Oregon HB 3223 Assault Weapon Ban

[Stomper]

Emergency status also means it cannot be repealed by the public ballot measure option.... and that is EXACTLY why they put the "emergency" clause on it.


The voters had their chance to repeal the "emergency" clause during the "no more fake emergencies" campaign, but they voted to keep it.

 

[arakboss]

Does anyone who posts here have experience with IP process? I'm wondering if it would be feasible to bring forth an IP that would call for the removal of any legislator(s) and bar them from running again if they sponsor legislation that violates the constitutional rights of Oregon citizens. And I get it, the legislation would need to pass and then be challenged in the courts as to whether it violates the constitution, Oregon or U.S., before the offending legislator(s) could be removed, but just maybe it might tamp down some of this BS. That first drink of the weekend is happening earlier than usual.

According to Kevin at OFF the IP process can set you back $100k.

 

[arakboss]

Emergency status also means it cannot be repealed by the public ballot measure option.... and that is EXACTLY why they put the "emergency" clause on it.


The voters had their chance to repeal the "emergency" clause during the "no more fake emergencies" campaign, but they voted to keep it.

son of a biscuit, raise your hand if you still think these gun grabbers don't know what they're doing.

 

[arakboss]

What's the plan of attack on this one?

 

[Stomper]

son of a biscuit, raise your hand if you still think these gun grabbers don't know what they're doing.

That's because they have lots of time on their hands.....

 

[bunnybunny]

Anyone know how much this bill is supported? I know the under 21 gun ban and locking requirements is probably going to pass since Brown has publicly supported the bill and advocated for it.

My first inclination is that for this session there probably isn't enough time, desire, or priority for this type of "assault weapon" ban. I think the big referendum will be 2020 when it is voted on at the ballot box.

 

[Baseacegoku]

Yes you are not wrong. But how can we stop the apathy in the gun community? Im very vocal about this type of stuff. How do we as a community make people stand up? I know There's alot of people who live out in the south of the state who would stand and fight but don't how do we reach those people. I'm willing to stand up & let my voice be heard & organize I'll go wash the windows of the o.f.f office in canby if it helps. I'm all ears brother.

contact your reps and voice your opposition to the bill. Show up for the ralley at the capitol. Do whatever you can, take newbies out shooting. We cannot make anyone else do anything but we can influence others. Dont get apathetic.

 

[Zathras]

If I understand it from Stomper, the emergency clause prohibits veto petition.

It could indeed cost $100k. I think the Veto effort in CA in 2016 was done on a pretty tight budget of just over $50k (it's mostly for paper printing), and that was for 7 gun bills (there were 2 additional unrelated ones, but not sure who paid for those). This assumes you have a fully volunteer workforce as well, which we had (driving/gas money, food, tables, pens, clipboards for Legal-size petitions, etc. all come out of pocket). Many petitions that you see (especially these anti-gun ones) cost in the millions since they pay professional signature gatherers. Ie. Gavin Newsom paid $7M or something close to that for Prop63.

I think even if you're unsuccessful, if you attempt a petition to formally challenge/overturn something, you'll learn real quick just who will stand with you in Oregon. In California, they could not get much beyond 100k signatures (state-wide) out of 365k or so required in 2016, and that is in a population well beyond what OR would have. If you were able to achieve sufficient signatures (not sure what the number would be in OR - usually some percentage of the population, like 5%), it'd show legislators (on both sides of the issue) as well as citizens on the sidelines what OR gun owners think.

It could also backfire, because if you don't get enough (like CA did not), you will continue to get steamrolled because they'll view you as weak and unable to mount sufficient opposition. Gun owners in CA saw their hopes dashed on the rocks, and many got pretty disheartened by it. Now, all Dem legislators see there in the gun community is 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'. Don't let that happen in OR. Make sure you have reasonable confidence you can get the signatures.

 

[arakboss]

If I understand it from Stomper, the emergency clause prohibits veto petition.

It could indeed cost $100k. I think the Veto effort in CA in 2016 was done on a pretty tight budget of just over $50k (it's mostly for paper printing), and that was for 7 gun bills (there were 2 additional unrelated ones, but not sure who paid for those). This assumes you have a fully volunteer workforce as well, which we had (driving/gas money, food, tables, pens, clipboards for Legal-size petitions, etc. all come out of pocket). Many petitions that you see (especially these anti-gun ones) cost in the millions since they pay professional signature gatherers. Ie. Gavin Newsom paid $7M or something close to that for Prop63.

I think even if you're unsuccessful, if you attempt a petition to formally challenge/overturn something, you'll learn real quick just who will stand with you in Oregon. In California, they could not get much beyond 100k signatures (state-wide) out of 365k or so required in 2016, and that is in a population well beyond what OR would have. If you were able to achieve sufficient signatures (not sure what the number would be in OR - usually some percentage of the population, like 5%), it'd show legislators (on both sides of the issue) as well as citizens on the sidelines what OR gun owners think.

It could also backfire, because if you don't get enough (like CA did not), you will continue to get steamrolled because they'll view you as weak and unable to mount sufficient opposition. Gun owners in CA saw their hopes dashed on the rocks, and many got pretty disheartened by it. Now, all Dem legislators see there in the gun community is 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'. Don't let that happen in OR. Make sure you have reasonable confidence you can get the signatures.

Yeah this is not a good option to pursue, imho

 

[FireArm]

This 2019 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist

Oh look, another fake 'emergency' that this'll do nothing to resolve.

Thats so the public doesnt get to vote on it. And it will be shoved down our thoats.

