Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilor Zelenka noted that the local ordinance did not allow authorities to go into homes and take guns. Mr. Solin affirmed this. He said specifically under emergency circumstances the City could prohibit the sale, the carrying, or the possession of any firearms or explosives of any kind on public streets or in public places. He recalled that when the City passed the emergency code the National Rifle Association had made comments on a national level about the City of Eugene. He said the City had been careful to craft the language so that it was specific to the confiscation of firearms in public places only. Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Pryor that the amendment could prohibit local officials from taking guns away from vigilantes in such a situation. Councilor Poling did not agree with the assertion that someone who was breaking the law could not have their gun confiscated. Mr. Solin replied that the police had reviewed the amendment and it had given them concern because it specifically stated that if a person lawfully possessed the firearm it could not be taken away from that individual. He related that the EPD felt the law had the potential to tie the hands of officers in such a situation. Councilor Clark suggested that someone who was shooting inappropriately would still be subject to arrest. He believed that the greatest degree of home rule was the “primacy of the individual.” He thought this was a “wonderful balance” to the need to “federalize” this particular response. At Councilor Bettman’s request, Mr. Solin rearticulated Mr. Cushman’s concerns with the language of the amendment. He stated that the way that it was written it could potentially disallow an officer from taking a firearm from someone who lawfully owned it, even if that person was doing something illegal. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Wilson predicted that there would be a discussion regarding the State’s right to prohibit the federal government from seizing arms in an emergency. She noted that there were a lot of emergency-related bills at present. She said one of the big discussions was what a state of emergency actually meant, as it was not entirely clear and it was not in the bill. Councilor Bettman asked if there were any other issues of authority that the underlying bill would impact. Mr. Solin responded that the Oregon Wireless Interoperable Network (OWIN) was a program that sought to try to fix the State’s radio systems and the Oregon Military Department did not want the program. He said OWIN was “looking for a new home.” He related that staff was closely watching where OWIN would end up because of local interest in interoperability. He also noted that from an emergency management standpoint, although the Oregon State Police had been diminished by budget cuts, the National Guard’s ability to respond to emergencies had also been diminished because so many of the troops had been sent overseas. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Solin related that Oregon National Guard troops had been sent to help Hurricane Katrina victims, as an example of Oregon troops helping people in another state. Councilor Bettman asked who would make the decision to send troops to another state. She asked what would happen in a situation in which there was an emergency that hit another state harder than Oregon. Would “whoever it is that was now administering the emergency management by the military” send troops to another state? Mr. Solin replied that the Oregon National Guard reported to the Governor of Oregon. He explained that after Hurricane Katrina the Governor of Louisiana asked the Governor of Oregon to send troops to help out and the Governor then decided to dispatch some troops. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 14 Regular Meeting