Oregon Initiative Petition 43: Bans Shooting on Public Lands and all Hunting with 'Assault Weapons'?

[MAJMOX]

I am reading the newest Initiative Petition 43 filed on 22-Mar-18 and I noted something that no one in the gun community is really talking about. This initiative seems to also ban hunting and recreational shooting on public lands with any so-defined 'Assault Weapon'.

The text essentially says that even if you register your 'assault weapons' with the state, you can only possess them on private property and while 'engaged in the legal use of the assault weapon or large capacity magazine, at a public or private shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designated and build for the purpose of target shooing' and only 'while transporting the weapon in a vehicle as permitted in ORS 166.250 to one of the locations authorized under this statute.'

So this initiative petition:
1. Bans hunting with a modern semi-automatic rifle defined as an 'assault weapon' (target shooting is not hunting).
2. Bans shooting on public lands, which would include all State and National Forests (because you can only possess your 'assault weapon' on private property).
3. Bans possession in your vehicle unless you're headed to the range for 'target practice'.
4. Bans use of an 'assault weapon' as a defensive weapon. They are only 'allowed' to be used for target practice. This is especially interesting in that the Oregon Constitution specifically allows for arms to be used for 'defence' (their spelling).

This initiative not only attempts to govern semi-auto rifles, pistols and magazines, it is also putting huge restrictions on where you can enjoy the shooting sports. It's insane and I haven't heard a word on the news or in any of the news stories about this.

I bet middle of road gun rights voters would push back on this if this was widely understood. What do you guys/gals think?

See the full language in Section 5, Paragraph (4), Sub-Paragraph (b), Sub-sub-paragraphs A-F.

Read More

 

[Stomper]

What do I think? I think that IF this should happen to pass I will NOT comply and do as I have always done and live my life as a free and peaceful citizen until such time as peace is no longer possible.... that's what I think.

And to illucidate further on my thoughts, I'll direct you to my signature below...

 

[CountryGent]

It just keeps getting better and better.

 

[308]

It just keeps getting better and better.

Thats because it is not what they say it is about.

 

[IOM]

This just keeps getting better and better...!!!

 

[cpy911]

Use a bolt or levergun? Or get a CA compliant kit where you open the action to load? There are enough people behind this that it has a chance of passing. This would be a good thing as it would wake us up to what Oregon has become. Born here in Willamette valley in the 70's and I don't recognize this place anymore.

 

[CountryGent]

As an illustration of how brainless this proposed law is: I've been working on this rifle,* on and off, for over a year to use it as a coyote hunting rifle when I can get back to it. I've replaced the stock, installed a scope, installed some other small parts, and (this is the one that makes it "naughty") had a gunsmith thread the barrel. My reason was so that I could install an adapter to attach a registered, tax-paid silencer. (Which, parenthetically, took well over a year to receive approval from our federal friends.)

* This one.


So, if this monstrosity passes, all that cost and work down the drain. Well, I guess I can still use it to hunt on my own acreage, but no where else in the state in which I was born. What a load of bovine feces.

 

[Quartermaster]

There is enough nonsense in the proposal that it would never pass constitutional review. Period. Yes, it should be fought so it never makes it to the ballot, but there is enough self-destructive language in this proposal that I'm not going to lose sleep over it. It was written by morons who haven't the faintest clue about guns, their use, or their owners.

They're throwing EVERYTHING at the wall to see what sticks.

 

[Rem700..300]

I find the BLM or National Forest part interesting since Oregon doesnt "own" those. Was going to write a letter to the paper this weekend pointing out some of these thing. If Im reading the init correctly and some of what has been said on NWFA the "may except" large capacity magazines in pretty much all semi autos. Not they come with them but you could possibly put one in if you had one. Am I reading that part correctly? I think most people are signing this mess only are trying to ban the AK and AR where instead it will end up being their carry gun or their spouse's or partner's carry gun. If they realize that then maybe it will be a NO VOTE . The language is really vague. I'm sure on purpose.

