Latest news with #OregonDepartmentofJustice
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Get it done': Advocates push Oregon lawmakers to fund services for victims of abuse
Survivors, advocates and community leaders urge lawmakers to maintain funding to support domestic abuse, sexual assault, human trafficking and stalking survivors at a rally at Willson Park in Salem on June 4, 2025. (Courtesy of Amanda Rain, Clackamas Women's Services) Nonprofits that help survivors of sexual assault, and other crimes are urging Oregon lawmakers to maintain state funding for their jobs and the services they provide. As the Oregon Legislature juggles lower-than-anticipated revenue and the possibility of further reductions from federal funding cuts and decreased tax revenue related to tariffs and economic instability, advocacy workers and abuse survivors rallied at a park next to the Oregon Capitol on Wednesday to urge lawmakers to keep funding services for children and adult victims. Anything short of current funding would result in fewer staff members, fewer shelter beds, longer wait times and less support for survivors facing a crisis, Melissa Erlbaum, the executive director of Clackamas Women's Services, told the crowd. 'The private sector can't make up the gap,' said Allison Kelly, the CEO of Liberty House, a children's advocacy group based in Marion and Polk counties. The Oregon Department of Justice receives state and federal funding to facilitate grants to nonprofits to help survivors find safety, shelter, clothing and other resources needed in an emergency situation. This funding also goes toward hiring advocates at Oregon's colleges and universities who help students experiencing abuse, stalking or other crimes. 'It funds our jobs and it funds the people we help whether it's emergency housing or transportation, clothing vouchers, gas vouchers or relocation support,' Zoey Reyes, an advocate working at Haven from Domestic and Sexual Violence based in The Dalles told the Oregon Capital Chronicle. Advocates want lawmakers to pass two bills and one budget proposal. The latter is the Oregon Department of Justice's Policy Option Package 327, which would provide $22 million to tribal and local programs providing emergency shelter and safety services to abuse victims. This is the funding needed to maintain these services as its current capacity. Additionally, House Bill 3196 would appropriate $18.5 million from the state's general fund to the Oregon Department of Justice to give grants to the hundreds of Oregon nonprofits helping abuse victims find safety. These grants are usually federally funded through the Victims of Crime Act, a federal law enacted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 to provide federal support for direct services to crime victims. However, this federal funding is being reduced by 42%, according to the Oregon Law Center. The bill would also distribute $3 million from the general fund to the Oregon CASA Network to make up for cuts in federal CASA funds, which abruptly had funding cancelled in April. Lastly, advocates are urging the passage of House Bill 3070, which would appropriate $400,000 from the state's general fund to the Attorney General's Sexual Assault Task Force, a statewide agency that certifies sexual assault nurse examiners. Both bills have yet to receive a vote in either chamber. 'It is absolutely important that we recognize that our legislators have a very difficult task of balancing this budget,' said Libra Forde, the executive director of the Women's Foundation of Oregon. 'But you were put there to do that. Get it done.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
In suit against Trump administration tariffs, states argue president exceeded powers
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield (right) and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (left) hosted a town hall in Portland April 10, 2025. The two states attorneys general are among 23 Democratic attorneys general nationwide who have sued the federal government more than a dozen times in the first three months of Trump's second term. (Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle) President Donald Trump is misusing a 1977 law and falsely claiming an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' to the United States to justify costly tariffs on nearly all imported goods, lawyers representing Oregon and 11 other states told judges on Wednesday. Brian Simmonds Marshall, a senior assistant attorney general at the Oregon Department of Justice, argued Trump's tariffs should be stopped to three federal judges at the Court of International Trade in New York City as part of the case State of Oregon et al v. Donald J. Trump et al. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and 11 other Democratic attorneys general filed that case — against Trump, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its leader, Kristi Noem, and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and its leader, Peter Flores — on April 23. No decision in the case was made Wednesday. Rayfield at a news conference after the hearing said that judges had fast-tracked the case and are moving quickly. 