Bend man who threatened mass shooting was armed with AR-15, police say
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – A Bend man is in custody after he threatened to carry out a mass shooting over the weekend, police say.
Authorities say 36-year-old Nathaniel Benjamin Wright told a family member he was planning to execute a mass shooting following a family argument. The threat was reported to Bend police on Friday afternoon.
Union Gospel Mission victim count jumps to 12, stabbing suspect ID'd
When law enforcement responded to Wright's home near 3000 NE Waller Ave., officers said they saw him walk from his home to a white truck parked in the driveway, 'carrying an AR-15-style rifle and a duffel bag and wearing a ballistic vest.'
Police stopped Wright at gunpoint, took him into custody, and took him to St. Charles Bend.
Oregon Senate passes bump stock ban, allows expansion of gun-free zones
'Officers searched Wright's vehicle and home, and applied for and were granted an Extreme Risk Protection Order, which is a court order preventing a person at risk of hurting themselves or another person from having or getting access to deadly weapons like firearms,' according to Bend authorities.
Investigators say Wright was known to own multiple firearms.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Advertisement Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Advertisement But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the 'imperial presidency.' Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Advertisement Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that 'we are all afraid' of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Advertisement Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that 'district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors' of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not 'carefully heed this court's guidance' and act within limits, 'this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene.' In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship,' she wrote. 'Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.' Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. Advertisement All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing 'legalese,' she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. 'In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law — and it must,' she wrote before striking a cautionary note. Advertisement 'Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law,' she added. 'By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law.' But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so.' This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘I'm not comfortable': ICE arrests causing fear for Cornelius residents
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — Fear exists for many around the state after at least five local asylum seekers by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Portland Immigration Courthouse. In Washington County, leaders address the effects on their community outside the Centro Cultural Community Center in Cornelius. 'ICE has no place in our neighborhoods,' said Cornelius City Councilor Angeles Godinez. More than half of the city of Cornelius's population is Hispanic or Latino according to the city's The city says the fear of ICE raids has a ripple effect in the community. 'As public officials, we are legally and morally obligated to protect the rights of all residents, regardless of their immigration status,' Godinez said. Local leaders say people in their community tell them they're afraid to attend public events, go to work or even call 911 during emergencies. 'When people are afraid of their own government, they stop calling the police. They stop going to the doctor. They disappear from public life,' said Washington County Commissioner Nafisa Fai. Metro Councilor Juan Carlos Gonzalez says his family knows all too well the stress ICE can cause. 'When my dad immigrated to the United States, he came here without papers,' Gonzalez said. He said a few years ago his father became a US citizen. But they fear for the rest of the community. 'For many folks that have an experience like me, we know that our existence and our families, their right to belong, is being questioned and that's something I'm not comfortable with,' Gonzalez said. City, county and community leaders said they are working with the local police to ensure the community's safety. 'The police have been briefed. And also we have many committees and including some people here at Centro that have been working with police and on various different commissions,' Godinez said. Oregon is classified as a sanctuary state, meaning its law enforcement will not work with ICE. That's something President Donald Trump has openly criticized, claiming their policies of not enforcing immigration law put the safety of American citizens in jeopardy. 'And let me be clear, city officials in Cornelius will not be agents of ICE. We are not here to divide families. We are here to serve them,' Gonzalez said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Oregon state senator resigns from committee after ‘aggressive outbursts'
