pro-rights people who were there.
I didn’t keep an exact count, but I think it was about 7 to 2 testifying in opposition to the ordinance. Maybe 25-30 folks.”

“Everyone was civil, made their points well and was respectful. One gentleman, a VietNam Vet, the first to testify, was a little worked up at Councilor Beilstein’s Cuban flag plastered on the back of his laptop. There’s a long story to that, but suffice to say, the Vet made a great point. Beilstein has a cuban flag on his computer prominently displayed and NOWHERE in the room was a Flag of the United States. Good on him for noticing that and bringing it up. “

“The (Police )Chief and the (City)attorney seemed to be trying to say in as diplomatic of a way as possible that the ordinance was meaningless. It changes nothing in the way the officers would be able to respond. If no procedural changes, why go forward. They pointed out how sections of the Portland ordinance is lacking in logic as well. “

The proposal itself is an enactment of what is essentially a cut/paste of the Portland ordinance. First up to speak on it were the Chief of Corvallis PD and the city attorney. They briefly went over the ordnance as proposed and offered the following:

The proposed ordinance would be problematic; the Portland ordinance was used as a template because it is the only one to have survived any scrutiny whatsoever, and that was in a couple of very fact-dependent cases. 

They posited that the ordinance would very likely break down under any sort of more general test. They also offered the opinion that it would be unenforceable on (if I remember correctly) Fourth Amendment grounds. The Chief of Police informed the committee that CPD policies and practices would not change if the proposed ordinance passed.”

“Public testimony ran 9/2 opposed. Testimony on both sides ran about as one would expect, with 5-6 people who wished to speak being unable due to time constraints. The committee decided to resume public testimony on the matter at the next meeting, 21 October same place, same time.”

Responses to emails sent to the Mayor and Council members indicate no great enthusiasm for poking this particular badger, but we need to keep the pressure up.

An interesting take on the meeting was posted by our friends at Oathkeepers.

If you can be at the next hearing, please go and make your voice heard. If not please send a message to the council members and mayor.

Contact information for the the mayor and city council is available here.

Schedule information and agenda documents are available here.