Oregon First Big Victory Against IP 43

[WasrNwarpaint]

Now that is a plan!

sadly the plan will not be implemented, the demorat party is the party of group think, the lemmings, incapable of critical thinking for themselves and ALL will vote the party lines

do you remember this.....we are voting on a new law....what is it? .....YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON IT FIRST BEFORE WE CAN SEE WHAT IT IS....AND AMERICANS GOT THE DEMORAT SHAFT AGAIN

every demorat voted no on tax cuts! .....

arent ya proud of your party leaders?...
chuck schummer, nanci pelosi, Pocahontas, Maxine "impeach 45" Waters, bernie sanders, diane frankenstein, barack "im with the muslims" obama and lest we forget the queen of the cartel and her husband president rapist...now there is a cast of characters any fool any fool can get behind.... NOT!

 

[Goosebrown]

I think we have a chance to beat it at the ballot box if it gets that far. Don't give up.

You need to look at the demographics or read the joke about the mouse that's having relations with the elephant. The elephant can't feel a thing of course but hits her head on a branch and says "ouch".

The mouse responds, "suffer bubblegum".

In Oregon, number wise Portland, Salem, Corvallis, and Eugene are the elephant.

We can't win in a fair fight. Not at this time. The only way to do that is to vote republican to get federal judges and to change minds of non shooters to get them involved.

 

[Aero Denezol]

A quick survey of the March for Our Lives demographic tells me short attention spans and Instagram are their own worse enemy. This is a demographic for whom outrage is a sport, and it's possible some of them have lost interest now that school is out. They did make a very hard push for a short time, and the anti-NRA rhetoric was getting pretty tired.. FWIW, there was a "die-in" in Washington DC a couple of days ago that was only sparsely attended.

All this to say, we need to never forget and keep up the pressure. The Supermajority (3/5ths vote in both chambers) in Oregon is the biggest threat to the shooting community.

 

[uberguy]

Just sent $50 to your PP acct, [email protected] - thanks!

 

[CHLChris]

I have never heard of OOC! I immediately signed up for their newsletter. I'm gonna start supporting them as well as OFF.

 

[CountryGent]

Until this mess (IP-43/44) I hadn't heard of OOC either. I've now joined and contributed. I'll renew and continue to contribute moving forward. I have to give OOC props for being one of several organizations (NRA, OFF, et al.) actively fighting these potential nightmares.

Any group that is actually doing something to preserve our rights has my support, be it moral, financial, or logistical. (Those that don't do anything other than make noise are a waste of resources and I'm not going to bother.)

 

[Skier]

Anyone know if it is considered "interfering with signature gathering," to simply stand in the same general area, listen to what they say, and possibly make out-loud corrections to factually inaccurate statements? How it interference defined by law?

 

[E4mafia]

Anyone know if it is considered "interfering with signature gathering," to simply stand in the same general area, listen to what they say, and possibly make out-loud corrections to factually inaccurate statements? How it interference defined by law?

From whats been posted before it seems only illegal if you attempt to prevent signatures from being gathered by force or by paying people to not sign. You can interact with them just not to the point you take the sheet and rip it or try to stop another person physically or altering signatures already gathered. Now if other laws apply like disturbance in a public area or harassment or threatening a person counts is another story.

<broken link removed>

Prohibitions on Unethical Behaviors
States vary widely in the behavior they deem to be unethical by petition circulators. The prohibitions often include the following:

• Offering payment to sign/not sign a petition
• Coercing to sign/not sign petition
• Misrepresenting contents of petition, or refusing to let signers read it
• Circulating a petition not in its entirety
• Forging names on a petition
• Permitting one person to sign for another
• Offering, seeking or receiving payment to abandon, sell or destroy a petition
• Using a petition for extortion or blackmail

Oregon is unique in that the chief proponents of an initiative proposal may be held liable for the unethical and illegal actions of their petition's circulators.

Laws governing petition circulators - Ballotpedia

Reminder it is a felony for circulators in oregon to falsify information on or about a petition.

 

[Skier]

Good Info. Thanks.

 

[guido1161]

Here's the full text

Moments ago, the Oregon Supreme Court denied two motions by the Chief Petitioners of IP 43.

Read the full document here.

In short, the Chief Petitioners were attempting to intervene in the appeals process to support the ballot title and file a memorandum in support of the ballot title.

Additionally, and more importantly, in the denial, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a deadline adjustment.

The original order from the court stated we had three days from the date the Oregon Attorney General files the answering memorandum (her document debating our argument as to why the ballot title is legally insufficient) to file our reply.

Now the order says three days from the date the AG's memo is due (June 18, 2018).

This is significant because the AG could have filed her memorandum prior to June 18th to speed up the process. With this change the timeline cannot be expedited by the actions of the AG.

As it stands this moment, it's possible that the signature gathering process may not be able to proceed until July 2nd. This leaves only four days to gather approximately 100,000 signatures – a near impossible feat.

As you know, these legal challenges are not cheap. If you wish to support our efforts, you can send donations via PayPal to [email protected] or by regular mail to PO Box 4193, Hillsboro, OR 97123.

Does anyone know if the AG filed her memorandum yesterday?

 

[daiello91]

Does anyone know if the AG filed her memorandum yesterday?

She did, prior to yesterday.

 

[guido1161]

Will the general public be able to view her response?