Gold Supporter
- Messages
- 24,259
- Reactions
- 36,668
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nevermind it looks like the OFF atty tore IP8 to shreds and I'm guessing they gave up on it.Last I heard they turned in the initial batch of signatures and were waiting for a draft ballot title.
Kevin at OFF confirmed that IP8 is dead They were not able to get a fair ballot title from the anti-gun AG's office so they are not moving ahead with the initiative.Nevermind it looks like the OFF atty tore IP8 to shreds and I'm guessing they gave up on it.
Yes, I think the AG managed to "poison pill" the initiative by stating it would roll back the closing of the "boy friend loophole", by making it sound like already convicted felons and such would be allowed access, if the initiative passed.Nevermind it looks like the OFF atty tore IP8 to shreds and I'm guessing they gave up on it.
Yes. The AG pretty much "poison pilled" it when they managed to add to the description that it would overturn things like the "boyfriend loophole". I think it is still on the right track, though.Kevin at OFF informed me. It was because of the unfair treatment it got from the AGs office.
Kevin at OFF informed me. It was because of the unfair treatment it got from the AGs office.
Yes. The AG pretty much "poison pilled" it when they managed to add to the description that it would overturn things like the "boyfriend loophole". I think it is still on the right track, though.
Keven told me it can cost about $100k to pass one of these IPs this one is plagued because of how the AG wrote the title. My guess is they don't believe that it would pass a court battle for the title challenge and they don't want to waste that money trying to do something that very likely won't survive. Even OFFs attorney doesn't think it will survive.Follow up -
From the Or Sec St dated 10/24/18 -
"The Elections Division received a certified ballot title from the Attorney General on October 24, 2018, for Initiative Petition2020-008, proposed for the November 3, 2020, General Election. Caption Amends Constitution: Creates constitutional right to possess, use, transfer semiautomatic, other firearms. Limits new firearm regulations. Retroactive."
From the Or DOJ also dated 10/24/2018 -
"We certify the following caption: Amends Constitution: Creates constitutional right to possess, use, transfer semiautomatic, other firearms. Limits new firearm regulations. Retroactive."
"We certify the following summary:
Summary:Amends constitution.The Oregon Constitution currently protects "arms" similar to those used for self-defense in 1859, including some firearms.State and local governments may regulate firearm ownership and use, in order to protect public safety. Proposed measure creates constitutional right to possess, use, transfer semiautomatic and "functionally similar" firearms that are currently available for civilian purchase under federal statutes. Measure retains existing firearm restrictions for some classes of individuals, including felons, but nullifies state restriction against possession by some domestic abusers that became effective July 1, 2018. Future regulations may not place "unreasonable burdens or special liabilities" (undefined) on acquisition of firearms that are the subject of the measure, or on keeping such firearms in "readily available operable state."Other provisions."
So, if what others are saying is true, that OFF 'killed' this measure because of this statement in the summary - "Measure retains existing firearm restrictions for some classes of individuals, including felons, but nullifies state restriction against possession by some domestic abusers that became effective July 1, 2018", I fail to see why we would give up trying to pass this measure based on that alone.
Something smells....
Keven told me it can cost about $100k to pass one of these IPs this one is plagued because of how the AG wrote the title. My guess is they don't believe that it would pass a court battle for the title challenge and they don't want to waste that money trying to do something that very likely won't survive. Even OFFs attorney doesn't think it will survive.
Have you emailed Kevin?Not convinced. Any attempt to bring a ballot measure to the voters could be expensive. If OFF wants a measure so slick it will slide onto the ballot without any resistance, they certainly chose the wrong battle. So why even try?
And I don't see how this ballot title "Amends Constitution: Creates constitutional right to possess, use, transfer semiautomatic, other firearms. Limits new firearm regulations. Retroactive" cause so much concern? Doesn't it express exactly what we gun owners are looking for?
And what happened to the other measure, the 'Firearms Safety Act'? Was it quietly buried when the donations withered?
I don't mean to be rude, but I'm looking for answers, not hearsay. This stinks IMO.
Measure retains existing firearm restrictions for some classes of individuals, including felons, but nullifies state restriction against possession by some domestic abusers that became effective July 1, 2018.
@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.
Short version notes: Firearms introduced after 1859 are not "in common use" ( also a loaded term, per the letter) and therefore not protected by the Oregon constitution because the founders were too stupid to understand technology and science.
My belief is the women petitioners were used in a stooge roll and did not author the IP.I fail to see why that should 'kill' it. So we sit around and have rallies instead, just because OFF & their lawyer didn't think it could pass because of an unfair ballot title? What did they think they would get from the AG?
I find it odd that OFF has no information on any of the websites/forums about it being 'killed'. I also find it odd that a companion measure, 'The Firearms Safety Act' which was being touted by OFF at the same time [9/20/18] seems to have been similarly buried.
I called both the Chief Petitioners of IP 8 this morning. I didn't get through to Carly Castellano, but I did leave a message.
I did speak with Sharon Preston. To be brief I will quote her words, "OFF put a hold on it for some reason. I could never get a straight answer on it".
FYI.