Oregon

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares125 Views

    The Town at the Center of a Supreme Court Battle Over Homelessness

    by

    A lawsuit by a group of homeless residents of a small Oregon town could reshape the way cities across the country deal with homelessness.Inside a warming shelter, Laura Gutowski detailed how her life had changed since she became homeless two and a half years ago in Grants Pass, a former timber hub in the foothills of southern Oregon.Her husband’s death left her without steady income. She lived in a sedan, and then in a tent, in sight of the elementary school where her son was once a student. She constantly scrambled to move her belongings to avoid racking up more fines from the police.“I never expected it to come to this,” Ms. Gutowski, 55, said. She is one of several hundred homeless people in this city of about 40,000 that is at the center of a major case before the Supreme Court on Monday with broad ramifications for the nationwide struggle with homelessness.After Grants Pass stepped up enforcement of local ordinances that banned sleeping and camping in public spaces by ticketing, fining and jailing the homeless, lower courts ruled that it amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment” by penalizing people who had nowhere else to go.Many states and cities that are increasingly overwhelmed by homelessness are hoping the Supreme Court overturns that decision — or severely limits it. They argue that it has crippled their efforts to address sprawling encampments, rampant public drug use and fearful constituents who say they cannot safely use public spaces.That prospect has alarmed homeless people and their advocates, who contend that a ruling against them would lead cities to fall back on jails, instead of solutions like affordable housing and social services.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      United Airlines Flight Missing an External Panel Lands Safely

      by

      No one realized that the panel from the plane, a Boeing 737-800, was missing until it had landed safely, the airline said.A United Airlines flight that took off on Friday morning from San Francisco International Airport landed in Oregon missing an external panel, the Federal Aviation Administration said.The panel was found to be missing after the plane, a Boeing 737-800, landed safely at its scheduled destination at Rogue Valley International Medford Airport in Oregon and parked at a gate, United Airlines said in a statement. It was unclear when or how the panel went missing.According to the airline, there was no indication of any damage to the plane during the flight, and the aircraft did not declare an emergency on its way to the Medford airport.“We’ll conduct a thorough examination of the plane and perform all the needed repairs before it returns to service,” the airline said. “We’ll also conduct an investigation to better understand how this damage occurred.”The plane was carrying 139 passengers and a crew of six, according to United Airlines. No injuries were reported.The plane has been in service for more than 25 years, and it was from a previous generation of 737 aircraft, according to Airfleets.net, a website that tracks aircraft information. The airport briefly paused operations to inspect the runway, and resumed flights after no debris was found on the airfield, Amber Judd, the director of the Medford airport, said in an email.Boeing referred questions about the flight to United Airlines. The F.A.A. said it planned to investigate the episode.The discovery of the missing panel on Friday came as Boeing has faced heavy scrutiny in recent weeks after a door-sized section blew off a Boeing 737 Max 9 Alaska Airlines flight in January just minutes after it had taken off from Portland, Ore. There were no major injuries during the flight, but the frightening episode, which was recorded on video, prompted government officials to look into quality control at Boeing.After the January flight, the F.A.A. began a six-week audit of Boeing, which found “multiple instances” in which the plane maker had failed to follow through with quality-control requirements.Since then, there have been a number of issues with flights on Boeing aircraft.On March 8, a United Airlines flight that had landed at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston rolled into the grass as the plane, a Boeing 737, exited onto the taxiway, according to the F.A.A.In February, a Madrid-bound American Airlines flight, a Boeing 777, diverted to Boston Logan International Airport with a cracked windshield shortly after it had departed from Kennedy International Airport in New York. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Oregon Is Recriminalizing Drugs, Dealing Setback to Reform Movement