 

[arakboss]

contact your reps and voice your opposition to the bill. Show up for the ralley at the capitol. Do whatever you can, take newbies out shooting. We cannot make anyone else do anything but we can influence others. Don't get apathetic.

We need to do more. Everything you suggested is fine and dandy but it hasn't produced great results in the past. We need an IP43 type effort x100 with some gamma radiation thrown in for good measure.
Seriously this dung has to stop! Legally owned and used S/A firearms are not a big problem. At the same time we apply a herculean effort towards the legislative battle, we have to push the narrative that suicide and criminals are the real problem and offer up ways to mitigate them that the public will get behind.

 

[BSG 75]

Does anyone who posts here have experience with IP process? I'm wondering if it would be feasible to bring forth an IP that would call for the removal of any legislator(s) and bar them from running again if they sponsor legislation that violates the constitutional rights of Oregon citizens. And I get it, the legislation would need to pass and then be challenged in the courts as to whether it violates the constitution, Oregon or U.S., before the offending legislator(s) could be removed, but just maybe it might tamp down some of this BS. That first drink of the weekend is happening earlier than usual.

Legislative immunity, also known as parliamentary immunity or parliamentary privilege, protects legislators from prosecution for doing their jobs, which is creating legislation.

legislative immunity
A legal doctrine that prevents legislators from being sued for actions performed and decisions made in the course of serving in government. This doctrine does not protect legislators from criminal prosecution, nor does it relieve them from responsibility for actions outside the scope of their office.

If legislators pass an "unconstitutional" (in your opinion) law, you challenge it in court.

If you don't like the laws certain legislators are passing, you get a chance every couple of years to vote for better legislators.

If a majority of your fellow citizens like the laws the legislature is passing and keep on re-electing those politicians, you can always move to a state where most citizens have views more similar to yours. That's the federalism system the Founders created.

3a. The Founders and Federalism

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and George Washington were advocates of the federal system.

In their attempt to balance order with liberty, the Founders identified several reasons for creating a federalist government:

to avoid tyranny
to allow more participation in politics
to use the states as "laboratories" for new ideas and programs.

Electing both state and national officials also increases the input of citizens into their government. And if a state adopts a disastrous new policy, at least it would not be a catastrophe for everyone. On the other hand, if a state's new programs work well, other states can adopt their ideas and adjust them to their own needs.

The Founders and Federalism [ushistory.org]

 

[arakboss]

If you don't like the laws certain legislators are passing, you get a chance every couple of years to vote for better legislators.

This is what needs to happen. Ask yourself what can or will I do to make this happen?

 

[BSG 75]

This is what needs to happen. Ask yourself what can or will I do to make this happen?

Have you checked the party affiliation of registered voters in Oregon?


https://data.oregon.gov/Administrative/Voter-Registration-by-County/ef2p-uin9

Oregon is a very blue state. Washington is similar. Democrats currently have supermajorities in both chambers of the Oregon Legislature. Oregon Democrats secure supermajorities in both chambers of Oregon Legislature

There are a lot of Democratic voters in Oregon, and the politicians they elect and re-elect tend to like gun control.

 

[arakboss]

Original language readsD) Turn in the assault weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction;

I would like to offer up this amendment to the bill:
(D) Turn in the assault weapon to a law enforcement agency or Benchmade for destruction;

 

[arakboss]

Have you checked the party affiliation of registered voters in Oregon?

View attachment 553790

Oregon is a very blue state. Washington is similar. Democrats currently have supermajorities in both chambers of the Oregon Legislature. https://www.statesmanjournal.com/st...ure-senate-house-election-results/1916885002/

There are a lot of Democratic voters in Oregon, and the politicians they elect and re-elect tend to like gun control.

I understand and it's getting worse for R's every year. There were some close elections though. You would have to admit that our effort thus far has not been strong? 2020 is going to be tough because of Never Trump sentiment Democrat turnout will likely be very very high.

 

[arakboss]

Have you checked the party affiliation of registered voters in Oregon?

View attachment 553790

Oregon is a very blue state. Washington is similar. Democrats currently have supermajorities in both chambers of the Oregon Legislature. Oregon Democrats secure supermajorities in both chambers of Oregon Legislature

There are a lot of Democratic voters in Oregon, and the politicians they elect and re-elect tend to like gun control.

What is the year this data was tallied, can you provide link to source?

 

[308]

There is a reason none of the GPD liked her.

 

[BSG 75]

I understand and it's getting worse for R's every year.

That's an understatement. The last time Oregon elected a Republican governor was 1982 (37 years ago).

The Democrats are on a long winning streak, and the voter composition of Oregon means that winning streak is likely to continue.






Oregon will soon be like California, a permanent one-party state, if it isn't already.

Oregon gun owners from now on will be like California gun owners, under constant assault by new and increasingly onerous gun control laws.

 

[cigars]

Legislative immunity, also known as parliamentary immunity or parliamentary privilege, protects legislators from prosecution for doing their jobs, which is creating legislation.



If legislators pass an "unconstitutional" (in your opinion) law, you challenge it in court.

If you don't like the laws certain legislators are passing, you get a chance every couple of years to vote for better legislators.

If a majority of your fellow citizens like the laws the legislature is passing and keep on re-electing those politicians, you can always move to a state where most citizens have views more similar to yours. That's the federalism system the Founders created.

It would be interesting if these legislators could be charged under the RICO act for conspiring to dissolve Constitutional rights. Or something along those lines. It would be nice if Trump's AG took national action of some kind to stop what these anti-gun states have been getting away with.