
Mayor Sam Adams has continued to defend his five-point gun crackdown, on the Twitter and his blog, even as the gun lobby kvetches and civil libertarians watch warily for how strict Adams’ proposals might be.
Today, on Oregon Public Radio’s “Think Out Loud,” we got to hear what Police Chief Mike Reese and union president Daryl Turner think of a plan that Portland’s finest would be tasked with putting in place. If a court lets them, that is.
Reese was all for it, saying he “absolutely” supported the effort and that “we’ve got to try things that are out of the box.”
Turner, though, was incredibly lukewarm to the idea—invoking the word “burden” and adding it to his arsenal of issues amid police contract negotiations. “Somebody has to take those reports. Somebody has to deal with those juveniles that are out. Somebody has to deal with people who lose their guns. They could help, but we need to have the staffing to be able to do it.”
He said almost the same thing when talking about how hard it’s been responding to recent flareups of gang violence, while also rebuilding trust with the community.
After the break, check out what the National Rifle Association finally had to say about Adams’ plans.
A couple of points to note, though. “Trigger locks” and “mandatory storage requirements” are scare words and not quite what Adams has proposed. It’s also not clear-cut that the proposals would violate state restrictions. Adams’ proposals affect gun criminals and not gun sales, for instance.
At least the NRA was nicer than the Oregon Firearms Federation, which got personal in its grumbling, instead of staying political.
Portland Mayor Sam Adams, a self-described “founding member” of the anti-Second Amendment group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, is circulating a 12-page draft city gun control plan, the likes of which Oregonians haven’t seen since the days of former mayor and gun ban advocate Vera Katz.
Included are back-door trigger-lock and mandatory storage requirements for firearms kept in the home, a proposal to impose criminal sanctions on victims of theft if they fail to report a firearm stolen, and an increase in penalties for violating Portland’s existing, draconian local ban on the possession of loaded firearms in motor vehicles. Many of these proposals would have no impact on violent crime, and some likely violate the state firearms preemption law (which designates the Oregon Legislature as the sole authority over nearly all aspects of firearms regulation.)
The mayor is asking for public input on his misguided gun control plan, which you can share with him by email at mayorsam@portlandoregon.gov and with his Commissioner of Public Safety Randy Leonard at randy@portlandoregon.gov. You can view his anti-gun proposals and also find links to his Facebook and Twitter account at http://www.portlandonline.com/mayor/index.cfm?c=52750&a=314192. The deadline for public input on the proposed plan is Friday, September 3, so be sure to send your comments in as soon as possible!

If they really wanted to do something, and believed in their cause, the NRA should just pass out guns in Portland.
I could use one of these: http://www.gunforall.com/shopcart/mcartfre…
It even has a build in trigger lock.
I guess the mayor is just snubbed because we forgot to invite him to the Pink Pistols.
Now if only the people who disagree with Adams could work together and pony up $15,000 for a third-independent poll and release the results.
No. The issue isn’t guns. Guns are the symptom.
The issue is an underlying sickness that more Portlanders are turning to guns and crime. Take away the guns, and that sickness? It will get out another way.
I think we should apply Lew / NRA logic to other cases as well.
Terrorism isn’t the issue, it’s a symptom of discontent and resentment of US policies. So we shouldn’t try to prevent it.
Yeah, I can see that going down well with the NRA types. Then again, logical consistent thought isn’t a trademark of rightwingers…
Oh, we should totally address (1) gun-related crimes and (2) discontent and resentment of US policies.
But just because the media limits the scope of potential solutions to these issues doesn’t mean we have to do so.
We’re not actually constrained to either doing nothing or (1) outlawing guns and (2) shootin’ anyone with a tan who looks askance at America’s corporate influence on the world.
In fact, by carrying out these two (ahem) so-called “solutions” to the problems? The US continues to cause even greater problems that are much worse in the long-term.
So what to do?
Address the root cause. Not the symptom. And both causes are more likely economic rather than ideological. But I’ve probably rambled on enough for one post…
Sure it’s just a symptom, but frankly, when I’m sick I happily accept remedies for those.