Oregon Could We Have Statewide Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance (SAPO)?

[American123]

You are correct about the hunting regs. What I was trying to explain in the example was that the hunter using a 30rnd mag is violating a state firearm law. My proposal is that we vote in a law that prohibits State agencies from enforcing firearm laws old or new. So in my example if the only law the hunter was violating was having a 30rnd mag then he would walk free.

Ok, yeah, mine was a bit off topic, but thanks for the clarification.

Honestly, all these laws are unconstitutional and it just shows how statist our country has become when acting governors or AG can simply say " were not going to follow federal laws on anything we don't want to" like immigration or pot, but then the 'peasants' aren't allowed to have guns and all of a sudden the law matters.

bubblegum them, water the damn tree.

 

[Flymph]

You said: "

Concession to whom? I am proposing that this law be voted in on the Ballot using the Initiative Petition process. All we would need is a 1000 qualifying signatures maybe 1500-2000 to get a 1000 good ones and it will be off to the races. We would have plenty of time to get through the draft ballot title process and all that junk and still collect signatures for 2020 election.

I getcha... I'm in favor of keeping state laws as they stand today with the exception of providing exemption for C&R licenses and CHL's on the state BGC...
But yeah, I'll sign it. Just post up a link here!

Huh,

I've heard of that concept from many seasons hunters in Washington, but when I invited them to show me the rule, they couldn't.

I've peered over the book for Washington regarding modern firearms and big game. Page 87-89 seems like it would be the place to have it, it only references minimum caliber requirement, nothing about magazine capacity except for waterfowl being limited to 3 shells in the shotgun.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01984/wdfw01984.pdf

Here's page 20 of Oregon Big Game Regs... says it clear as day, but like I said, I can't say about Washington.

 

[arakboss]

I getcha... I'm in favor of keeping state laws as they stand today with the exception of providing exemption for C&R licenses and CHL's on the state BGC...
But yeah, I'll sign it. Just post up a link here!

Here's page 20 of Oregon Big Game Regs... says it clear as day, but like I said, I can't say about Washington.
View attachment 546685

I too, could live with the laws as they stand today. Unfortunately they are likely to change in our near future and not for the better, imho. I would like for Counties to be able to decide how they will respond to these firearm laws (old and new) with out interference from State Authorities.

 

[arakboss]

I too, could live with the laws as they stand today. Unfortunately they are likely to change in our near future and not for the better, imho. I would like for Counties to be able to decide how they will respond to these firearm laws (old and new) with out interference from State Authorities.

A law like I am proposing will help those disenfranchised rural Counties get back a little bit of independence that has been taken away by the legislators mostly emanating from the few most populist Counties in the State.

 

[arakboss]

Another piece of the enforcement puzzle, the law proposed should prohibit enforcement of all firearm laws including federal by State agencies: The Role of State Law Enforcement

The federal government may not compel state law enforcement agents to enforce federal regulations. "[T]he Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State's officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997), a Montana Sheriff Jay Printz challenged the constitutionality of a federal handgun control scheme that required him and other local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun buyers, ensuring that no handguns were illegally purchased. In invalidating the law, the Supreme Court stated that Congress cannot require state officers to enforce federal laws. Asserting that it was discovered early on by the framers of the Constitution that "using the states as the instruments of federal governance was both ineffectual and provocative of federal-state conflict," the Court said that "the Constitution [] contemplates that a State's government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens."

• State (and local) governments also have the right to be free from unwanted regulation imposed at the federal level. In New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 166 (1992), the Court noted "we have always understood that even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts."

 

[GUNARCHER]

The law against carrying a gun while bow hunting was rescinded because it was determined the game commission did not have the power to regulate guns---that is reserved for the State Police. So why can they regulate the number of rounds?

 

[Mark W.]

These are some of the Oregon Attorneys General office views on our 27th Amendment of the Oregon Constitution:

The Oregon Constitution currently protects
"arms" similar to those used for self-defense in 1859, including some
firearms.

The court concluded that semi-automatic firearms are not within the
protection of arms for self-defense encompassed by Art. I, section 27.
It follows that such weapons could lawfully be banned in Oregon, at least insofar as that
provision of the constitution is concerned,...

