Oregon Draft Ballot Title for 2020-008

Discussion in 'Firearm Legislation & Activism' started by GlockFan1990, Sep 25, 2018.

Tags:
  1. GlockFan1990

    GlockFan1990
    Clackamas
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    440
    The Elections Division received a draft ballot title from the Attorney General on September 25, 2018, for Initiative Petition , proposed for the November 3, 2020, General Election.

    Caption
    Amends Constitution: Right to bear arms includes possession, use, transfer of firearms/accessories currently allowed; limits regulation

    Chief Petitioners
    Sharon Preston 3435 NW Dogwood Ave Redmond, OR 97756
    Carlyan Castellano 6213 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy #204 Portland, OR


    Comments
    Written comments concerning the legal sufficiency of the draft ballot title may be submitted to the Elections Division. Comments will be delivered to the Attorney General for consideration when certifying the ballot title.

    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 Secretary will review any procedural constitutional comments received by the deadline and make a determination whether the petition complies with constitutional requirements.

    To be considered, draft ballot title comments and procedural constitutional requirement comments must be received in their entirety by the Elections Division no later than 5 pm:

    Comments Due
    October 9, 2018

    How to Submit
    Scan and Email: irrlistnotifier.sos@oregon.gov
    Fax:
    Mail: 255 Capitol St NE Ste 501, Salem OR 97310

    More information, including the draft ballot title and text of the petition, is contained in the IRR Database available at www.oregonvotes.gov.

    Click to edit this placeholder text.
     
    Jonnyuma, druiseeker and tiggers97 like this.
  2. E4mafia

    E4mafia
    super secret
    Silver Supporter Silver Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    819
    Bump
     
  3. nammac

    nammac
    I-5 Corridor - West of Portland
    Constitutionalist Platinum Supporter Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    19,498
    It’s a continuous barrage, the attacks just don’t stop, we need to be vocal on this one, the Second Amendment has no current provision for “currently allowed”...

    This is another chip off the block. Demand NO Constitutional amendments, it needs to remain intact as it is today.

    Get the vote out this year, could be our last opportunity to send a message from the ballot box... Time to dump Kate and demolish the democrat strong hold in the state legislature.

    And beware of democrats that have morphed into Republicans this year, like Chuck Riley...
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2018
    Slobray likes this.
  4. RaceFan

    RaceFan
    Portland, OR
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    214
    Barefoot African likes this.
  5. GlockFan1990

    GlockFan1990
    Clackamas
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    440
    Barefoot African likes this.
  6. BSG 75

    BSG 75
    Oregon
    Platinum Supporter Platinum Supporter

    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    386
    Um, this is a PRO GUN RIGHTS initiative that would amend the Oregon constitution to PREVENT future "assault weapon" and magazine bans.
     
  7. GlockFan1990

    GlockFan1990
    Clackamas
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    440
    Yep and we need to get the word out so more people can support this measure to save our gun rights in Oregon.
     
    JavaDude likes this.
  8. pchewn

    pchewn
    Beaverton Oregon USA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    581
    Likes Received:
    395
    I read the proposed constitutional amendment.

    1) Why does it only protect gun ownership for "defense" use? Why not for all the other uses of guns? Why even state the intended use?
    2) Why does it allow all of the restrictions currently in place, including mandatory background checks?

    It looks like a weakening of the current Oregon Constitution.

    I have an idea: Why not just write an amendment that requires lawmakers to follow the Oregon Constitution?

     
    K7ZS likes this.
  9. pchewn

    pchewn
    Beaverton Oregon USA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    581
    Likes Received:
    395
  10. Stomper

    Stomper
    Shut Your Face!!
    Platinum Supporter Platinum Supporter Gold Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    21,968
    Likes Received:
    61,174



    *uck Chuck Riley! :mad:o_O
     
    NW Backpacker and nammac like this.
  11. NW Backpacker

    NW Backpacker
    In the hills
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    851
    nammac likes this.
  12. NW Backpacker

    NW Backpacker
    In the hills
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    851
    The ridiculous :) arguments against the Common Firearms Act can be read on pages 3 thru 8 of the link. Take your blood pressure meds before reading:
    http://oregonvotes.org/irr/2020/008cbt.pdf

    Did the AG office rewrite the Common Firearms Act? Looks like if it FAILS then the only firearms protected by the Constitution are firearms that existed at the time of statehood; or am I reading it wrong? EDIT: SEE RESULT OF "NO" VOTE AND THE "SUMMARY" ON PAGE 10!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And here are the 55 pages of comments against the pro-gun Common Firearms Act ballot title. 55 pages. The anti-gun IP 43 had over 1500 pages of comments against it!!!!!
    http://oregonvotes.org/irr/2020/008cmts.pdf

    Make a copy of these files in case they try to change them later.

