Oregon Counter Attack to IP 43

[Voidshot9]

What is the status of this effort?

On April 12th I did post the latest update from Ms. Perkins in this thread. Here's the link for anyone who missed it: Oregon - Counter Attack to IP 43

 

[arakboss]

On April 12th I did post the latest update from Ms. Perkins in this thread. Here's the link for anyone who missed it: Oregon - Counter Attack to IP 43

Thanks for the update.

 

[Lead-slinger]

Does anyone have a draft of the title challenge we might look at as a template.

 

[RaceFan]

Amends Constitution: Requirement to remove; sell; surrender; destroy; or register semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, handguns, and certain magazines [15 words; 15 word limit; "Amends Constitution" does not count]

Results of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote requires Oregon citizens to remove; sell; surrender; destroy; or register certain semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, handguns, and large capacity magazines (defined). [21 words; 25 word limit]

Results of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains restrictions barring firearms possession by disqualified persons. [10 words; 25 word limit]

Suggestion to change the Summary (underlined text in red = current version that should be deleted). Bold, blue text = proposed changes.

Summary: Measure criminalizes possession or transfer of "assault weapons" (defined)/ "large capacity magazines" (defined) certain semi-automatic weapons except for military/ law enforcement purposes, or persons authorized by State Police after criminal background check. Otherwise possession or transfer is a Class B felony. Within 120 days, persons lawfully owning such weapons or magazines must remove from Oregon, lawfully sell, surrender to law enforcement, render inoperable, or register items with State Police. Applies to inherited items. Bars moving covered items into Oregon. Assault weapons Weapons include certain semiautomatic rifles or pistols with a detachable magazine; pistol or rifles with a fixed magazine holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition; certain semiautomatic shotguns. Large capacity magazine is ammunition feeding device with capacity of more than ten rounds. Effective January 1, 2019. Other provisions. [118 words; 125 word limit]

 

[RaceFan]

Question, do we have an angle to argue constitutionality of the IP? Specifically, the Legal Secretary stated the following in the ballot release:

Additionally, the Secretary of State is seeking public input on whether the petition complies
with the procedural constitutional requirements established in the Oregon Constitution for
initiative petitions.

Now, IP43 "Amends [the] Constitution". This would necessarily conflict with the Oregon Constitution Bill of Rights. Specifically...

ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

Can a procedural argument be made stating IP43 would modify Section 27 and that such modification of Section 27 is not stated in the ballot title, or summary?

 

[1Asterisk]

Specifically, the Legal Secretary stated the following in the ballot release:

Additionally, the Secretary of State is seeking public input on whether the petition complies
with the procedural constitutional requirements established in the Oregon Constitution for
initiative petitions.

The Sec. of State is seeking input specifically re: Oregon Constitution's single issue clause for initiative petitions, which is Article IV, Section 1, subsection [2][d] and which states in part "A proposed law or amendment to the Constitution shall embrace one subject only and matters properly related therewith" [emphasis mine].

This thread may provide some additional detail OR Sec of State request for IP43 procedural compliance - here is mine

By the way, IP43 is not an initiative to amend the Oregon Constitution. It is an initiative to enact law.

 

[Pete F]

Amends Constitution: Requirement to remove; sell; surrender; destroy; or register semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, handguns, and certain magazines [15 words; 15 word limit; "Amends Constitution" does not count]

Results of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote requires Oregon citizens to remove; sell; surrender; destroy; or register certain semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, handguns, and large capacity magazines (defined). [21 words; 25 word limit]

Results of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains restrictions barring firearms possession by disqualified persons. [10 words; 25 word limit]

Suggestion to change the Summary (underlined text in red = current version that should be deleted). Bold, blue text = proposed changes.

