Oregon Does Anybody Know The Current Status Of Rep. Nearman's IP 8 ?

[1Asterisk]

@1Asterisk sorry but this was a PDF and I just did a copy and paste job but this will show you how unfair the AGs office was and that they don't believe we have real 2nd Amendment rights.

Arakboss - this is the same document I linked to. I fully understand the anti-gun attitude of this State Government. This was was also fully and completely known by OFF, the Chief Petitioners of IP-8, and all the rest of us when this effort began last year. So why is it now being used as an excuse to dump the effort? I don't see an issue with the ballot title given the measure. The summary stipulates one issue, but the rest of it is not worthy of dropping the attempt, IMO.

So, I have received a response from OFF [previous post], but as far as I know it appears to be a valid measure with no one behind it...at the moment.

 

[arakboss]

Arakboss - this is the same document I linked to. I fully understand the anti-gun liberal attitude of this State Government. This was was also fully and completely known by OFF, the Chief Petitioners of IP-8, and all the rest of us when this effort began last year. So why is it now being used as an excuse to dump the effort? I don't see an issue with the ballot title given the measure. The summary stipulates one issue, but the rest of it is not worthy of dropping the attempt, IMO.

So, I have received a response from OFF [previous post], but as far as I know it appears to be a valid measure with no one behind it...at the moment.

You seem to have a high level of confidence in this IP passing. I would suggest you request to be added to IP as a petitioner and run with it. I will sign it and vote for it if it is on the ballot.

 

[1Asterisk]

You seem to have a high level of confidence in this IP passing. I would suggest you request to be added to IP as a petitioner and run with it. I will sign it and vote for it if it is on the ballot.

Arakboss - how about instead of just voting for it [if it were to get on the ballot], you and 200-300 or more other dedicated volunteers offer to hit the streets for the next year and help gather signatures?
Honestly, I don't think there is that many people who care enough. I looked into this issue because I wanted some answers. It took me about one hours worth of time to find -
1. The Chief Petitioners for IP-8 had no clue what happened to IP-8, and didn't seem interested enough to find out.
2. OFF had no interest in spending any money on it, even though they have a $300K cash balance ending 2018 [310K currently 2019] and spent only $28K in 2018.



For anyone interested, IP-8 appears to be a valid measure. All it appears to need is an organizer and people to collect signatures.

 

[arakboss]

Arakboss - how about instead of just voting for it [if it were to get on the ballot], you and 200-300 or more other dedicated volunteers offer to hit the streets for the next year and help gather signatures?
Honestly, I don't think there is that many people who care enough. I looked into this issue because I wanted some answers. It took me about one hours worth of time to find -
1. The Chief Petitioners for IP-8 had no clue what happened to IP-8, and didn't seem interested enough to find out.
2. OFF had no interest in spending any money on it, even though they have a $300K cash balance ending 2018 [310K currently 2019] and spent only $28K in 2018.

View attachment 558523

For anyone interested, IP-8 appears to be a valid measure. All it needs is people to collect signatures.

It's going to need a petitioner who knows whats going on with it and will follow through with turning in signatures, with court battles, etc.? Are there any repercussions or unintended consequences of it being passed with the way the AG will write it up?

 

[1Asterisk]

It's going to need a petitioner who knows whats going on with it and will follow through with turning in signatures, with court battles, etc.? Are there any repercussions or unintended consequences of it being passed with the way the AG will write it up?

The AG has already done her part. The act itself was written by those who originally organized this. The link to the act was listed somewhere in this forum, but I don't recall where. Not really sure I understand the question.

 

[arakboss]

The AG has already done her part. The act itself was written by those who originally organized this. The link to the act was listed somewhere in this forum, but I don't recall where. Not really sure I understand the question.

If you get added as a chief petitioner I will help collect signatures. Who will convert the common language in the IP in to the legal language if it passes?

 

[arakboss]

The AG has already done her part. The act itself was written by those who originally organized this. The link to the act was listed somewhere in this forum, but I don't recall where. Not really sure I understand the question.

I may see Rep. Nearman today, if I do I will ask him about IP8.

 

[tiggers97]

I think one would have to take a "lessons leaned" from IP8, and re-submit it to make it more iron clad against how the AG can respond to it. Reword it as a "We support the 2nd amendment, but..." approach the anti's are always using, but in a way that it is an opportunity for them to show they really mean it. Getting to overambitious, IMHO, is what might have gotten IP8 with the bad wording.

 

[1Asterisk]

If you get added as a chief petitioner I will help collect signatures. Who will convert the common language in the IP in to the legal language if it passes?

This measure already has two chief petitioners. You should call them and see if they will do their jobs.
Sharon Preston 541-788-5858 [Redmond] and Carly Castellano [760-272-9560 [Beaverton].