These advanced weapons (semi-autos) of modern warfare have never been intended for personal possession and protection. When the constitutional drafters referred to an individual's "right to bear arms," the arms used by the militia and for personal protection were basically the same weapons. Modern weapons used exclusively by the military are not "arms" which are commonly possessed by individuals for defense, therefore, the term "arms" in the constitution does not include such
weapons.

I believe the Oregon's AG's office views on our 2nd Amendment rights is equally limited. It is clear to me that unless the SCOTUS changes the government aniti's minds, that we can not rely on the correct interpretation of our constitutional rights to be applied.

It's also my belief that the county level SAPO's lack the teeth in most cases to prevent the State authorities from stepping in to make examples of those who openly violate the State firearms laws with in a SAPO county.

We should pursue the idea of prohibiting enforcement and prosecution of firearms laws with State agencies and resources. The counties are in a better position to know what level of enforcement their citizens desire.

I could easily destroy that point of view in court and I'm a damn dump truck driver.

The public had modern semi auto firearms BEFORE THE MILITARY The Military was still using single shot rifles while the public were using repeaters.

The military for the most part at least with regard to rifles does not use semi auto firearms. But in fact use select fire weapons capable of full auto or burst fire.

If you use the moronic idea that the right stopped the moment the Oregon Constitution became law then the how can it not also apply to all other rights? Voting, Women did not have the vote in 1859 nor did blacks etc. Freedom of Speech No telephone no audio recording no internet. choosing which bathroom to pee in? So if those rights evolved over time and the protections extended then how can they not with regards to "Arms"

 

[arakboss]

I could easily destroy that point of view in court and I'm a damn dump truck driver.

The public had modern semi auto firearms BEFORE THE MILITARY The Military was still using single shot rifles while the public were using repeaters.

The military for the most part at least with regard to rifles does not use semi auto firearms. But in fact use select fire weapons capable of full auto or burst fire.

If you use the moronic idea that the right stopped the moment the Oregon Constitution became law then the how can it not also apply to all other rights? Voting, Women did not have the vote in 1859 nor did blacks etc. Freedom of Speech No telephone no audio recording no internet. choosing which bathroom to pee in? So if those rights evolved over time and the protections extended then how can they not with regards to "Arms"

I get it. I was just sharing the AGs views. You could take the AG to court over their biased summary they provided for IP 8?

 

[BillM]

It would essentially be the same language as the county level second amendment preservation ordinance but would be adapted to be Statewide.

Edit: It would prohibit the State from using it's resources and agencies to enforce laws that violate the 2A.

There is currently a Initiative Petition on file for the 2020 cycle. 2020-08.

http://egov.sos.state.or.us/elec/web_irr_search.record_detail?p_reference=20200008..LSCYYY.

 

[arakboss]

There is currently a Initiative Petition on file for the 2020 cycle. 2020-08.

http://egov.sos.state.or.us/elec/web_irr_search.record_detail?p_reference=20200008..LSCYYY.

It looks like IP 8 is no longer going to be pursued. They recieved a very anti-gun summary from the AG's office who is suppose to provide an impartial draft ballot title and summary so they are giving up on it. It's too bad because I believe it would have helped our cause.

 

[BSG 75]

Could We Have Statewide SAPO?

In a word, realistically, no.

Laws are created through two methods in Oregon:

1. The Oregon Legislature passes a bill and the Governor signs it, or
   
2. The voters pass a statewide ballot initiative

The Democrat dominated Oregon Legislature would never pass such a law. Even if they did, the Democratic governor would veto it. Zero chance such a law would be passed in Oregon.

It would be difficult to get enough signatures to put such an initiative on the ballot. Even if you did the voters of blue Oregon would reject it, just as the ballot initiatives to end sanctuary state status and taxpayer-funded abortions lost in a landslide last year. Not only would almost all Democrats vote against it, but so would many (non-gun owning and gun control supporting) Republicans and independents. Even some gun owners, the ones whose favored guns and shooting activities are not threatened by proposed gun control laws, would vote against it. Zero chance such a ballot initiative would get on the ballot and be passed in Oregon.

 

[arakboss]

In a word, realistically, no.

Laws are created through two methods in Oregon:

1. The Oregon Legislature passes a bill and the Governor signs it, or
   
2. The voters pass a statewide ballot initiative

The Democrat dominated Oregon Legislature would never pass such a law. Even if they did, the Democratic governor would veto it. Zero chance such a law would be passed in Oregon.