    We need to read this tripe to learn how our enemies are thinking.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2018
  13. E4mafia

    E4mafia
    super secret
    Silver Supporter Silver Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    819
    I agree copy and save these before we get memory hole'd

    Also I believe their logic of thinking is, deception, word smithing, lying, manipulation, bait and switch and evil of the science down to the letter.

    I also felt the same way when reading it all. It seemed like it would open and protect gun ownership but felt limited in what regard. As you mentioned about weapons of Oregon initial foundation I too thought the same.

    "Mr. Chaimov also asserts that “the right to bear arms” is a slogan that elicits an emotional response and should not be used." this one phrase keeps getting repeated about this whole slogan thing. The one thing that makes me think this is a trap is the fact that it seems to be open for allowing such nice things but it feels camouflaged with wording and then mentions no further limits imposed. A trojan horse if you will, "yeah sure have all those gun rights BUT WAIT!, there was hidden in the wording that you now forfeit modern firearms and only can use outdated guns and now you cannot further amend since you signed it in!! :^)

    We live in a heavy blue state and we know of corruption so something doesn't add up to me.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2018
  14. NW Backpacker

    NW Backpacker
    In the hills
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    851
    I'm concerned that the AG office has re-written this into an anti-gun initiative. I do not believe the Common Firearms Act repeals the domestic abuser law as indicated below in the Result of "Yes" Vote. Also, it does not "create" a right to own firearms, the original constitution already did that - the way I understand it, the CFA just clarifies that modern firearms are included. This text is copied from page 10, that I referred to in comment #12 above; this does not look like a pro-gun initiative:


    Certified by Attorney General on October 24, 2018.


    /s/ Denise G. Fjordbeck__

    Assistant Attorney General

    BALLOT TITLE

    Amends Constitution: Creates constitutional right to possess, use, transfer

    semiautomatic, other firearms. Limits new firearm regulations. Retroactive.

    Result of “Yes” Vote:
    “Yes” vote creates constitutional right to possess, use,

    transfer semiautomatic, other firearms currently allowed by federal statutes; nullifies

    2018 domestic abuser restriction; limits new regulations.

    Result of “No” Vote: “No” vote retains current constitutional protections for “arms”

    similar to those used for self-defense at statehood, including some firearms; allows regulations

    protecting public safety.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2018
  15. E4mafia

    E4mafia
    super secret
    Silver Supporter Silver Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    819
    There, those meme words:

    State
    Protect Public Safety
    "functionally similar"

    I still feel this is a trojan horse meant to get us to take the bait and then have the platform beneath us slide out.

    I wonder too what the "limits new firearm regulations" is implying or "limited" to? I don't have much faith in a heavy blue ran state that this isn't a loaded ballot.

    What can they really do with this ballot title though? aren't we out of season to be voting on anything but local level officials and nothings open until 2019?
     
  16. tiggers97

    tiggers97
    United States
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,000
    Likes Received:
    1,030
    How does this ballot “nullify 2018 domestic abuser reatrictions”? Seems pretty outrageous to me.

    I do agree with the others. It is worth reading theu the objections to learn their language amd “trigger points” to know how to fight them.
     
  17. tiggers97

    tiggers97
    United States
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,000
    Likes Received:
    1,030
    It is somewhat of an interesting read. And should give hints as to how to counter their arguments in the future.
    It is also interesting that they raised a similar objection to the ballot: namely that it deals with more than one subject. Laughable considering that IP43/44 covered far more ground.

    It is also interesting the court case they raise to actually make the claim that the 2nd amendment in Oregon is valid ONLY for firearms available at the time it was ratified in 1856.
    http://oregonvotes.org/irr/2020/008cmts.pdf

    Overall, unless they make it clear that it doesn't void the recent 2018 domestic abuser law, it is going to be a very hard sell. More so than what was already ahead of the petitioners. At worst, the 'helpful feedback' from the anti-gun lawyers would help to re-draft and re-submit the ballot measure to make it more robust.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2018 at 10:07 PM

Share This Page