Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Firearm Legislation & Activism' started by daiello91, Jun 14, 2018.
You can read the full appeal here.
Wonderful! Honestly, as I’m not a hunter, I had not heard of the OOC. But I know who they are now and am happy to support them for this work against these horrible ballot measures. Thank you so much for fighting this.
Cant thank you enough for repeatedly stepping up to the plate for us and fighting this anti constitutional attack.
Mentioned on your other post on this subject, PP donation sent to firstname.lastname@example.org - thanks! Repeating it, hoping others do also.
They got another $25,000 donation. this is the IP that will has the push behind it to get on the ballot
Oregon Secretary Of State
Appears to be from <Daniel Gibbs> the top contributor, with two priors of $50k each, NW PDX Neurologist.
most of the other donations are from his neighbors as well. He may be donating, but I would not doubt if he is being given the money to donate under his name by out of state influences.
And the chief petitioner that has the DC address is a fake name.
They have hired signature gathering companies and multiple PR, advertising companies.
The NRA has also filed a challenge: Oregon: NRA Challenges Ballot Title for Initiative Petition 44 That Would Restrict Your Right to Self-Defense
OFF has as well.
I don't get it though, if it was already decided with DC vs Heller is this just their way of challenging DC vs Heller or do you think they just don't know their supreme Court decisions on previously tried gun control?
Heller didn’t make the 2A absolute. In short, it ruled that firearm ownership is an individual right, but that restrictions could be allowed. AR bans have been implemented across the country and, so far, have with stood challenges.
Yeah but didn't it decide the whole locking things up thing specifically? And it was decided that locking it up hindered access to the firearm during home invasions and the like.
Yes, and that’s a valid question. It’s been a while since I read the decision. If I’m recalling correctly, this IP isn’t quite the same as that challenged by Heller.
Is there anything stopping them from doing a last ditch attempt from getting something on the ballot as a final fug you before this november election ballot vote?
From the Heller decision
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
11 States have some sort of locking device requirement and Massachusetts and NY City have complete "must have guns locked" when not in possession. I don't pretend to understand, that if it is unconstitutional, how can they continue to uphold these laws.
After some research, it appears that Initiative 44 takes bits from all current locking device laws and lumps them into one. The most similar is California as far as selling guns with a locking device, but I don't know what the penalties are. It applies to private sales as well as new purchases.
These laws seem to only be enforceable when the gun is out of the control of the owner. I assume that when you leave the house, all guns left behind must be secured.
July 6 is the deadline for any IP to make the November ballot. We’ve seen all we’re gonna see...this year.
And the next time they can get one on the ballot is in 2020. I've already been seeing Ballot Measures filed for 2020, getting their official names approved. None yet related to gun laws. We can likely count on these folks, should they fail this year, rallying for a hard push in 2020, unless the legislature just bypasses us altogether and passes the same laws as an 'emergency'. Makes our choices at the polls in November even more important - we can't let them get the Governor's seat and a super-majority again.