      by

      Oregon removed criminal penalties for possessing street drugs in 2020. But amid soaring overdose deaths, state lawmakers have voted to bring back some restrictions.Three years ago, when Oregon voters approved a pioneering plan to decriminalize hard drugs, advocates looking to halt the jailing of drug users believed they were on the edge of a revolution that would soon sweep across the country.But even as the state’s landmark law took effect in 2021, the scourge of fentanyl was taking hold. Overdoses soared as the state stumbled in its efforts to fund enhanced treatment programs. And while many other downtowns emerged from the dark days of the pandemic, Portland continued to struggle, with scenes of drugs and despair.Lately, even some of the liberal politicians who had embraced a new approach to drugs have supported an end to the experiment. On Friday, a bill that will reimpose criminal penalties for possession of some drugs won final passage in the State Legislature and was headed next to Gov. Tina Kotek, who has expressed alarm about open drug use and helped broker a plan to ban such activity.“It’s clear that we must do something to try and adjust what’s going on out in our communities,” State Senator Chris Gorsek, a Democrat who had supported decriminalization, said in an interview. Soon after, senators took the floor, with some sharing stories of how addictions and overdoses had impacted their own loved ones. They passed the measure by a 21-8 margin. The abrupt rollback is a devastating turn for decriminalization proponents who say the large number of overdose deaths stems from a confluence of factors and failures largely unrelated to the law. They have warned against returning to a “war on drugs” strategy and have urged the Legislature to instead invest in affordable housing and drug treatment options.The Joint Interim Committee on Addiction and Community Safety Response discussing the effects of and changes to Measure 110 at the Oregon State Capitol in Salem last month.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Oregon Tries and Fails to Eliminate Daylight Saving Time, for Now

      by

      Also, did you know Oregon has two time zones?Oregon’s state senate failed to advance a bill on Tuesday that would have abolished daylight saving time in most of the state and switched it to standard time for the entire year, the latest chapter in an effort by states to settle on whether clocks need to fall back or spring forward at all.The bill proposed that the part of the state in the Pacific Time Zone — almost all of the state is, save Malheur County, which is on Mountain time — abolish “the annual one-hour change in time from standard time to daylight saving time.”The measure isn’t entirely dead: The state senate sent the bill back to committee to be amended to make sure that if it were to happen Oregon wouldn’t be the only state in the region switching to permanent standard time.Lawmakers in Oregon’s neighboring states have proposed similar bills. In Idaho this week, a bill was introduced to get rid of daylight saving time, and there is a similar bill in front of California’s Assembly. In Washington State, a bill to abolish daylight saving time and return to permanent standard time failed last month.“We are leading the way,” Kim Thatcher, a sponsor of the Oregon bill, said on the State Senate floor this week before the bill’s failure. “I think we’re not going to be alone in this, but there might be a little weirdness at first, just know that.”Oregon would have been the first West Coast state to spend its entire year on standard time. Arizona (except for the Navajo nation) and Hawaii also observe standard time year-round. And in 2022, Mexico ended daylight saving time for most of the country, but carved out an exception for the area along the U.S. border.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      The Eugene Weekly Will Resume Printing After Embezzlement Discovery

      by

      The Eugene Weekly was forced to lay off all 10 of its staff members last month after it discovered tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid bills.A weekly newspaper in Oregon that laid off all of its workers in December after an employee embezzled tens of thousands of dollars will resume its print edition on Feb. 8 after raising enough money through donations, its editor said on Sunday.The newspaper, The Eugene Weekly, abruptly stopped printing after it discovered financial problems, including money not being paid into employee retirement accounts and $70,000 in unpaid bills to the newspaper’s printer, leading it to lay off all 10 of its staff members just days before Christmas, its editor, Camilla Mortensen, said at the time.Over the past month, however, Ms. Mortensen has continued publishing articles online with the help of interns, freelancers and retired reporters and editors — many of whom were willing to work without pay to keep the paper afloat — she said on Sunday.As of this week, Ms. Mortensen and three other staff members will be brought back onto the payroll in preparation for the Feb. 8 edition, she said, noting that the return to print was made possible by readers and members of the public who raised at least $150,000 after the financial problems were reported.“With all this support from people, there’s just no way we can’t try — we have to try printing,” Ms. Mortensen said.The theft, leaders of the newspaper said in a Dec. 28 letter to readers, had been hidden for years and left its finances “in shambles.” The paper has hired a forensic accountant to investigate.Leaders of the paper said that while the situation was unprecedented, they believed in the newspaper’s mission, and were “determined to keep EW alive.”The Eugene Police Department could not be immediately reached on Sunday evening for comment about the embezzlement but said previously that it was investigating. The now-former employee accused of stealing, who was involved in the newspaper’s finances, has not been publicly identified.The free paper, founded in 1982, previously printed 30,000 copies each week. Copies could be found in bright red boxes in and around Eugene, Oregon’s third-largest city.Ms. Mortensen, who became editor in 2016 after nearly a decade at the paper, said Sunday that the closure had been painful.“Every time I walk by one of our little red boxes, there’s no paper in it, it stabs me in the heart,” she said, noting that the plan was to print 5,000 fewer copies so that the paper could remain sustainable.“Obviously, this outpouring has been amazing,” she said, “but we also want to go back to being this free weekly paper that pays for itself.” More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Team Prepares to File Challenges on Ballot Decisions Soon

