Oregon State Agencies Business Continuity: Fill & Download for Free

I had a case in 1987, I think it was. I was cover shift and shouldn’t have gotten the call, but the north beat officer was out of beat in the downtown area and had stopped a pedestrian for some minor offense or something.The 0115hrs call came out as a “10–49, shots fired” and the address given. I was on a car stop at the time and knowing I’d have to back up the responding officer, I told the driver it was his lucky day and rolled north Code 3.Enroute, the Watch Commander (Sgt) assigned the call to me and the south beat officer was assigned to back me. This was unusual, as the beat officers were on until 0700 and I was supposed to go home at 0300. But, it made sense, as I could handle the call and the paper, while they continued their normal beat duties. This way, I’d be on overtime, but everything would get done.More information was relayed as I drove the two miles north to the scene. It was a small neighborhood and the shooting occurred near the end of a cut-de-sac. The shooter(s) had already left the scene in a small brown Capri and the victim was on the sidewalk in front of the house.I met with the victim, who said that his drug dealer had come by and after finding out that the victim didn’t have the $60 he was owed for some marijuana, shot him in the head at point blank range. I saw a bleeding hole in the victim’s left eyebrow.I took a “dying declaration” from the victim as both he and I thought that he might die, as he had just been shot in the head. When the ambulance arrived, he was transported to the local ER and I responded there as well.In the ER, the Doctor mad a small incision next to the entrance would and popped out the projectile as if it was a splinter. He handed it to me and I placed it in a pill bottle, with padding. I assumed I’d need to have the bullet analyzed against any potential weapons that I found, in order to prove or disprove that it may be the weapon used.The investigation started there and went on for several weeks. I traced and tracked the shooter from Northern California to Oregon, Utah, Arizona, Missouri, Connecticut and finally, back to Oregon. In Connecticut, I was mere hours behind the shooter and had a narcotics unit serve a warrant on the location. but, the shooter had left a few hours before and was in the wind again.In most of the locations, I had used the knowledge that the shooter had a type of side business where he had to order certain supplies from his supplier in order to continue his business. (I won’t go into what type of business it was, as I do not wish to reveal methods or the identity of anyone or any business who assisted me).I had told the supplier company owners what was happening and they were very helpful, in that every time the shooter and his girlfriend landed in a new town and made an order for supplies, the supplier would contact me and tell me the new shipping address.In some of the instances, the shooter was long gone before I could get a long distance connection made with the local law enforcement agency. In others, they got spooked or something and telephoned the supplier to hold the order until they “moved” to another location. Either way, I had almost real-time intel on where they were.In Arizona, a bunch of undercover cops who looked like a biker gang finally caught up to my shooter and his girlfriend. They were arrested and held on my warrants. They were somehow released back to the custody of Oregon State Prison, as the male was allegedly a walk-away escapee from there. The female was a former convict from there as well.Apparently, my attempted murder warrant was removed from the system and when it came time to extradite the shooter, the only warrant still active was from OSP. So, that’s where he went. I believe that the female had a parole hold from Oregon hanging over her head, also.A few months later, after I knew they'd been arrested in Arizona and was awaiting word on extradition, the victim came into the office to talk to me. He advised me that he had seen the shooter walking on the sidewalk in Oregon. He feared for his life now and was worried that nothing had ever happened on his case.I was able to get the $250k warrant re-entered into the system and arranged for the shooter’s parole officer to arrest him at their next scheduled appointment. This was done and the shooter was lodged in Multnomah County Jail in Portland. One of my co-workers and I drove to MCJ and transported the shooter back to the North Coast, where he was subsequently convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to seven years in State Prison. This sentence was later changed, and several other cases were involved including Murder-for-Hire, Bribery, former District Attorney sent to prison, etc. See links below for more information.FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.Deadfall - A book written about the subsequent cases (not my case or my book).963 F2d 1296 Dix v. County of ShastaDix v. Superior Court (People)DePAOLI v. CARLTON | 878 F.Supp. 1351 (1995) | pp135112040 | Leagle.com