'We anticipate that they're going to continue going down that road,' he said. Lawyers for Trump and the federal agencies insinuated that they would appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if things did not go their way at the international trade court. Oregon and the other attorneys general — from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont — are challenging four of Trump's executive orders since April that have added fluctuating tariffs on most imports from China, Mexico and Canada and a 10% tariff on most all other goods imported from other countries to the U.S. Trump has said the tariffs will address the threat of fentanyl getting into the country and the U.S.'s trade deficit. The attorneys general have said Congress, not the president, has the sole authority to set tariff policy. In court on Wednesday, Marshall argued both that Trump is acting outside his authority and that a trade imbalance is not the 'unusual and extraordinary threat' Congress envisioned when it passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in 1977, which gives the president broad latitude on financial regulation and foreign policy in the event of a national emergency. 'There is no relationship between the problem the administration is trying to confront and the tariffs imposed,' he told the judges. By Trump's logic, he added, 'so long as the president wants to impose a tariff, he can do it for any reason, so long as he says 'it's an unusual and extraordinary threat.'' The judges seemed to agree with Marshall, questioning Brett Shumate, a lawyer from the U.S. Department of Justice, about why both Mexico and Canada have tariffs if nearly all the fentanyl smuggled into the U.S. comes from the Mexico-U.S. border. The judges referred to U.S. Customs and Protection data that found about 97% of fentanyl was intercepted at the country's southwest border — mostly carried by American citizens coming through legal ports of entry — and less than 1% was seized at the northern border. 'The president's executive orders have imposed tariffs equally against both countries. Does that seeming disparity affect our analysis?' one judge asked. Shumate gave a meandering response. 'What the president explained is that Mexican cartels have come to the northern border into Canada, and that is a threat, the expanding of the fentanyl operation in Canada, and the amount of fentanyl that comes across the northern border every year killing nine-and-a-half million Americans,' Shumate said. 'The president didn't want that problem to spiral out of control and come to the same level of a crisis that we have had at the southern (border).' Arguments that a trade deficit could equate to a national security emergency are also confounding to the attorneys general, Rayfield told reporters. 'Australia has had a trade deficit for more than 50 years. The United Kingdom has run a trade deficit for 40 years. These are fairly normal in economies that are focused on services, like ours is,' he said. Shumate argued to the judges that courts do not have the power to decide whether the president is right in declaring an emergency or whether the president's response to the emergency is correct. 'It's not the role of the court to second-guess whether the president has chosen the right means or adequately explained himself,' he said. Under the emergency economic powers act, Shumate said, Trump has broad leeway to address emergencies, with options ranging from investigating to cutting off goods from coming into the country. Rayfield said the argument that the courts have no role to play in checking the power of a president's use of the emergency economic powers act should 'enrage' people. 'If you take them at their word, he could declare an emergency for anything, right? And that would be unreviewable,' Rayfield said. Judge Jane Restani summed up the argument from Trump's lawyers as: 'Nothing is so crazy or unrelated that it could be stopped by the courts. Anything is allowed. Any declaration of emergency based on some crazy thing, any remedy, as crazy as it could be, it's all okay because the courts can't do anything.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Epoch Times
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Oregon Lawmakers, Courts Weigh Strict New Gun Laws
The battle over firearm safety regulations versus gun rights is raging in Oregon. The fate of Ballot Measure 114, which has been tied up in litigation since voters approved it in 2022, now resides with the Oregon Supreme Court. The measure is widely deemed to contain the strictest gun laws in the nation. Democrat lawmakers, who hold the majority in both legislative chambers, are not waiting for a ruling. Instead, they are advancing three firearms safety bills. The bill would increase the length of time a 'permit agent' has to issue or deny permits, and increase fees to apply for or renew a permit from $65 to $150. Related Stories 2/10/2023 9/19/2023 'We're very eager to have it [Measure 114] put in place,' said Liz McKenna of 'It's time to see what it can do.' Testifying in opposition, Republican state Rep. Alek Skarlatos criticized the proposed $150 permit fee and $110 renewal fee as discriminatory toward low-income individuals, who he claimed are more likely to use firearms for self-defense. 