      by

      The cases in Colorado, Maine and other states are requiring former President Donald J. Trump to devote resources already spread thin across four criminal indictments.Former President Donald J. Trump’s advisers are preparing as soon as Tuesday to file challenges to decisions in Colorado and Maine to disqualify Mr. Trump from the Republican primary ballot because of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, according to a person familiar with the matter.In Maine, the challenge to the secretary of state’s decision to block Mr. Trump from the ballot will be filed in a state court. But the Colorado decision, which was made by that state’s highest court, will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is likely to face fresh pressure to weigh in on the issue.On Thursday, Maine became the second state to keep Mr. Trump off the primary ballot over challenges stemming from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that any officer of the United States who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution cannot “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”“Every state is different,” Maine’s secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, told a local CBS affiliate on Friday morning. “I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. I fulfilled my duty.”Mr. Trump has privately told some people that he believes the Supreme Court will overwhelmingly rule against the Colorado and Maine decisions, according to a person familiar with what he has said. But he has also been critical of the Supreme Court, to which he appointed three conservative justices, creating a supermajority. The court has generally shown little appetite for Mr. Trump’s election-related cases.Mr. Trump has expressed concern that the conservative justices will worry about being perceived as “political” and may rule against him, according to a person with direct knowledge of his private comments.Unlike with the Colorado decision, which caught many on Mr. Trump’s team by surprise, the former president’s advisers had anticipated the Maine outcome for several days. They prepared a statement in advance of the decision and had the bulk of their appeal filing written after the consolidated hearing that Ms. Bellows held on Dec. 15, according to a person close to Mr. Trump.The people who have filed ballot challenges have generally argued that Mr. Trump incited an insurrection when he encouraged supporters to whom he insisted the election was stolen to march on the Capitol while the 2020 electoral vote was being certified. The former president has been indicted on charges related to the eventual attack on the Capitol, but he has not been criminally charged with “insurrection,” a point his allies have repeatedly made.On his social media site, Truth Social, Mr. Trump has highlighted commentary from Democrats who have suggested discomfort with the ballot decisions.In Maine, the move was made unilaterally by Ms. Bellows after challenges were filed. Trump allies have repeatedly highlighted Ms. Bellows’s Democratic Party affiliation and the fact that she is not an elected official, but an appointed one.The twin decisions have created an uncertain terrain in the Republican nominating contest with elections in the early states set to begin on Jan. 15, with Iowa’s caucuses. Additional ballot challenges may be filed in other states, although so far several have fizzled.This week, a Wisconsin complaint trying to remove Mr. Trump from the ballot there was dismissed, and the secretary of state in California said Mr. Trump would remain on the ballot in that state. According to the website Lawfare, 14 states have active lawsuits seeking to remove Mr. Trump, with more expected to be filed. A decision is expected soon in a case in Oregon.The Colorado and Maine decisions require an additional focus of resources and attention for a Trump team that is already spread thin across four criminal indictments in four different states.But two people close to Mr. Trump, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, described that reality as already baked in for a Trump team that has been focused on legal issues for most of the last two years. They argued that, in the short term, the former president would see political benefits along the lines of what he saw when he was indicted: a rallying effect among Republicans.Mr. Trump and his team have tried to collapse these cases into a single narrative that Democrats are engaged in a “witch hunt” against him, and they have used the election suits to suggest that Democrats are interfering in an election — an attempt to turn the tables given that Mr. Trump’s monthslong effort to undermine the 2020 election is at the heart of legal and political arguments against him.“Democrats in blue states are recklessly and un-Constitutionally suspending the civil rights of the American voters by attempting to summarily remove President Trump’s name from ballots,” Mr. Trump’s spokesman, Steven Cheung, said in a statement to The New York Times.The ballot rulings have become another focus for the mainstream and conservative news media, chewing up time and attention that Mr. Trump’s primary rivals, who trail him by wide margins in polls, need in hopes of catching up.Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey who is among those challenging Mr. Trump for the nomination, told CNN that the decision “makes him a martyr,” adding, “He’s very good at playing ‘Poor me, poor me.’ He’s always complaining.”Because of a number of factors, it is unclear how much of a practical effect the efforts to remove Mr. Trump from primary ballots will have for the Republican nominating contest. In the case of Colorado, where the state’s top court reversed a lower-court ruling and declared Mr. Trump ineligible for the primary, he remains on the ballot while he asks the Supreme Court to intervene. More

