KTVZ

KTVZ

www.ktvz.com
Central Oregon's News Leader
Would you support requiring gun safety training before being able to buy a firearm?
KTVZ Asked by KTVZ
1,035 Votes

Would you support requiring gun safety training before being able to buy a firearm?

Yes, I would support!

10

No, I wouldn't support!

11

Yes, I would support!

10 Comments
Robert Northrup
1
Robert Northrup

I had to take a class to carry concealed. In the end only law abiding citizens will comply. The criminals will still have guns and our justice system will continue turning criminals loose so they can prey on the innocent..

Reply
Gabe West
1
Gabe West

Yes but that doesn't matter to the criminals

Reply
Ron Johansen
0
Ron Johansen

You have to learn to drive before you can drive. You have to take a forklift before you can drive a forklift. Why not know what you're doing before obtaining a deadly weapon of war?

Reply
Nicole Jackson
0
Nicole Jackson

Other counties with stringent mental health, & gun safety programs have the lowest crime rates & out of them Australia has had 3 shootings since 1996...Japan has had 6 people die by gunfire in the last year...The U.S. has miserably failed in the safety arena

Reply
Les Adams
0
Les Adams

How can anyone oppose gun safety classes for people who want to own guns? That's like being opposed to driver training before someone is permitted to drive on public roads.

Reply
Jeff Sanders
0
Jeff Sanders

There are many, many countries we could follow the example of. The 2nd amendment talks about a well armed militia, not a overly armed militia of one.

Reply
sharder8
0
sharder8

13 years in the Army and CHL holder for over 30 years. There's no such thing as too many firearm safety classes. Laws change and one way to get those changes out is through firearms safety class. A yearly refresher course should also be available.

Reply
Pam Robbins
0
Pam Robbins

It makes sense, and might cut down on "accidental" shootings.

Reply

No, I wouldn't support!

9 Comments
Penny Hansen
3
Penny Hansen

This will not stop anyone from obtaining a gun. If they are planning an attack of any type, they will just choose a different weapon.

Reply
John Philo
John Philo

Your common sense answer has no meaning to the anti - 2nd Amendment people. They only want to eventually remove your rights completely.

Mark
2
Mark

I dont mind more safety courses, Those should be accepted, but not mandatory. The rest of the proposed bill is absolute nonsense.

Reply
Rob Mozz
0
Rob Mozz

It's your right to own a firearm so unless you forfeited that right by committing a felony there shouldn't be any restrictions. Oregon should be a constitutional carry state.

Reply
Robert Mozzetti
0
Robert Mozzetti

Just another way for the government to tax you for practicing your constitutional right to bear arms. It's not a privilege like driving.

Reply
Adam Johnson
0
Adam Johnson

I dont support it being mandatory but I would support an additional 5% tax on firearms and accessories to pay for training for people that want/need it.

Reply
Greg Moore
0
Greg Moore

The 2nd Am't, according to the Founding Fathers, was to preserve liberty, not hunting, not self-defense. Therefore, no registry may ever be allowed. Thomas Jefferson best discusses this: “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, 1/30/1787

Reply
Greg Moore
Greg Moore

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

Kevin Crabtree
0
Kevin Crabtree

but they should put in schools maybe part of PE or another class for 2 weeks.

Reply
Nik Myles
0
Nik Myles

This would be one step away from preventing us our rights to bare arms.

Reply
Should a judge block the May first closure of China Hat road?
KTVZ Asked by KTVZ
967 Votes

Should a judge block the May first closure of China Hat road?

YES

3

NO

19

YES

3 Comments
Louis Vaday
0
Louis Vaday

This made an error! I voted NO and it recorded yes! They shouldn't {and ALL} shouldn't be allowed on all public land because they do not follow rules! Dumping garbage, open flames during fire season, over extending time stay, etc. And now because of them our insurance is going up and land value goin

Reply
Brad Hunter
0
Brad Hunter

Because they are steam rolling the homeless

Reply

NO

19 Comments
Tammy Salka
1
Tammy Salka

The homeless are not residents, they are squatters!

Reply
Kayla Sulak
1
Kayla Sulak

These people have had MONTHS of notice. Nobody ever told them it's acceptable to post up long-term there, so they shouldn't have planted their belongings out there if they have no way to move it. This sets a bad precedent if they're allowed to stay.

Reply
Richard Williams
1
Richard Williams

I can no longer use this area of public land for fear of walking into a homeless camp or being attacked by their "pets". This land is for all of us to use, not just the homeless.