'A $300 rifle is now $450, plus the $48 background check fee,' he said. The bill also extends the time for the state to issue a permit to a qualified applicant from 30 to 60 days from receipt of the application. Though he has supported 'most gun violence measures in the past decade,' Democrat Rep. Paul Evans bucked his party by calling HB 3075 'an attack on disadvantaged Oregonians' in his April newsletter. State Licensing for Dealers Bill 3076 would direct the Oregon Department of Justice to create a state licensing program for gun dealers, with license application and renewal fees as much as $1,500 annually and potential increases of 20 percent each year. Oregon firearm dealers are currently licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) and require a Federal Firearms License (FFL), with no additional licensing requirements. Under HB 3076, a valid FFL from the ATF would no longer be sufficient to operate a gun store in the state. Shops of all sizes and home-based FFLs would be required to install a digital video surveillance system that records at any time a customer is on the premises. Gun transfers would have to be captured on video with a three-year storage requirement. All FFL employees who handle firearms or ammunition would be required to first pass a state-certified training course that hasn't been developed yet and follow that training with annual refreshers. 'HB 3076, as amended, creates absurd and draconian new restrictions on gun dealers in an effort to shut down as many firearms businesses as possible,' the Oregon Firearms Federation told The Epoch Times. 'However, the new rules also apply to home-based FFLs and will apply at gun shows, where the requirements will be impossible to comply with.' Oregon House Republicans criticized both bills, saying they restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms while doing nothing to reduce crime and uphold public safety. 'These bills are an attack on the constitutional right to bear arms,' House Minority Leader Rep. Christine Drazan said in an April 8 statement to the media. 'The only thing these bills do is punish law-abiding gun owners and small businesses that are in full compliance with federal law.' Evans again broke with his party in saying that he is 'adamantly opposed' to all of Oregon's pending gun legislation. 'The fervor advancing these measures has caused me to earnestly reconsider my party affiliation,' he wrote in his newsletter. Both House bills contain an 'emergency declaration.' This clause ensures that the bills would go into effect as soon as the governor signs them, rather than waiting until January of the following year. Meanwhile, in the Senate ... Introduced by Democrat Sen. Floyd Prozanski, It would also ban rapid-fire devices like bump stocks, binary triggers, and rapid-fire activators, and would allow local governments to ban firearms in public buildings, Prozanski explained in an April 9 'The first part of the law is designed to help prevent suicides or domestic violence,' by requiring a wait time for people with 'high emotions,' Prozanski said. 'It would give them time to rethink their position before carrying out suicide or domestic violence.' Evans described the requirement for a three-day waiting period after passing a background check a 'theft of liberty.' 'Who would support a three-day waiting period for the purchase of an automobile, the delivery of alcohol or a gummy, or for an appointment providing reproductive care?' Testifying in support of the bill on March 27, Jess Marks, executive director for the gun safety advocacy group 'While there has been this huge shift in the technology and the types of firearms available, there have been almost no changes in how this new technology is regulated,' Marks testified. Tracking Measure 114 Voters approved Ballot Measure 114, requiring a permit to purchase a gun, with a 50.75 percent margin. The measure remains on hold pending Under the measure, prospective buyers must pass a criminal background check and complete a gun safety course to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm. They must also prove they are not a danger to themselves or others. If it stands, the measure overrides the 'Charleston Loophole,' a law that currently allows firearm transfers to proceed if a background check takes more than three days. Additionally, it restricts magazines that are 'capable of holding or being modified to hold' more than 10 rounds. A Harney County, Oregon, circuit court judge ruled in November 2023 that Measure 114 violated the state constitution. In a major reversal of that ruling, a three-judge panel of the Oregon Court of Appeals found in March this year that the measure does not violate the state constitution's right to bear arms. The court On April 14, the plaintiffs, two Harney County gun owners, asked the Oregon Supreme Court to weigh in. In a 24-page The plaintiffs contend that its requirement to obtain a permit to buy a gun would turn that constitutional right 'into a privilege for the government to grant or refuse.' The state supreme court can take up to 90 days to act, Aiello explained in a social media 'At some point, the supreme court will decide to hear our case, not hear our case, or the legislature may pass HB 3075,' one of three bills introduced in the state legislature in January, he said. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield vowed that the state would 'Oregonians voted for this, and it's time we move ahead with common-sense safety measures,' Rayfield said. The state ranks 12th in the nation for the strength of its gun laws, State law requires that guns be securely stored whenever they are not in their owner's immediate control, prohibits guns at the state capitol, and gives colleges and universities the authority to prohibit guns on their grounds. In 2023, the state enacted a prohibition on untraceable 'ghost guns' and 3D-printed guns.
