Oregon All Things Thread Regarding IP17's License To Purchase Requirement.

[sobo]

I get exactly what you're saying and totally agree with it, but I'll elucidate below for those that might not follow your logic and reasoning.

How is passing a test (written or live fire) in order to the Constitutionally-protected right to "keep and bear arms" different from, for instance, passing a civics test in order to vote?

Answer: It's not.

How is paying a fee to get a license to "keep and bear" a firearm different from paying a fee to be able to vote?

Answer: It's not.

To be clear, practically no one alive today ever had to pass a civics test to be able to vote, nor did they ever have to pay a fee to be able to cast a vote. The same should hold true for the Second Amendment.

To head off the inevitable counter-post, I refer to native-born Americans, not naturalized citizens, legal immigrants, etc. Naturalized citizens should be expected to pass a civics test to be granted American citizenship and a right to vote. No one has been charged a fee to vote in this country for decades.

 

[Alexx1401]

Bruen holds the "Black Robes" to a very close standard. It removes the "trade-off between rights and public safety" standard that was the excuse for infringement. They may try to pull another excuse out of the rear area of their underwear, but it is more difficult now.

I sure hope. A LOT will depend on how midterms go. Those in power do not care how much money they waste, to them its a never ending supply. Again all you need to do is look at what they were able to get away with for years claiming it was two weeks. Most seem to have already forgotten this as if it happened before they were born.
Law makers did not forget and they are waiting VERY impatiently to try again. If the public does not fire more of them they will just do it again.
Last I heard NY is still not letting people own a gun yet much less carry. Will be interesting to see how long that plays out. The courts sadly make a VERY poor place to lay hope for saving people from their own choices.

 

[Alexx1401]

Years ago when I still had Facebook, I tried engaging Lift Every Voice. One lady who was the most friendly laid out their position "A member of our congregation who was in the 101 Airborne said that no civilian needs an AR-15 because they are weapons of war". That was it, no discussion, their minds were closed.

I started posting defensive gun use stories instead. They took them down and banned me. They are Lift Every Voice except those that oppose us.

When people have an "agenda" truth is what they say it is. All else is not allowed. Can't have facts getting in the way when they have their mind made up.

 

[tkdguy]

There is not ad campaign against IP 17 to educate voters? Why not? And is their an organization that can do that?

 

[SonicBlue03]

From OFF (yes, I know, I know. Get over it.)

"
07.25.2022

Last week we asked you to send comments to the "Explanatory Statement Committee" about the content of IP 17, the gun ban ballot measure.

Now, thanks to the request of one Republican and one Democrat legislator, there is another committee that needs to hear from you.

As noted by the Secretary of State:

The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) received a written request from a member of the Legislative Assembly from each major political party requesting a racial and ethnic impact statement pursuant to ORS 137.685 for Initiative Petition 17 that is related to crime and likely to have an effect on the criminal justice system. The CJC is responsible for preparing an impartial, simple, and understandable statement explaining the racial and ethnic impact.

To submit written public comments, please email them no later than July 28 at 10:30 AM to [email protected].

The Secretary of State will hold a public hearing to receive testimony on the the racial and ethnic impact statement for IP 17 .

9:30 AM – 10:30 AM
Thursday July 28, 2022
(Link doesn't work)
Or attend in person:
Large Conference Room, 2nd Floor
Oregon State Archives
800 Summer St. NE
Salem OR 97310​

Basically the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission needs to hear from the public about the potential impacts of the ballot measure on different racial communities.

These comments should not take a position on the ballot measure or make statements opposing it. The measure will be on the ballot so comments opposing the measure won't matter.

What is needed are some points about how this measure is almost sure to have a massive negative impact on minorities.

Some talking points:

The measure requires a "class" before a person can apply for a "permit" to purchase a firearm. Since this class requires live fire, low income, urban residents will have the hardest time finding an approved class.

The required "class" must be taught by police or those approved by police. If the police in minority areas choose to simply not provide the class, minority residents will be required to find a class far from their home at unlimited expense.

The measure gives police unlimited ability to require any information they want when approving a person for a "permit." This discretion has enormous potential for abuse and can be applied selectively.

There are no time limits on the multiple background checks required for a permit and there are no limits on the cost for the "class" that is required. At this time even the sponsors of the measure have admitted they have no answers for these concerns. These issues are certain to impact low income communities disproportionally.

The existing racial statement covers none of these issues. Please send your comments with your concerns before July 28th to [email protected].

The statement, along with additional information and documents, will be shared on the Secretary of State's website."

 

[SonicBlue03]

An interesting hearing today on the racial issue. Interesting in that the public comment wasn't well known but was attended and people spoke on record about the disparity of IP17 and its impact on communities of color.
What was particularly interesting is that two well-connected Democrats, one of which was on the committee for putting together the ballot language - crapped all over this initiative. There may be a surprising number of Democrats that may come out against this.
Do your part, be vocal, be articulate, and hammer home how bad IP17 is.

 

[Local Loader]

It not IP 17 related but here are the Oregon House Reps votes for the H.R. 1808 Assault Weapons Ban. By the way the House passed it 217 to 213.

 

[Local Loader]

They changed the name and misrepresented what it actually does.