    • 100 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans end longest walkout in Oregon legislature’s history

      by

      Ending a walkout that held up key bills for six weeks, Republicans showed up for work in the Oregon senate on Thursday after wresting concessions from Democrats on measures covering abortion, transgender healthcare and gun rights.The lawmakers’ walkout – the longest in state history and the second-longest in the United States – came as several statehouses around the nation have become ideological battlegrounds, including in Montana and Tennessee.The Republican boycott, which prevented the state senate from reaching a two-thirds quorum needed to pass bills, was prompted by a sweeping measure on abortion and gender-affirming care that Republicans called too extreme. The measure would allow doctors to provide abortions regardless of a patient’s age, with medical providers not required to notify the parents of a minor in certain cases.As part of the deal to end the walkout, Democrats agreed to change language concerning parental notifications for abortion.Under the compromise, if an abortion provider believes notifying the parents of a patient under 15 years old would not be in that patient’s best interest, the physician would not have to notify the parents – but would need another provider to concur. However, no second opinion would be needed if involving a parent or guardian would lead to the abuse or neglect of the patient.Democrats said the measure will still ensure abortion access and protect caregivers from anti-abortion or gender-affirming care measures passed by other states. It will also require that health insurance covers medically necessary gender-affirming care.Democrats also agreed to drop several amendments on a bill that would punish the manufacturing or transferring of undetectable firearms. The now-removed clauses would have increased the purchasing age from 18 to 21 for semiautomatic rifles and placed more limits on concealed carry.Democrats immediately filed new versions of both measures reflecting the agreements, and the senate then passed them. Although the bills were approved earlier by the house, they now will go back to that chamber for a concurrence vote before going to the Democratic governor, Tina Kotek, for her signature.“I’m encouraged that we were able to come to an agreement that will allow us to finish the important work Oregonians sent us here to accomplish,” said the Democratic senate president, Rob Wagner, to reporters.Republicans, who are the minority party, considered it a victory.“Parental rights will not be ignored regarding minors seeking abortion and gender-affirming care,” said the Republican senator Lynn Findley. “Constitutional rights to own and bear arms will not be eviscerated, especially for citizens between 18 and 21 years old.”The senate Republican leader, Tim Knopp, had said the boycott that began on 3 May would end only on the session’s last day – 25 June – to pass “bipartisan” legislation and budget bills. But an optimistic mood settled over the Capitol this week as GOP and Democratic leaders met to negotiate compromises. On the senate floor on Thursday, Knopp said he looked forward to finishing the session in “an extraordinarily bipartisan way”.“We asked for lawful, we asked for constitutional, we asked for compromise, and I see that from your side,” Knopp said as he addressed Wagner following Thursday’s roll call. “We appreciate everyone who was involved.”The longest walkout in the Oregon legislature’s history happened despite voters passing a ballot measure in 2022 that disqualifies lawmakers with 10 or more unexcused absences from re-election.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“A whole bunch of legislators aren’t going to be able to come back to this building,” Wagner said.But Republican senators are likely to sue over the measure if they are not allowed to register as candidates, starting in September, for the 2024 election. Republicans also walked out in 2019, 2020 and 2021.On 1 June, senate Democrats voted to fine senators $325 every time their absence denied a quorum.On Wednesday, more than 40 Oregon Democratic house and senate members sponsored a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the state constitution to require a majority of each chamber in the legislature to be present to conduct business. If passed by the legislature, it would go before Oregon voters in a ballot measure in the 2024 election. However, Wagner said on Thursday the measure was unlikely to pass this year with hundreds of other bills pendingThe Republicans had initially said they were boycotting because bill summaries did not meet a long-forgotten state law that required them to be written at a level an eighth-grader could understand.The walkout is the second-longest of any US state, after Rhode Island, according to a list by Ballotpedia. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Oregon Republican boycott threatens key bills on abortion and gun control