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Oregon lawmakers consider gun control bills amid legal battle over Measure 114
Guns are shown at Caso's Gun-A-Rama in Jersey City, New Jersey, which has been open since 1967. (Photo by Aristide Economopoulos/NJ Monitor) As legal challenges to a voter-approved gun control law continue, Oregon lawmakers are considering a set of additional restrictions on gun purchases that are among the most controversial measures of the legislative session. The three bills, each of which advanced from committees on party-line votes, would increase maximum fees to apply for gun permits, codify Measure 114's ban on magazines with 10 or more rounds, mandate dealers be licensed by the Oregon Department of Justice, install a 72-hour waiting period to avoid impulsive purchases and ban devices that allow faster firing of guns. Advocates and legislative Democrats who back the bills say they're crucial for public safety as gun deaths continue to rise. The overall gun death rate in Oregon increased 31% from 2013 to 2022 and firearms were the fifth leading cause of death among children and teens ages 1-17, according to federal data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. Oregon's firearm death rate is near the national average and higher than California and Washington, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But Republicans including Rep. Rick Lewis, R-Silverton, argue the Legislature has already done too much to regulate guns. In recent years, Oregon has passed laws banning untraceable 3-D printed guns, requiring secure storage of guns and allowing courts to temporarily remove firearms from people at risk of harming themselves or others. 'Every session since I've been here we've had at least one gun bill and it never seems to be enough for this body,' Lewis said before voting against one bill. 'I've received probably well over a thousand emails from people in opposition to this.' Voters narrowly passed Measure 114 in 2022 to ban magazines with 10 or more rounds and end a loophole that allows firearm dealers to sell guns without a background check if it's not completed within three business days. It also mandated that anyone who buys a gun in Oregon obtain firearms safety training and a permit to purchase a firearm. Less than a month after it passed, Harney County Judge Robert Raschio blocked the measure on the basis that it infringed on the Oregon constitution's Article 1, Section 27, which says 'people shall have the right to bear arms for the (defense) of themselves.' The Oregon Court of Appeals overturned Raschio's decision last month, but the law remains on hold after gun owners appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court last week. House Bill 3075, sponsored by Rep. Jason Kropf, D-Bend, would codify Measure 114's ban on magazines with 10 or more rounds, provide a 180-day grace period for owners to dispose of their high-capacity magazines and increase maximum permit fees from $65 to $150 and maximum renewal fees from $50 to $110. It would also increase the maximum time authorities have to make a decision from 30 to 60 days from the date of the permit request. The bill, like Measure 114, would also close the 'Charleston loophole,' named after a 2015 shooting at a Black church in Charleston, South Carolina. The shooter, a self-admitted white supremacist, was ineligible to purchase a gun because of a drug charge but was allowed to buy one anyway because authorities took more than three business days to conduct a background check. If the bill is adopted or Measure 114 takes effect, background checks would have to be completed before authorities grant any permits. A completed background check is necessary to make sure only people who are safe with firearms can possess them, Kropf said ahead of an April 8 committee vote on the bill. 'A lot of the work that we are doing on these bills mirror what I learned as a kid: how to be safe with a firearm and how to make sure that safe people have firearms,' he said. Under House Bill 3075, gun owners must have also completed gun safety courses in the 5 years previous to applying for a permit. Opponents including the Oregon Hunters Association argue that would burden longtime gun owners. 'Many of our members obtained these licenses many years ago, completed hunter education (including firearm safety), and have responsibly used firearms throughout their lives,' Oregon Hunters Association representative Paul Donheffner said in written testimony. The House Judiciary Committee advanced the bill on a 5-3 vote along party lines. Because legislative fiscal analysts estimate it would cost about $14.6 million to implement during the next two-year-budget cycle, the budget-writing Joint Ways and Means Committee has to approve it before the House can vote on it. House Bill 3076, also sponsored by Kropf and other Democrats, would establish a state-level licensing system for gun dealers. They currently have to be licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a process that involves fingerprinting, background checks and an interview, according to the ATF website. If the bill passes, Oregon would join 16 other states that require dealers to obtain an additional state-level license to sell firearms. 'When gun dealers follow best practices, they are one of our first lines of defense against gun trafficking, gun homicides and failed domestic violence,' Kropf said. 'This (bill) allows us to set those best practices and standards for safety and security with our licensed firearms dealers.' A 2024 study from the Alliance for a Safe Oregon found that most guns used for crimes in Oregon came from legal gun dealers, and the average gun dealer in the state is inspected by ATF only once every ten years. 'The gun industry will tell you that (dealers) are heavily regulated … that's wildly untrue,' alliance executive director Jess Marks said. House Republicans oppose House Bills 3075 and 3076. 'These bills force additional, expensive regulations on law-abiding citizens that many of them cannot afford,' said Rep. Greg Smith, R-Heppner. 