 

[warnerwh]

If the NRA does not sue if this passes I will relinquish my membership permanently. Our new governor sucks and our state has been taken over by liberals mostly from California. Hopefully they won't get enough signatures but if it passed I will move to red state. Oregon isn't what it used to be.

 

[tiggers97]

Good point. when the open comments period opens up, we need to include this.

And good point on the 'letter to the editor'. We need to do more of this in order to educate the general public that this doesn't ban bumpstocks, or even just 'assault weapons' as they have been led to believe. It goes far far beyond that.

as for range, if it is a long-established public outdoors area for target shooting, I wonder if they would really ban it. Like the rock pit quarry in Tillamock forest. Maybe we need to make clear established current areas to safely shoot? Anyone know how to add google/bing/etc map markers to their map software?

 

[The Heretic]

Use a bolt or levergun? Or get a CA compliant kit where you open the action to load? There are enough people behind this that it has a chance of passing. This would be a good thing as it would wake us up to what Oregon has become. Born here in Willamette valley in the 70's and I don't recognize this place anymore.

Might as well move to California if this passes and isn't beat down in court (I doubt the latter - if it could be beat in court, then Calif. gun owners would have done that).

I've been here since the '50s and I do not recognize it either, although it does feel like home when I ignore the politics.

 

[The Heretic]

There is enough nonsense in the proposal that it would never pass constitutional review. Period. Yes, it should be fought so it never makes it to the ballot, but there is enough self-destructive language in this proposal that I'm not going to lose sleep over it. It was written by morons who haven't the faintest clue about guns, their use, or their owners.

They're throwing EVERYTHING at the wall to see what sticks.

They made it stick in Calif

 

[MAJMOX]

As an illustration of how brainless this proposed law is: I've been working on this rifle,* on and off, for over a year to use it as a coyote hunting rifle when I can get back to it. I've replaced the stock, installed a scope, installed some other small parts, and (this is the one that makes it "naughty") had a gunsmith thread the barrel. My reason was so that I could install an adapter to attach a registered, tax-paid silencer. (Which, parenthetically, took well over a year to receive approval from our federal friends.)

* This one.
View attachment 445049

So, if this monstrosity passes, all that cost and work down the drain. Well, I guess I can still use it to hunt on my own acreage, but no where else in the state in which I was born. What a load of bovine feces.

Beautiful build!

 

[cigars]

Roseanne needs to talk about guns in her next episode.

 

[bbbass]

Might as well move to California .

NEVER!!! Orange County is still for the most part conservative, mostly, but San Diego is lost. Who the hell can afford to live in that state anyway??? (Rhetorical)

 

[The Heretic]

NEVER!!! Orange County is still for the most part conservative, mostly, but San Diego is lost. Who the hell can afford to live in that state anyway??? (Rhetorical)

Not thinking of anything south of Napa Valley.

I would not want to go there, but if I did it would be along the coast (more or less), up north.

 

[bbbass]

Not thinking of anything south of Napa Valley.

I would not want to go there, but if I did it would be along the coast (more or less), up north.

I had thought about being stationed at Arcata, it's a pretty nice place, but they had the smaller USCG helos. Different crew.

 

[The Heretic]

I had thought about being stationed at Arcata, it's a pretty nice place, but they had the smaller USCG helos. Different crew.

It regularly is pretty windy there, from just below there up to North Bend/Coos Bay.

But if you go inland, especially from there into Grants Pass, it can be pretty nice.

101 from Cloverdale north is pretty nice too - especially around Legett

 

[eliduc]

There is enough nonsense in the proposal that it would never pass constitutional review. Period. Yes, it should be fought so it never makes it to the ballot, but there is enough self-destructive language in this proposal that I'm not going to lose sleep over it. It was written by morons who haven't the faintest clue about guns, their use, or their owners.

They're throwing EVERYTHING at the wall to see what sticks.

As we have seen with many Trump efforts to control our border it doesn't have to pass "constitutional review" it only has to be ruled on by a left wing judge.