Oregon Measure 114, Changes to Firearm Ownership and Purchase Requirements Initiative (2022)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

 

[Ura-Ki]

This should also be open to challenge as to how it all gets funded and by whom! They can't just pass it into law without a funding package, nor who will administrate it! Them saying OSP is top dog doesn't account for the Sheriff's who hold the ultimate power within each county, nor does this I.P. allow a "Build Time" into the launch, so, as of Jan 1, this becomes law, but with out any mechanism to make it work, so, what are We the People supposed to do in the mean time, twiddle our sphincters until the state figures it all out and secures the funding for it! Wouldn't that create a major harm to the lawful purchase and ownership for ones 2nd rights? We all know there would have to be an injunction to allow reasonable time, but we also know this state cannot be trusted or counted upon to handle anything like this and put it to work, further hampering and causing great harm to all the citizens wishing to enjoy their rights!

 

[sobo]

It also appears to me to be a restriction of a right. If one needs a permit from LE to buy a firearm, and if LE decides there is no good cause to issue said permit, then you have been denied a right. SCOTUS just threw that whole "good cause" line of reasoning out in the trash. A right infringed is a right denied...

 

[Ura-Ki]

It also appears to me to be a restriction of a right. If one needs a permit from LE to buy a firearm, and if LE decides there is no good cause to issue said permit, then you have been denied a right. SCOTUS just threw that whole "good cause" line of reasoning out in the trash. A right infringed is a right denied...

The State doesn't give any phucks if it's legal or not, and they sure don't care what SCOTUS just reaffirmed for the THIRD FOOKING TIME, No, they will let this all slide through with lots of Leftist Lube, so we get to take it hard and learn to deal with it like the good citizens we are!

 

[Local Loader]

The State doesn't give any phucks if it's legal or not, and they sure don't care what SCOTUS just reaffirmed for the THIRD FOOKING TIME, No, they will let this all slide through with lots of Leftist Lube, so we get to take it hard and learn to deal with it like the good citizens we are!

Yeah, f-that.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

This will also shut down the ability of Oregon residents to purchase long guns in person from Free States. No other state is going to want the responsibility of checking to see if your Oregon FOID (Firearm Owners Identification Card) is valid.

 

[Local Loader]

This will also shut down the ability of Oregon residents to purchase long guns in person from Free States. No other state is going to want the responsibility of checking to see if your Oregon FOID (Firearm Owners Identification Card) is valid.

View attachment 1251145

Don't forget, it has to be done over the phone or it doesn't count as a lawful transfer.
"An over the phone background and criminal check with local law enforcement must be done for all transfers. If not completed after 30min the dealer will be notified and given an estimate on when it will be completed" this is on top of all the background checks and paperwork that is already required.
This will create a huge backlog like never seen before.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Don't forget, it has to be done over the phone or it doesn't count as a lawful transfer.
"An over the phone background and criminal check with local law enforcement must be done for all transfers. If not completed after 30min the dealer will be notified and given an estimate on when it will be completed" this is on top of all the background checks and paperwork that is already required.
This will create a huge backlog like never seen before.

Where is that from? I searched the IP text for it

https://sos.oregon.gov/admin/Documents/irr/2022/017text.pdf

 

[Local Loader]

Where is that from? I searched the IP text for it

https://sos.oregon.gov/admin/Documents/irr/2022/017text.pdf

Check out section 6 & 8.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Check post #48

I am still not finding that quote anywhere in IP17.

 

[Local Loader]

I am still not finding that quote anywhere in IP17.

(2) Prior to transferring a firearm at a gun show, a transferor who is not a gun dealer [may request] shall by telephone
verify that the transferee has a valid permit-to-purchase a firearm under section 4 of this 2022 Act and request that the
department conduct a criminal background check on the recipient upon providing the following information to the
department:
(d) The gun dealer shall, [request] by telephone or computer, verify that the purchaser has a valid permit-to-purchase a
firearm issued under section 4 of this 2022 Act and request that the department conduct a criminal history record check on
the purchaser and shall provide the following information to the department

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I found it.

Section 6 REQUIRES PERMITS FOR LICENSED DEALER SALES
States: (d) The gun dealer shall, by telephone or computer, verify that the purchaser has a valid permit-to-purchase a firearm issued under section 4 of this 2022 Act..

Section 8 REQUIRES PERMITS FOR ALL TRANSFERS AT GUN SHOWS
States: (2) Prior to transferring a firearm at a gun show, a transferor who is not a gun dealer shall by telephone verify that the transferee has a valid permit-to-purchase a firearm under section 4 of this 2022 Act...

No way that OSP can handle 1000 calls a day during a gun show weekend.

 

[Local Loader]

(b) If the department is unable to determine if the purchaser is qualified or disqualified from completing the transfer within 30 minutes, the department shall notify the gun dealer and provide the gun dealer with an estimate of the time when the department will provide the requested information.
(c) The dealer may not transfer the firearm unless the dealer receives a unique approval number from the department and, within 48 hours of completing the transfer, the dealer shall notify the state that the transfer to the permit holder was completed. [If the department fails to provide a unique approval number to a gun dealer or to notify the gun
dealer that the purchaser is disqualified under paragraph (a) of this subsection before the close of the gun dealer's next
business day following the request by the gun dealer for a criminal history record check, the gun dealer may deliver the
firearm to the purchaser.]