Summary: Measure criminalizes possession or transfer of "assault weapons" (defined)/ "large capacity magazines" (defined) certain semi-automatic weapons except for military/ law enforcement purposes, or persons authorized by State Police after criminal background check. Otherwise possession or transfer is a Class B felony. Within 120 days, persons lawfully owning such weapons or magazines must remove from Oregon, lawfully sell, surrender to law enforcement, render inoperable, or register items with State Police. Applies to inherited items. Bars moving covered items into Oregon. Assault weapons Weapons include certain semiautomatic rifles or pistols with a detachable magazine; pistol or rifles with a fixed magazine holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition; certain semiautomatic shotguns. Large capacity magazine is ammunition feeding device with capacity of more than ten rounds. Effective January 1, 2019. Other provisions. [118 words; 125 word limit]

For those that still haven't sent in (emailed) their challenge to the title - you have until 5:00 PM the 8th.

Suggestions for the above : remove Amends Constitution because it is only an Initiative, change weapons to guns, Large Capacity Magazines to Standard Capacity Magazines and certain semi-automatic to most semi-automatic. These send a better message and puts the guns in a better light. They are just tools, not weapons. Thanks for posting RaceFan.

These are just my thoughts and what I used on mine. Make your suggestions your own, but get on it folks - the more the better. Thanks.

 

[CountryGent]

I just read an email from OFF that stated the Secretary received over a 1,000 comments. Typically, again according to the email, they receive a dozen or less on a given initiative.

 

[Izzy1321]

I just read an email from OFF that stated the Secretary received over a 1,000 comments. Typically, again according to the email, they receive a dozen or less on a given initiative.

Yep, I just got the same thing.....good for everyone to reach out and let them know.

 

[JavaDude]

I just read an email from OFF that stated the Secretary received over a 1,000 comments. Typically, again according to the email, they receive a dozen or less on a given initiative.

Wow, this should send a clear message. Let's hope they get far more than 12 for IP-44 as well.

 

[Captain O]

I'm going to be busy for the next week-and-a-half preparing to perform Alfred Hitchcock's "The 39 Steps" on the 17th, 18th and 19th of May in the Loo-Wit room at St. Helens High School @ 7:00 p.m. all three evenings.

After this, I'll be open to producing radio spots for anyone that can provide studio time. We can cut it on a CD and provide it to any radio stations that are willing to sell us the airtime.

I'm in.

 

[arakboss]

Question, do we have an angle to argue constitutionality of the IP? Specifically, the Legal Secretary stated the following in the ballot release:

Additionally, the Secretary of State is seeking public input on whether the petition complies
with the procedural constitutional requirements established in the Oregon Constitution for
initiative petitions.

Now, IP43 "Amends [the] Constitution". This would necessarily conflict with the Oregon Constitution Bill of Rights. Specifically...

ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

Can a procedural argument be made stating IP43 would modify Section 27 and that such modification of Section 27 is not stated in the ballot title, or summary?

I think that is a constitutional challenge that would have to be made if it passes. I believe procedural complaints would be addressing whether or not IP43 is following the laws regarding procedures for implementing ballot measures. Just my thoughts.

 

[Izzy1321]