Anthony Caputo asks the question:“Why do supporters of WA I-1639 think it will reduce crime when murders with rifles in WA historically have been in the single digits?”As I work in Washington (for the time being) but live in Oregon I was unfamiliar with this measure and went to do some research.HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!Here are some important details from the measure (no, this is not a direct copy of the entirety of the text, no I did not read all of it as I was losing my mind to the vacuous nature of the measure:In particular, shootings involving the use of semiautomatic assault rifles have resulted in hundreds of lives lost,The impacts of gun violence by assault weapons fall heavily on children and teenagers.Implementing an enhanced background check system for semiautomatic assault rifles that is as strong as the one required to purchase a handgun and requiring safety training and a waiting period will help ensure that we keep these weapons out of dangerous hands.ENHANCED BACKGROUND CHECKS. RCW 9.41.090 and 2018 c 201 s 6003 are each amended to read as follows:(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:(a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license and the dealer has recorded the purchaser's name, license number, and issuing agency, such record to be made in triplicate and processed as provided in subsection (((5))) (6) of this section. 9.41.070 at the time of issuance;(b) The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of police or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides that the purchaser is eligible to possess a pistol under RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff;(2) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to the purchaser thereof until:(a) The purchaser provides proof that he or she has completed a recognized firearm safety training program within the last five years that, at a minimum, includes instruction on:(i) Basic firearms safety rules;(ii) Firearms and children, including secure gun storage and talking to children about gun safety;(iii) Firearms and suicide prevention; (iv) Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;(v) Safe handling of firearms; and(vi) State and federal firearms laws, including prohibited firearms transfers.The training must be sponsored by a federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency, a college or university, a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training, or a firearms training school with instructors certified by a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training.The proof of training shall be in the form of a certification that states under the penalty of perjury the training included the minimum requirements;and (b) The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of police or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides that the purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff;or (ii) the state that the purchaser is 5 eligible to possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.040, as provided in subsection (3)(b) of this section; or (c) The requirements or time periods in RCW 9.41.092 have been satisfied. (3)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, in determining whether the purchaser meets the requirements of RCW 9.41.040, the chief of police or sheriff, or the designee of either, shall check with the national crime information center, including the national instant criminal background check system, provided for by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 921 et seq.), the Washington state patrol electronic database, the health care authority electronic database, and with other agencies or resources as appropriate, to determine whether the applicant is ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm.(b) The state, through the legislature or initiative process, may enact a statewide firearms background check system equivalent to, or more comprehensive than, the check required by (a) of this subsection to determine that a purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.040.Once ((the)) a state system is established, a dealer shall use the state system and national instant criminal background check system, provided for by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 921 et seq.), to make criminal background checks of applicants to purchase firearms.(((2))) (b) Ten business days have elapsed from the date the licensed dealer requested the background check. However, for sales and transfers of pistols if the purchaser or transferee does not 10 have a valid permanent Washington driver's license or state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, then the time period in this subsection shall be extended from ten business days to sixty days.(3) Every store, shop, or sales outlet where firearms are sold that is registered as a dealer in firearms with the department of licensing, upon the sale or transfer of a firearm, shall deliver a written warning to the purchaser or transferee that states, in block letters not less than one-fourth inch in height:WARNING: YOU MAY FACE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IF YOU STORE OR LEAVE AN UNSECURED FIREARM WHERE A PERSON WHO IS PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS CAN AND DOES OBTAIN POSSESSIONSec. 7. RCW 9.41.094 and 2018 c 201 s 6004 are each amended to read as follows: A signed application to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and written request that the health care authority, mental health institutions, and other health care facilities release, to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency, information relevant to the applicant's eligibility to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency.Sec. 9. RCW 9.41.0975 and 2009 c 216 s 7 are each amended to read as follows: (1) The state, local governmental entities, any public or private agency, and the employees of any state or local governmental entity or public or private agency, acting in good faith, are immune from liability:(25) "Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.[edited for readability and emphasis added]https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_1531.pdfWow, what a steaming pile of infringement that is.So, for the laity who don’t get the gist of this:EVERY semi-automatic rifle in existence would be defined by this Washington Initiative as a “semiautomatic assault rifle”That includes this one:Don’t believe me? Here is the pertinent section of the measure again:(25) "Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.Now, should this measure pass it is important to note that you have to give up your HIPPA rights so that the State can dig through your medical records.It is also important to note that the state can penalize you for the actions of others if someone gets their hands on your firearmsWARNING: YOU MAY FACE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IF YOU STORE OR LEAVE AN UNSECURED FIREARM WHERE A PERSON WHO IS PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS CAN AND DOES OBTAIN POSSESSION(24) "Secure gun storage" means: (a) A locked box, gun safe, or other secure locked storage space that is designed to prevent unauthorized use or discharge of a firearm; and (b) The act of keeping an unloaded firearm stored by such means.While the state exempts everyone who may have legal authority to stop someone:Sec. 9. RCW 9.41.0975 and 2009 c 216 s 7 are each amended to read as follows: (1) The state, local governmental entities, any public or private agency, and the employees of any state or local governmental entity or public or private agency, acting in good faith, are immune from liability:This essentially creates a two class system.Further, if you move into the state and find a nice new rifle you want to buy, you would now have to wait not 10 days, but SIXTY days.Honestly I’m not sure if I would want this measure to pass or not.Given the current makeup of the SCOTUS I’m 93% certain it would be struck down as unconstitutional.Then again, I don’t want the nose of the camel in the tent.It is measures like this that are continuing proof that the anti-freedom caucus of the American Political Left is hell-bent on a step-by-step disarmament of the citizenry and this kind of behavior must be stopped.I urge a NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! vote on WA I-1639Here is a nice summary from Ballotpedia:Washington Initiative 1639, Changes to Gun Ownership and Purchase Requirements Measure (2018) - Ballotpedia

People have always been leaving the state. More enter the state than leave it, though. In point of fact, the state’s population continues to rise, although at a reduced rate.I have a little experience with this matter. Businesses are not assessed a single tax bill once a year, but are regularly hit up nearly every damn week with another Agency and another demand for fees.And it isn’t just state agencies, either, but local government agencies, too.Mind you, they are usually small fees, but it is costly for a business to process them, and there’s the whole feeling of endless dunning harassment.This is a real problem that the state needs to deal with.But most of the “exodus” is the exodus of corporate headquarters. Corporation want to build, and land is scarce and expensive in California, water is scarce and expensive, and for corporate headquarters, it just might not make economic sense.Finally, it makes great sense for highly-compensated executives to move to Oregon, Texas, or Florida, where there is no state income tax.