Reply
Joanna Lee
1
Joanna Lee

Safety should be the biggest concern here. If these people are homeless, they can travel to another area to reside. Forest service doesn't always implement preventative measures. So this being one of the times they do. Its important to make sure it happens. Before there is anymore devastating fires.

Reply
Shane Murray
1
Shane Murray

The homeless have trashed the forest out there. It makes me sick

Reply
Greg Deadbolt Leach
1
Greg Deadbolt Leach

Time to move these people to the Attorneys and Judges front lawns!!!

Reply
Karen Thrower
1
Karen Thrower

The China Hat area has been badly damaged and disrespected by campers.

Reply
Jeannie H.
1
Jeannie H.

How is this their "home"? Have they paid property tax like the rest of us? How is this state even justifying this?!?!

Reply
Nancy
1
Nancy

They’ve had plenty of time to move. Why can the homeless trash/burn our beautiful forest? Tax paying citizens are only allowed to camp for 14 days! What about the homeowners rights near China Hat, they need to feel safe in their own community! This has gone on way too long and I’m surprised!

Reply
Lynn Marie Leehmann
1
Lynn Marie Leehmann

If you look at the Federal Regulations for camping on Federal land it states only 14 days. These people have over stated their welcome, they need to go and they have known about this for at least six months.

Reply
Brad Aimone
1
Brad Aimone

It is ironic the Bend Equity Group has filed a lawsuit to block the closure. Where is the indignation for the horrible environmental damage done by these campers who’ve violated the USFS long standing limit of a 14 day stay in a primitive camp site?

Reply
Nancy Roquero
1
Nancy Roquero

This has gone on too long. The forests near Woodside community and other neighborhoods need fire protection and protection from the homeless with guns and vicious dogs and the garbage left behind. The homeless have had plenty of notice.

Reply
Lisa York
1
Lisa York

the USFS has been planning this burn since Oct 2019... more than enough time for the homeless/advocacy groups to come up with a plan to move...

Reply
Debbie Boyd
1
Debbie Boyd

This has been going on for way too long & it is ridiculous to postpone as they have known this needs to be done. The forest needs to be protected & these do gooders are too late to the game & so much time & money spent on homeless with ZERO results. We need DOGE. for Oregon!

Reply
Pam
0
Pam

We need to ensure that the lands are managed for the enjoyment/needs of all peoples, not a select few

Reply
pamcuny
0
pamcuny

I worry every year WHO is in the woods starting fires, whether deliberate or unintentional consequences…

Reply
Jeff Sanders
0
Jeff Sanders

I live near China Hat and used to love going out the with my dog. Once weapons started be pulled on people that stopped. I want my forest back. Good riddance to the whole lot. Don't ever come back.

Reply
Latterdaysaint
0
Latterdaysaint

There needs to be more homeless shelters in the city!

Reply
Kim Kahl
0
Kim Kahl

The danger of fire starting in this area is incredibly high and impacts large subdivisions. It is mandatory to close this area for the safety of all. This should not be a place for camping to be allowed as it has been.

Reply
Are you concerned about the findings of the DA's investigation into Sheriff Van Der Kamp?
KTVZ Asked by KTVZ
857 Votes

Are you concerned about the findings of the DA's investigation into Sheriff Van Der Kamp?

Yes

9

No

1

Yes

9 Comments
Timothy MacGillivray
1
Timothy MacGillivray

He should be FIRED immediately as he is the individual in charge of the entire department. He must set the standard of honesty and integrity for both staff and the Public. What type of leader is this? Why is this even being questioned? He faced charges in La Mesa, California as well!

Reply
steven
0
steven

I just heard the recording. He lied about lying. Gotta go.

Reply
David Kline
0
David Kline

Sad to see this happen.

Reply
Susan Kate Mayer
0
Susan Kate Mayer

Good job DA! Glad someone is doing their job

Reply
Michael Hickey
0
Michael Hickey

Why is he still in this position, come on Deschutes Co. This is pathetic.

Reply
Laura Wattenbarger
0
Laura Wattenbarger

How can he be trusted to be truthful in anything if he lied about even just this one thing? A man in his position shouldn't be lying about anything at all and the fact that he did makes him untrustworthy 100%.

Reply
Anne King
0
Anne King

If he can't be honest about such a basic thing as his education, he can't be trusted with Deschutes County's safety! What else has he lied about? He should resign!

Reply

No

1 Comment
Steven Huillet
0
Steven Huillet

Just more Liberal attacks on Conservative. This is what they do because they lost the elections. Poor losers!

Reply

We use cookies to ensure you get the best possible experience on our website. Learn more OK, GOT IT