'Writing a blank check to the Department of Justice to enforce what's already codified in federal law is bad policy.' The House Judiciary Committee advanced the bill on a 5-3 vote along party lines on April 8. The Joint Committee on Ways and Means must approve it before the full House can vote because establishing the licensing program would cost an estimated $5.8 million. Senate Bill 243 would introduce a mandatory 72-hour minimum waiting period from when a permit is requested to when it can be granted. It is meant to discourage impulsive purchases, which have been linked to higher rates of gun suicides and several mass shooting incidents including the 2022 shooting in Uvalde, Texas. Currently 10 states, including California and Washington, have waiting periods of up to 10 days before gun purchases. The bill would also ban rapid fire activators, devices that turn semi-automatic rifles into fully automatic rifles, making them deadlier, such as the one used by the shooter of the 2017 Las Vegas, Nevada massacre, which claimed the lives of 60 people and injured more than 400. Early versions of the bill also raised the minimum age to own a firearm from 18 to 21 but that provision has been eliminated. The bill would prevent many deaths because of how lethal firearms are, Marks said. Oregon has a high firearm suicide rate compared to other states, 'and a significant portion of those deaths are impulsive,' she said. Marks supports finding a balance between Second Amendment rights and regulations meant to protect potential victims of gun violence. 'We should respect Oregon firearm owners while putting first the safety of our kids and communities,' she said. Most gun rights groups in Oregon oppose the bill. The 72-hour waiting period constitutes an 'unnecessary delay for law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their right to bear arms' and could 'create logistical challenges for gun dealers and buyers, leading to potential economic impacts on small businesses,' according to Rick Coufal, a firearms instructor and member of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action who submitted written testimony against the bill. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill on a 4-2 vote along party lines on Wednesday, April 9, and the bill is awaiting a Senate vote. Gun control legislation in Oregon and other states comes as President Donald Trump's administration begins to roll back Biden-era gun control measures, including a policy that removes federal licenses of firearms dealers found to have repeatedly violated federal regulations. Republican lawmakers have also introduced legislation to make obtaining firearms easier, including a joint resolution to enshrine the right to carry concealed firearms into the Oregon constitution. A group of bipartisan legislators has also introduced a bill to allow them and their staff to carry concealed firearms in the Capitol building. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Oregon DOJ reports $1.6B has been saved from Trump admin's federal funding threats
PORTLAND, Ore. () – Three months into President Donald Trump's second term, the Oregon Department of Justice says it has preserved more than $1.6 billion in federal funding for the state amid threats by the administration to cut funding. In the last three months, Oregon has joined 13 multi-state lawsuits, and submitted numerous court filings, challenging the conditioning, reduction or elimination of federal funds for organizations in the state. 'Through every wave of chaos and every legally dubious executive order, our office has stood firm to protect the rights of Oregonians,' Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a press release Wednesday. 'Our team at the Oregon Department of Justice is working overtime to make this happen. These victories in court have preserved more than a billion dollars in funding for critical services like food assistance, public safety, , education, and medical research.' DON'T MISS: Rayfield takes on Trump Administration: 'Constitution must be followed' According to the Oregon DOJ, the $1.6 billion in preserved funding for Oregon includes funds that were frozen, terminated, or threatened under the administration. Officials note that the estimated $1.6 billion is likely 'underinclusive,' and does not represent the full scope these funding threats have had on organizations in the state. 'The figures include impacts that were reported by state agencies and other state entities submitting information and declarations for various lawsuits,' the Oregon DOJ said. 'The nature of these lawsuits and the urgency that is required does not allow for the legal team to unearth and document every single possible effect, but to quickly apprise the courts of significant in-state impacts.' 'Ticking time bomb': Oregon lawmakers consider funds for Cascadia-ready Columbia Boulevard bridge These funding threats go back to the first few days of the Trump administration when a memo from the Office of Management and Budget directed a federal funding and grant freeze, leaving state agencies and community partners across the U.S. unable to access federal funding. This impacted several organizations in Oregon, according to Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and Attorney General Rayfield, who held a joint press conference as the freeze was rolled out in January. Kotek and Rayfield said the funding freeze led organizations from the Oregon Health Authority to Head Start unable to access federal funding. 'Within the first few days of the Trump administration, there was a funding freeze memo that jeopardized funding across the entire state,' Rayfield recalled Wednesday. 'I walked into work and heard our child support division couldn't even access the portal they need weekly. For our folks on the frontlines in these divisions, it is extremely stress-inducing and chaotic.' Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now So far, the Oregon DOJ says it has spent an estimated $267,000 on federal litigation against the administration. In some court rulings, Oregon's federal funding was only protected because the state joined multi-state lawsuits, Rayfield said, noting states that did not join those suits did not have their funding protected. This included a preliminary injunction Oregon received in its case to preserve research funding for medical institutions that provide care. These federal funding threats under the Trump administration come amid Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency's work to slash federal spending and the federal workforce. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