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – Oregon State Senator Chris Gorsek (D-Gresham) resigned from his joint transportation committee seat on Monday after House Republicans accused him of 'aggressive outbursts,' and called for his resignation. 'To allow for the committee's focus to remain on completing the Oregon Transportation Reinvestment Package this session, I have offered my resignation from the Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment effective immediately,' Sen. Gorsek announced Monday. 'I support the compromise that's being offered from the House, and I look forward to voting in support of it on the Senate floor.' The resignation stems from Friday's Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment work session. There, lawmakers were considering , which would audit the Oregon Department of Transportation as lawmakers consider a major transportation investment package. US Department of Justice sues Washington over 'anti-Catholic' law During the work session, House Republicans said Co-Vice Chair Representative Shelly Boshart Davis (R-Albany) was 'singled out and aggressively shouted down on multiple occasions,' by Gorsek. 'It's really, disappointing at this point that, everybody from Co-Chair McLane, all the way up to the presiding officers at this point have not issued any sort of apology or taken responsibility for it,' Boshart Davis said. As lawmakers made final comments before a vote on the bill, Rep. Boshart Davis explained, 'I want to state that we are looking at the largest tax increase in Oregon's history,' she said in opposition of the bill, raising concerns that the public has not had enough time to weigh in on the legislation. 'We received the revenue impact when we had eight hours of public hearings on the -12 (amendment) or the base bill, the public didn't know that it costs $15 billion over the next 10 years. They may have said something different if they knew it had been the largest tax hike in Oregon's history. And so, since we've known that realization, the public has not had the opportunity to weigh in. What we do know from the public though, is their online testimony and it currently sits at opposition 2:1,' Boshart Davis said, in part. 'We're left with a $15 billion tax increase, with a few days left in session with a really bad process. When we talk about being grossly irresponsible, that's what this is. I will be a no on this,' Boshart Davis said before Gorsek interrupted. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now 'Excuse me,' Gorsek said. 'You are impugning all of us that have worked on that bill, so stop with that.' 'You made your point, representative,' Gorsek added with a raised voice. At that point, Commitee Co-Chair Rep. Susan McLain (D-Forest Grove, Cornelius, Hillsboro) tried to stop the two from arguing, saying, 'you guys, that's it,' suggesting the lawmakers discuss their differences outside of the session. Portland bar hosts 'In Bed By 10' happy hour DJ parties On Monday, House Republicans called for Gorsek to be censured and demanded Senate President Rob Wagner (D-Lake Oswego) remove Gorsek from his committee assignments. 'Today House Republicans stand united with our colleague, Representative Boshart Davis, who was the target of Senator Gorsek's repeated aggressive outbursts in committee last week. Prior to Representative Boshart Davis's comments, multiple men on the committee spoke in opposition to HB 2025, but Senator Gorsek's out-of-control shouting and aggressive behavior was directed solely towards Representative Boshart Davis,' House Republican Leader Christine Drazan (R-Canby) said. 'Senator Gorsek has a documented pattern of bullying, harassing, and intimidating female legislators who speak up and express opinions that differ from his. This behavior is not only abusive, it weakens our democratic institutions and has no place in our Capitol,' the Republican House leader added. 'Senate President Rob Wagner's shameful silence, failure to respond, and inaction has engendered a culture of intimidation and misogyny—both on the dais and off.' USA Today names 'uniquely satisfying' Portland donut shop among the best in the U.S. 'Senator Gorsek's actions must not be ignored. I call on Senate President Wagner to stand with us to demand personal responsibility and accountability for the harm Senator Gorsek's repeated behavior has caused to this institution. Senator Wagner must use his power to address this issue immediately,' Drazan concluded. In addition to the calls to censure and remove Gorsek from his committees, House Republicans demanded a building-wide notification when Gorsek was expected to be in the Capitol, mandated workplace harassment and anger management training and demanded a formal apology. After Friday's work session, Boshart Davis filed a formal complaint against Gorsek for violating the Legislative Branch Personnel Rule 2: Safe, Respectful and Inclusive Workplace. In response to Gorsek's actions, seven House Republicans boycotted Monday's legislative session: Reps. Court Boice (R-Gold Beach), Virgle Osborne (R-Roseburg), Dwayne Yunker (R-Grants Pass), Alek Skarlatos (R-Canyonville), Boomer Wright (R-Coos Bay), Darin Harbick (R-Eastern Lane County), and Ed Diehl (R-Stayton). Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