As I stated previously, the legal language has already been written by the persons who originated this measure. The legal language is at this link https://www.oregonfirearms.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Pages-from-text-petition-2020-008a.pdf

I think one would have to take a "lessons leaned" from IP8, and re-submit it to make it more iron clad against how the AG can respond to it. Reword it as a "We support the 2nd amendment, but..." approach the anti's are always using, but in a way that it is an opportunity for them to show they really mean it. Getting to overambitious, IMHO, is what might have gotten IP8 with the bad wording.

Take a look at the first sentence in this OFF notice - "A very carefully crafted ballot measure....."



Apparently it was so carefully crafted that the Oregon Firearms Federation, after promoting it, and knowing they were going up against a liberal anti-gun legislature, a liberal anti-gun AG, and a liberal anti-gun governor, dropped it like a hot potato when they didn't like the certified summary given the measure by the known anti-gun AG. Anybody with half a brain could foresee this. So what. How much now would it cost OFF to just run a grass roots effort to gather signatures? [Keep in mind that OFF currently has a cash balance of over $310K and growing]

IMO it does not matter if the measure might fail. It might also pass. But if we just give up and don't even try, we will never know, and we will be less free.

 

[arakboss]

This measure already has two chief petitioners. You should call them and see if they will do their jobs.
Sharon Preston 541-788-5858 [Redmond] and Carly Castellano [760-272-9560 [Beaverton].

As I stated previously, the legal language has already been written by the persons who originated this measure. The legal language is at this link https://www.oregonfirearms.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Pages-from-text-petition-2020-008a.pdf




Take a look at the first sentence in this OFF notice - "A very carefully crafted ballot measure....."

View attachment 558561

Apparently it was so carefully crafted that the Oregon Firearms Federation, after promoting it, and knowing they were going up against a liberal anti-gun legislature, a liberal anti-gun AG, and a liberal anti-gun governor, dropped it like a hot potato when they didn't like the certified summary given the measure by the known anti-gun AG.

IMO it does not matter if the measure might fail. It might also pass. But if we just give up and don't even try, we will never know.

My offer stands but I will not be pursuing such a difficult battle with leadership (CPs) who have little interest in their own IP. I have house district race wins to help secure for 2020 and campaign period has already begun. See you in Salem today?

 

[1Asterisk]

See you in Salem today?

No. Why?

 

[jayR]

This proposal seems to ensconce multiple firearm related laws, which are unconstitutional but unchallenged, into the constitution. Personally, I don't get it.

 

[Eric in Oregon]

This proposal seems to ensconce multiple firearm related laws, which are unconstitutional but unchallenged, into the constitution. Personally, I don't get it.

Exactly. This bill was a damp squib at best, pretty much the opposite of trying for too much and failing. It was a prime example of "I support the 2A, but ..." and we're better off without it. Instead of simple language validating existing rights protections it used 2/3 of the bill to explicitly allow for infringements. Pathetic.

 

[1Asterisk]

Instead of simple language validating existing rights protections it used 2/3 of the bill to explicitly allow for infringements. Pathetic.

Could you please be more specific and explain how the measure explicitly allows for infringements? I'm not arguing with you. I just would like clarity of your statement.

 

[Eric in Oregon]

Could you please be more specific and explain how the measure explicitly allows for infringements?

Just read it. It says that anything restricted by the feds or under the NFA is outside the scope of the bill's protection.

 

[1Asterisk]

Unfortunately, fed law/rule [even when those fed law/rules are unconstitutional, ie; 2A] always trumps state law/rule.... Unless it is a progressive liberal socialist state and the feds are too cowardly to arrest the state government officials in violation of a fed law/rule, ie; immigration, marijuana, etc.

 

[CountryGent]

I finally received a response from them. They stated they are not moving forward with this.

 

[1Asterisk]

I finally received a response from them. They stated they are not moving forward with this.

I repeat myself -
'Apparently it [IP 8] was so carefully crafted that the Oregon Firearms Federation, after promoting it, and knowing they were going up against a liberal anti-gun legislature, a liberal anti-gun AG, and a liberal anti-gun governor, dropped it like a hot potato when they didn't like the certified summary given the measure by the known anti-gun AG. Anybody with half a brain could foresee this. So what. How much now would it cost OFF to just run a grass roots effort to gather signatures? [Keep in mind that OFF currently has a cash balance of over $310K and growing]'.

IP-8 is still a valid measure. It has already met all the requirements and approvals. All it needs is someone to organize a signature gathering effort. That is all it needs...just signatures. And Just because the original promoters have backed out doesn't mean someone else can't pick up the ball and run with it.