Gun Ban Comments Swamp Secretary of State
05.11.18
Your response to the ballot title language for gun confiscation measure IP 43 has been unprecedented. The Secretary of State received over 1500 comments on the misleading and incomplete title language created by the anti-gun Attorney General which attempted to downplay the scope and dangers of IP 43.
Congratulations on a job well done. We have a long fight ahead of us but a message has been sent. Thank you. But we are not done yet.
As we have reported previously we now need you to make your voice heard on another equally dangerous ballot measure, IP 44.
Under IP 44 you would be a criminal if you kept a firearm next to your bed for home protection at night and went to the bathroom while your spouse slept.
Under the guise of "safe storage" it would hold you strictly liable for damages done by others with a firearm you transferred, lost, or had stolen from you for 5 years unless you could prove the gun had a "cable or trigger lock" or was stored in a locked container at the time of the transfer, loss or theft.
It's blatantly absurd to suggest that a person you transferred a gun to would be any more or less likely to misuse a firearm for 5 years simply because you delivered it with a removable "trigger lock." It is even more bizarre to imply that if your gun was stolen it could not be misused because of a flimsy "cable" for five years!
When you make your comments please address the failures of the ballot title language, not the language of the measure itself. The ballot title includes the "caption," the summary and the effects of both a "yes" and "no" vote. You can comment on any or all of these components.
Keep in mind that while you will be addressing your comments to the Secretary of State, he did not write the ballot title language. Our anti-gun Attorney General did.
When you make your comments be sure your name is included. Identify yourself as an "Oregon Elector" (voter).
An address is helpful but not required.
The language of the actual measure can be seen here.
The language for the ballot title can be seen here.
Some things to consider when you make your comments.
Based on the Heller decision , the ballot measure is almost certainly unconstitutional. In Heller, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the court's opinion :
"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."
The ballot "caption" says :
"Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities"
Clearly, given the scope and potential liabilities, this language falls well short of advising voters what the measure does.
Under this measure even temporary or momentary "transfers" like handing a firearm to a friend at a range or using an instructor's gun in a class would require the firearm be disabled each time it was handed to another person. The same is true of guns you might handle at a gun store.
There are no exceptions for displays of antique firearms even if there are no ammunition components available. There are no exceptions for historical or educational displays or museums.
Section 6 (2) says :
For purposes of sections 1 and 3 of this 2018 Act, a firearm is under the control of a person when the person is lawfully authorized to possess the firearm and the person is in sufficiently close proximity to the firearm to prevent another person from obtaining possession of the firearm.
This is vague and subjective and provides no real guidance for how far away a person has to be away from a firearm before he or she is breaking the law. Nor does it explain exactly what responsibility a person actually has to prevent another person from "obtaining possession." Do they just have to be there?
We're sure you'll find plenty more to address.
You can send your comments to:
Email to [email protected]
Fax to 503.373.7414
Mail to 255 Capitol St NE Ste 501, Salem OR 97310
Your comments are due by May 15.

 

[JavaDude]

NRA-ILA | Oregon: NRA Files Comments Against Firearm Ban Initiative


Oregon: NRA Files Comments Against Firearm Ban Initiative
Friday, May 11, 2018


Support NRA-ILA
On May 8th, the NRA filed comments with the Oregon Secretary of State opposing the misleading and inadequate ballot title prepared by the state Attorney General for Initiative Petition 43. The Attorney General will now have until May 23rd to review comments and certify a final ballot title for IP 43, which seeks to ban commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines.

Over 1000 pages of comments were received by the Oregon Secretary of State in opposition to the proposed ballot title. Thank you to all Second Amendment supporters that submitted written comments on IP43. To view the comments submitted by NRA on behalf of our members, along with all other submitted comments and the proposed ballot title, click here.

Initiative Petition 43, if passed, would ban semi-automatic firearms including rifles, pistols, and shotguns, which have certain listed aesthetic features. Additionally, all standard capacity magazines and semi-automatic firearms with a fixed magazine holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition would be prohibited. The proposal would require any person in legal possession of these firearms or magazines to sell, surrender, or remove the firearm from the state within 120 days of passage. If eligible, a person could register the firearm or standard capacity magazine with the Oregon State Police, subject to a number of requirements.

This initiative attempts to brand these firearms as "assault weapons" to drum up unnecessary fear of their ownership. In reality, these firearms are only being defined by aesthetic features that in no way affect the functionality of the firearm. Semi-automatic firearms only fire one shot per action of the trigger, and such technology has been available to American consumers for more than a century. Semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for various purposes such as self-defense, recreation, competition, and hunting.

Once the ballot title is finalized, proponents of the initiative have until July 6th to get 88,184 valid signatures to place this on the November ballot.

Your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you updated on the status of this initiative, so please stay tuned to your email inbox and www.nraila.org for further updates on this issue.