It would be difficult to get enough signatures to get such an initiative on the ballot. Even if you did the voters of blue Oregon would reject it, just as the ballot initiatives to end sanctuary state status and taxpayer-funded abortions lost in a landslide last year. Not only would almost all Democrats vote against it, but so would many (non-gun owning and gun control supporting) Republicans and independents. Even some gun owners, the ones whose favored guns and shooting activities are not threatened by proposed gun control laws, would vote against it. Zero chance such a ballot initiative would get on the ballot and be passed in Oregon.

That's depressing.

 

[arakboss]

In a word, realistically, no.

Laws are created through two methods in Oregon:

1. The Oregon Legislature passes a bill and the Governor signs it, or
   
2. The voters pass a statewide ballot initiative

The Democrat dominated Oregon Legislature would never pass such a law. Even if they did, the Democratic governor would veto it. Zero chance such a law would be passed in Oregon.

It would be difficult to get enough signatures to get such an initiative on the ballot. Even if you did the voters of blue Oregon would reject it, just as the ballot initiatives to end sanctuary state status and taxpayer-funded abortions lost in a landslide last year. Not only would almost all Democrats vote against it, but so would many (non-gun owning and gun control supporting) Republicans and independents. Even some gun owners, the ones whose favored guns and shooting activities are not threatened by proposed gun control laws, would vote against it. Zero chance such a ballot initiative would get on the ballot and be passed in Oregon.

Do you believe there could be value in attempting offensive legislation via IPs even if you didn't feel it would have a chance at passing? Raising awareness, motivating supporters, fostering others to come up with ideas, etc.

 

[arakboss]

Do you believe there could be value in attempting offensive legislation via IPs even if you didn't feel it would have a chance at passing? Raising awareness, motivating supporters, fostering others to come up with ideas, etc.

It could be written as a school security training initiative and the prohibition of State enforcement and prosecution of firearm laws would be the funding mechanism for the school training. I honestly don't think the State spends that much now on firearm law enforcement but it is a preventive measure to assure SOPA counties are left alone.

 

[gunnails]

I looked it up because I did not know.
SAPO is Spanish for toad. which makes little sense in regards to this discussion.
What does SAPO refer to in this thread?

 

[coyoteman5]

(These advanced weapons (semi-autos) of modern warfare have never been intended for personal possession and protection. When the constitutional drafters referred to an individual's "right to bear arms," the arms used by the militia and for personal protection were basically the same weapons.)
Wasn't the AR at first a civilian firearm before the military adopted
And can someone clarify the statement (the arms used by the militia and for personal protection were basically the same weapons.)
And isn't that so today but military has full auto capability maybe I am misinterpreting that phrase?

 

[arakboss]

I looked it up because I did not know.
SAPO is Spanish for toad. which makes little sense in regards to this discussion.
What does SAPO refer to in this thread?

Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance=SAPO

 

[bbbass]

You said: "

Concession to whom? I am proposing that this law be voted in on the Ballot using the Initiative Petition process. All we would need is a 1000 qualifying signatures maybe 1500-2000 to get a 1000 good ones and it will be off to the races. We would have plenty of time to get through the draft ballot title process and all that junk and still collect signatures for 2020 election.

I'm pretty depressed about the chances of doing anything at all to protect our firearms rights... it's a changing society and we are in a blue state. I do like the idea of going on the offensive, but to what end? If we do get it on the ballot, it will lose... it may raise awareness of the fight, but it will be handing the antis a victory which will embolden them? IDK, they keep winning so they are pretty bold already. We need a win, but how do we get one?

 

[Jabba]

How about an initiative to define the term "assault weapon" properly? Also, how about just try for volume, get 10 initiatives on there even if they have low chance of passing. Easy enough to get signatures for 10 petitions instead of just 1, at least for people who understand where Oregon is headed. With the idea if people read 5 gun-related initiatives they don't like, they might just vote no on all 12 on the ballot without considering each one individually.

 

[jackrv]

Definition of an "assault weapon" is:

A politically made up term by Josh Sugarman from the Brady bunch back in the 80s or 90s.

There, that wasn't so hard was it?
Jack