      by

      Oregon Republicans boycotted the statehouse for a ninth day on Thursday, denying lawmakers the quorum necessary to pass legislation, in a protest that could derail hundreds of bills, including proposals on gun control and abortion rights.While Democrats control the capital in the Pacific north-west state, Republicans have leveraged rules requiring two-thirds of lawmakers be present to pass legislation, which means Democrats need a certain number of Republicans to be there too.Republicans walked out of the statehouse more than a week ago as the chambers prepared for a final vote on a bill that that would have expanded gender-affirming care and abortion protections, and have not returned. Their absence has thrown the capitol into disarray, and threatened Democrats’ legislative agenda.The boycotting lawmakers could face consequences for their protest. Lawmakers with 10 unexcused absences are not eligible for re-election under an initiative passed overwhelmingly last November by voters. Republican and Democratic leaders in the Oregon legislature met privately for a second day on Thursday to try to bridge the divide and agreed to cancel sessions planned for Friday through the weekend.Statehouses around the nation, including in Montana and Tennessee, have been ideological battlegrounds amid rising tensions over issues including gender-affirming care, abortion access and gun violence. Oregon – which pioneered marijuana decriminalization, recycling and protecting immigrants – is often viewed as one of America’s most liberal states. But it also has deeply conservative rural areas.That clash of ideologies has led to the senate being out of action since 2 May. Pending bills are stacked up and the state budget, which must be approved by both the house and senate by the end of June, is left undone.The office of Oregon’s Democratic governor, Tina Kotek, noted on Thursday night that there were many important bills at stake.“Oregonians are demanding that elected leaders deliver results on homelessness, behavioral health, education and other major issues right now,” Kotek’s spokesperson, Elisabeth Shepard, said.To give time for negotiations – and keep boycotters with nine unexcused absences from hitting that 10-day tripwire – Rob Wagner, the senate president, agreed to cancel senate sessions that were scheduled for the coming days. The statehouse is instead scheduled to reconvene on Monday.“I think people, at least people who observe politics, are going to have a pretty anxious weekend,” Priscilla Southwell, professor emerita of political science at the University of Oregon, said on Friday.About 100 people, including members of Moms Demand Action, a gun-safety group, protested against the walkout late on Thursday on the steps of the Oregon state capitol in Salem.“Get back to work,” they chanted.Republican lawmakers in Oregon have stymied several previous legislative sessions.This time, Republican senators insist their stayaway is mostly due to a 1979 law that requires bill summaries to be written at an eighth-grade level. Tim Knopp, the senate minority leader, said Republicans also want Democrats to set aside “their most extreme bills”.But to Democrats, it’s obvious the readability issue is just an excuse to prevent progress on Democratic-priority bills.“It is abundantly clear that there is a concerted effort to undermine the will of people and bring the legislature to a halt in violation of the constitution of the state of Oregon,” Wagner said as he gaveled closed the 5 May floor session because of the lack of quorum.A prolonged boycott by senate Republicans would throw into doubt not only the rest of the 2023 legislative session, which is supposed to end by 25 June, but could sow complications for next year’s primaries and general election.That’s because it is unclear how the boycotters would be disqualified from running again. The 2022 ballot measure is now part of the Oregon constitution, which disqualifies a lawmaker with 10 or more unexcused absences “from holding office” in the next term.An explanatory statement for Ballot Measure 113, signed by a former state supreme court justice and others, says a disqualified candidate “may run for office … and win, but cannot hold office”.But Ben Morris, spokesperson for the secretary of state’s office, said the secretary of state’s elections division would not put a disqualified lawmaker on the ballot.Disqualified Republicans are expected to file legal challenges. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Oregon, a hotbed of extremism, seeks to curb paramilitaries