 

[DedPyro]

Now if only the NRA would coordinate with and support OFF. They need to release a statement encouraging people to donate to OFF and the local fight. I like how OFF does the hard work and the NRA says, "But we commented." It's like saying that by pushing the thumbs-up button, you're an activist.

 

[Pete F]

NRA-ILA | Oregon: NRA Files Comments Against Firearm Ban Initiative


Oregon: NRA Files Comments Against Firearm Ban Initiative
Friday, May 11, 2018

View attachment 460186
Support NRA-ILA
On May 8th, the NRA filed comments with the Oregon Secretary of State opposing the misleading and inadequate ballot title prepared by the state Attorney General for Initiative Petition 43. The Attorney General will now have until May 23rd to review comments and certify a final ballot title for IP 43, which seeks to ban commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines.

Over 1000 pages of comments were received by the Oregon Secretary of State in opposition to the proposed ballot title. Thank you to all Second Amendment supporters that submitted written comments on IP43. To view the comments submitted by NRA on behalf of our members, along with all other submitted comments and the proposed ballot title, click here.

Initiative Petition 43, if passed, would ban semi-automatic firearms including rifles, pistols, and shotguns, which have certain listed aesthetic features. Additionally, all standard capacity magazines and semi-automatic firearms with a fixed magazine holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition would be prohibited. The proposal would require any person in legal possession of these firearms or magazines to sell, surrender, or remove the firearm from the state within 120 days of passage. If eligible, a person could register the firearm or standard capacity magazine with the Oregon State Police, subject to a number of requirements.

This initiative attempts to brand these firearms as "assault weapons" to drum up unnecessary fear of their ownership. In reality, these firearms are only being defined by aesthetic features that in no way affect the functionality of the firearm. Semi-automatic firearms only fire one shot per action of the trigger, and such technology has been available to American consumers for more than a century. Semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for various purposes such as self-defense, recreation, competition, and hunting.

Once the ballot title is finalized, proponents of the initiative have until July 6th to get 88,184 valid signatures to place this on the November ballot.

Your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you updated on the status of this initiative, so please stay tuned to your email inbox and www.nraila.org for further updates on this issue.

The NRA response to the IP43 Title was written, or at least signed, by the Oregon NRA Director Keely Hopkins, not anyone from the National. They did a pretty good job, as did several of the challenges that I read, and touched on the same problems that I had with the Title and summary. I found mine listed among the many..

The Title suggested by the State NRA is :

CREATES NEW FELONY FOR POSSESSION OF NEARLY ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUNS, RIFLES, SHOTGUNS, AND THEIR MAGAZINES, EXCEPTIONS

 

[DedPyro]

I have to admit. That is a pretty good one.

 

[GlockFan1990]

Initiative Petition 43 UPDATE

Many of you already heard the Secretary of State received 1,060 objections to the proposed ballot title for IP43 as written by Attorney General. Everyone of those objections have been sent to the Attorney General's Office where she is required by law to review them then either amend the ballot title accordingly or defy every objection by certifying the proposed ballot title as is. She has until May 23rd to certify the ballot title.

Once the AG submits the CERTIFIED ballot to the Secretary of State those who filed an objection has standing with the Supreme Court and will have 10 business days (until June 6th) to challenge the certified ballot title to the Supreme Court.

I know of six organizations and/or lawyers who are ready to file a challenge with the court. I also plan to file an appeal before the June 6th deadline. I will pay the filing fee ($481) then notify the Secretary of State's Office that I filed notification is simply submitting this form (http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/SEL324.pdf)

It's important to note there is no set timeline requirement as to when the Supreme Court must take up the filed appeals and issue a ruling whether the certified ballot title must be rewritten based on the objections submitted or let the certified language stand.

According to the Statesman Journal it normally takes between 2 - 6 months for the court to take up an appeal, anything sooner would be highly unusual. Then again the Supreme Court Justices are all far left anti-gunners so they may want to see IP43 on the November ballot and expedite the appeals process.

