OFF ALERT Gun Ban Comments Swamp Secretary of State

Discussion in 'Oregon Firearms Federation' started by Northwest Firearms, May 11, 2018.

  1. Northwest Firearms

    Northwest Firearms
    Pacific Northwest
    Site Maintenance Bronze Supporter

    Likes Received:

    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

    Fax to 503.373.7414
    Mail to 255 Capitol St NE Ste 501, Salem OR 97310

    Your comments are due by May 15.

    If you would like to support our efforts to defeat these mindless attacks on our liberty, safety and heritage you can do so here.

    The post Gun Ban Comments Swamp Secretary of State appeared first on Oregon Firearms Federation.

    Oregon Firearms Federation
    MS2AConcealer likes this.
  2. 1Asterisk

    Eugene, OR
    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    4.1 million people in this state; only 1500 responded.
  3. Jonnyuma

    A Dirty Little Town in NW Oregon
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Better be one damn good lock or one dumb damn thief if they cant get a lock defeated in under 5 years.

    Email sent.
    Taco_lean and v0lcom13sn0w like this.
  4. Taco_lean

    SW WA
    Well-Known Member 2018 Volunteer

    Likes Received:
    Well their are your numbers for people who give enough of a bubblegum that their is even a possibility They will fight when the time comes! Sad state of affairs.
    WasrNwarpaint, Capn Jack and nammac like this.
  5. 41mag

    sunny Orygun
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter

    Likes Received:
    my response sent this AM:

    Elections Division:

    I am concerned with the lack of adequate description in the 'Draft Ballot Title' of this proposal.

    To simplistically assert "imposes penalties/liabilities" is inadequate description of the actions proposed in the body of the petition 44, in itself considerably flawed.

    Assigning criminal responsibility of the legal seller of a firearm today, for the criminal actions of another individual 5 years later, is a matter which demands considerable discussion in the public arena.

    Full disclosure of any such massive change in principles of common law demands better title description.
    The Heretic and medicmike63 like this.
  6. DuneHopper

    Civility is a two way street. Silver Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Likes Received:

    And OFF and the NRA in Oregon have way more members then 1500, this site does as well.
    And if they can't or are clueless to motivate members well, we will reap what we sow.

    As I have said and will continue to say, as long as we keep doing the same old B.S. to fight we will lose ground. Each year we lose ground and are content to do the same thing year after year.
    And we say the antis are dense geees .
    Last edited: May 12, 2018
    usausausa and Capn Jack like this.
  7. 1Asterisk

    Eugene, OR
    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Far, far short of even III%
    DuneHopper likes this.
  8. DuneHopper

    Civility is a two way street. Silver Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Likes Received:
    More like the .00003 % Not on our watch huh? Looks like no one is even watchingo_O
  9. Certaindeaf

    SE Portland
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Likes Received:
    They'll just say "Thanks for telling us!", change it to "Jack Sprat Could Eat No Lean" and take yer damn guns anyway.
  10. 2Wheels4Ever

    Central Oregon
    Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer

    Likes Received:
    Just goes to show how much of a minority we are. Few people in this state really care about the 2a, and this is exactly why it is so easy for the leaders to trample all over it. The voting populace just does not care.
    Caveman Jim likes this.
  11. Lexdiesel

    St. Helens

    Likes Received:
    I didn’t send anything in response to the measure title but I always vote against proposed gun laws. It’s also interesting to note that states that have passed such ban laws have seen a extremely low compliance rate. New York State has 5% compliance rate. Something to mention if you write to governmental respresentstives.

Share This Page