      by

      Oregon, a hotbed of extremism, seeks to curb paramilitariesAs incidents increase, state lawmakers seek to allow civil suits against paramilitaries – but critics say rights will be infringed on An armed takeover of a federal wildlife refuge. Over 100 straight days of racial justice protests that turned downtown Portland into a battleground. A violent breach of the state capitol. Clashes between gun-toting rightwingers and leftist militants.Over the past decade, Oregon experienced the sixth-highest number of extremist incidents in the nation, despite being 27th in population, according to an Oregon secretary of state report. Now, the state legislature is considering a bill that, experts say, would create the nation’s most comprehensive law against paramilitary activity.US officer fed details to far-right leader before Capitol attack, messages showRead moreIt would provide citizens and the state attorney general with civil remedies in court if armed members of a private paramilitary group interfere with, or intimidate, another person who is engaging in an activity they have a legal right to do, such as voting. A court could block paramilitary members from pursuing an activity if the state attorney general believed it would be illegal conduct.All 50 states prohibit private paramilitary organizations or paramilitary activity, but no other law creates civil remedies, said Mary McCord, an expert on terrorism and domestic extremism who helped craft the bill. The Oregon bill is also unique because it would allow people injured by private, unauthorized paramilitary activity to sue, she said.Opponents say the law would infringe on rights to freely associate and to bear arms.The bill’s sponsor, state representative Dacia Grayber, a Democrat from suburban Portland, said the proposed reforms “would make it harder for private paramilitaries to operate with impunity throughout Oregon, regardless of their ideology”.But dozens of conservative Oregonians, in written testimony, have expressed suspicion that the Democrat-controlled legislature aims to pass a bill restricting the right to assemble and that the legislation would target rightwing armed groups like the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer, but not black-clad anarchists who have vandalized downtown Portland and battled police.“This bill would clearly put restrictions on who could gather in a group and for what reasons they choose to,” wrote Matthew Holman, a resident of Coos Bay, a town on Oregon’s south-west coast.The pioneering measure raises a host of issues, which Oregon lawmakers tried to parse in a house judiciary committee hearing last week:If residents are afraid to go to a park with their children while an armed militia group is present, could they later sue the group? What constitutes a paramilitary group? What is defined as being armed?Oregon department of justice attorney Carson Whitehead said the proposed law would not sanction a person for openly carrying firearms, which is constitutionally permissible. But if members of a paramilitary group went to a park knowing their presence would be intimidating, anyone afraid of also going to the park could sue for damages, Whitehead said.“This particular bill is not directed at individuals open-carrying. This is directed at armed, coordinated paramilitary activity,” added McCord, who is the executive director of Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.On the other side of the country in Vermont, a bill making it a crime to operate a paramilitary training camp got final approval from the state senate on Friday. The measure, which senators earlier approved by a 29-1 vote, also allows prosecutors to seek an injunction to close such a facility.“This bill gives the state the authority it needs to protect Vermonters from fringe actors looking to create civil disorder,” said state senator Philip Baruth, a Democrat and Progressive from Burlington.Baruth introduced the measure in response to a firearms training facility built without permits in the town of Pawlet. Neighbors frequently complained about gunfire coming from the Slate Ridge facility, calling it a menace. Baruth’s bill now goes to the Vermont house.Under the proposed Oregon law, a paramilitary group could range from groups whose members wear uniforms and insignia, like the Three Percenters, to a handful of people who act in a coordinated way with a command structure to engage in violence, McCord added.State representative Rick Lewis, a Republican from Silverton, asked pointedly during the committee hearing whether rocks and frozen water bottles, which Portland police said had been thrown at them during demonstrations in 2021, would fall under the proposed law.A frozen water bottle and rocks could cause serious injury or death, so they would be considered dangerous weapons under Oregon law, responded Kimberly McCullough, attorney general Ellen Rosenblum’s legislative director.Multnomah county district attorney Mike Schmidt, whose jurisdiction encompasses Portland, testified in favor of the bill, expressing frustration that police often can’t single out violent actors lurking among peaceful protesters.“Our current inability to get upstream of this violence before it starts leaves us vulnerable to organized criminal elements who enter into a protest environment with the express intention of escalating the situation into an assault or arson or a riot,” Schmidt said.McCord, the terrorism expert, said the measure would mark a milestone in the US, where the FBI has warned of a rapidly growing threat of homegrown violent extremism.“This bill as amended would be the most comprehensive statute to address unauthorized paramilitary activity that threatens civil rights,” she said.The tactic of enabling private residents to file lawsuits against paramilitary groups may be a novel one, but it has been used in other arenas.Environmental groups, for example, can sue businesses accused of violating federal pollution permits. In Texas, a 2021 law authorizes lawsuits against anyone who performs or aids in an abortion. In Missouri, a law allows citizens to sue local law enforcement officers who enforce federal gun laws.But the Oregon bill differs from these laws because only people who are injured by unlawful paramilitary activity could sue, McCord said. The Oregon bill also opens a path for a government enforcement mechanism, since it allows the state attorney general to seek a court injunction to prevent a planned paramilitary activity, she said.Whether the bill will pass is unclear. It needs a simple majority in both the Oregon house and senate before it can be sent to the Democratic governor, Tina Kotek, for her approval or veto. Kotek’s spokesperson, Elisabeth Shepard, said the governor generally doesn’t comment on pending legislation.TopicsOregonThe far rightUS politicsnewsReuse this content More