Here is why it was so important to have so many filed objections submitted to the Elections Division. The court must consider every filed objection and take them all in consideration before making a ruling. And until the Court makes a ruling the Petitioners are barred from gathering signatures as a result the Elections Division will not issue the Petitioners the official state signature gathering sheets! BIG KUDOS TO EVERYONE WHO TOOK THE TIME TO SUBMIT AN OBJECTION.

The best we can hope for is the July 6th deadline for submitting 88,184 signatures will pass before the court even takes up the appeal! And even if the Court expedites the appeal review the backers of IP43 will likely have (best case) less than ~ two and a half weeks to gather 88,184. And based on the average fallout of non-registered voters signing the petition they will need to submit around 120,000 signatures. That why even the Chief Petitioner was recently quoted as saying, "it will take a miracle" and I say God does not grant miracles to those who are attempting to mislead voters!

For anyone who may be interested in filing their own appeal with the court I will post the process in the comment section of this post.

More updates as the initiative petition process plays out.

 

[Pete F]

Initiative Petition 43 UPDATE

Many of you already heard the Secretary of State received 1,060 objections to the proposed ballot title for IP43 as written by Attorney General. Everyone of those objections have been sent to the Attorney General's Office where she is required by law to review them then either amend the ballot title accordingly or defy every objection by certifying the proposed ballot title as is. She has until May 23rd to certify the ballot title.

Once the AG submits the CERTIFIED ballot to the Secretary of State those who filed an objection has standing with the Supreme Court and will have 10 business days (until June 6th) to challenge the certified ballot title to the Supreme Court.

I know of six organizations and/or lawyers who are ready to file a challenge with the court. I also plan to file an appeal before the June 6th deadline. I will pay the filing fee ($481) then notify the Secretary of State's Office that I filed notification is simply submitting this form (http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/SEL324.pdf)

It's important to note there is no set timeline requirement as to when the Supreme Court must take up the filed appeals and issue a ruling whether the certified ballot title must be rewritten based on the objections submitted or let the certified language stand.

According to the Statesman Journal it normally takes between 2 - 6 months for the court to take up an appeal, anything sooner would be highly unusual. Then again the Supreme Court Justices are all far left anti-gunners so they may want to see IP43 on the November ballot and expedite the appeals process.

Here is why it was so important to have so many filed objections submitted to the Elections Division. The court must consider every filed objection and take them all in consideration before making a ruling. And until the Court makes a ruling the Petitioners are barred from gathering signatures as a result the Elections Division will not issue the Petitioners the official state signature gathering sheets! BIG KUDOS TO EVERYONE WHO TOOK THE TIME TO SUBMIT AN OBJECTION.

The best we can hope for is the July 6th deadline for submitting 88,184 signatures will pass before the court even takes up the appeal! And even if the Court expedites the appeal review the backers of IP43 will likely have (best case) less than ~ two and a half weeks to gather 88,184. And based on the average fallout of non-registered voters signing the petition they will need to submit around 120,000 signatures. That why even the Chief Petitioner was recently quoted as saying, "it will take a miracle" and I say God does not grant miracles to those who are attempting to mislead voters!

For anyone who may be interested in filing their own appeal with the court I will post the process in the comment section of this post.

More updates as the initiative petition process plays out.

Unless you are independently wealthy and have little use for money, I would like to help with the costs for at least part of the filing fee and encourage other members to help as well.

Thank you for your effort to stop this madness.

 

[Pete F]

Portland Tribune quoted Reverend Knutson on Initiative 43 - "Our goal is to collect 100,000 signatures in one day," Knutson said.

The only way they could collect that many signatures in one day is if they already had the people lined up and listed as wanting to sign. This seems to be an illegal move to gather signatures. The signatures are technically already gathered. It would be wise to keep an eye on them and report any questionable signature gathering. If they have a list of names and contact information prior to being certified, they are busted.