- Messages
- 693
- Reactions
- 797
Let's Keep up the W's!!!! And let the Anti's be the L's!!!!
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Oregon IP 43 Dead, Dead, Dead
- Thread Starter daiello91
- Start date
Absolutely true. Face it, gun owners are a minority. Until we can beat back the antis constant demonization of us as "the problem" it will be increasingly difficult to portray ourselves as responsible citizens just like everyone else.
How many times have we not seen the term "gun nuts" applied to us as in irresponsible mentally unstable fanatics owning firearms.
How many times does a news report on the gun issue always take place in a gun shop where the camera does nothing but pan over all the evil black rifles, as in those are the only firearms we own and use.
How many times are we not portrayed as totally insensitive to mass shootings or that owning firearms means "not caring about the safety of children".
Etc, etc...
I understand, but we have to get people to see our side or we loose. This is not for the politicians---it's to educate the average and below average voter."Shall not be infringed"!! How is that for a short, concise, accurate statement?? "We" shouldn't have to be making any further arguments. "We" need to vote to ensure the Constitution and Bill of Rights are followed. Those not happy with the B of R should leave the country, or initiate a Constitutional Convention to change them.
One of the outspoken dweebs is often shown with a Cuban flag on her shoulder. Cuba is a good example of a society where only the Government is armed. She should move there, I am sure she would feel MUCH safer!
- Messages
- 245
- Reactions
- 168
i know its water under the bridge at this point, but yesterday before I head the news of the Courts opinion, i picked up the new copy of the Portland Mercury, which contained an article titled "In the Crosshairs" --- it inspired me to write back, -- see article . So I did. maybe some of you will like it.
--------
Kelly Kenoyer "In the Crosshairs" vs. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON - No. 32 June 27, 2018
I read Kelly Kenoyer's article, and the use of gross overgeneralizations and assumptions, regarding IP 43 and its opponents began to inspire me, so I began typing a response of dissent to Kenoyer's article In the Crosshairs. Meanwhile unbeknownst to me the Supreme Court of Oregon was issuing its opinion on IP 43 the same day, which stated this voter proposed initiative contains "inaccurate wording"[which]… does not accurately state" [limits], but still imposes a Class B felony, which it then fails to describe accurately. The Court "agree with petitioners [the "gun lobby" in Kenoyer's article] that the creation of a new felony—which carries far more significant penalties than a misdemeanor" must be addressed with far greater precision.
The court also "conclude(s) that the caption" contained within in the ballot title itself, which your reporter Kelly Kenoyer concluded was a "trivial matter" in her article, this inconsequential material "would confuse or mislead voters about the measure's subject matter" as to what "was meant by the terms "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines." In fact the definition of "assault weapons" is so broad that even according to the courts view "many semiautomatic" would fall under that definition. The Oregon Supreme Court previously has determined that using a quoted term [in this case assault weapons] in the title of the measure may not be permissible, when the measure defines the term in an "uncommon, if not unique" manner. "The Attorney General acknowledges the lack of a shared understanding of the terms "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines," [and] voters likely would not recognize that many "commonly used" items would be so "[en]snared." The court referenced precedents dating back to what some readers might remember as "job performance" for schoolteachers, and "clearcutting"… "when the proposed measure gave that term "a very different and uncommon meaning," but the caption did not so notify voters." The Court agreed, "different voters reasonably could draw different meanings from the term "assault weapons"...even if surrounded by quotation marks and accompanied by "(defined)", because this only succeeds to "confuse or mislead voters about the measure's subject matter…[and that] the caption does not substantially comply with ORS 250.035 (2)(a)."
This is not the only legal problem the court found with IP 43's wording; "The registration exception is another effect that flows from that prohibition… We [the members of the court state] agree with petitioners, however, that the caption inaccurately describes the registration exception…[and that] important aspects of IP 43 are either omitted or are described using only vague descriptions without any context." The court also agreed additional statements made later in the summary, when "read together" could be confused with other criteria, which again would mislead Oregonians in their understanding of what in actuality is the width and "the breadth of [IP 43's] impact."
Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum, stated in her view " "the measure specifies locations where registered firearms may be taken or held, which may limit the lawful uses of those firearms," but the Oregon Supreme court further stated "we agree with petitioners that the summary does not accurately state that IP 43 would impose limits on the use of registered items." – which is in stark disagreement with our AG. The Courts opinion concluded, "that the statement that IP 43 "may limit uses of covered items" is inaccurate. That statement conveys that the proposed measure may—or may not—limit the use" of the intended personal property beyond what is currently permissible.
Kelly Kenoyer goes on to state that people like me and over 1000 others wrote into the state in regards to a "a seemingly trivial matter," which is simply the ballot title, but that is once again a overly simplistic view of the public outcry of IP 43. This "seemingly trivial matter" is what will be included in the language of the voter pamphlet, not only the ballot title, but the summary of the bill, and what a yes/no vote to present and future Oregonians will mean. All of these individual aspects of IP 43 are and could be considered extremely important, as the language that sells this bill to the voters is itself disingenuous and fraught with semantics, which evoke negative emotions, simply around the terms "assault weapon," and "large capacity magazine."
Kenoyer's assumption that over 1000 comments to the Sec. of State and to the AG Ellen Rosenbum, were merely "to delay" is farfetched, as even the courts have affirmed official disagreement in what IP 43 would actually effect; Even Debra Royal as quoted in your article said that receiving this amount of outcry was "highly unusual."
Kenoyer took another shot at defending IP 44, and again she provided an oversimplified and supportive stance. It is somewhat true gun rights advocates such as myself do feel that these two propositions violate the second amendment; your reporter had that assumption correct. Strangely enough I find myself planted in two worlds, as a registered Democrat and a gun owner I do stand for the expansion of civil rights granted to us by our government, which also includes the controversial support of the 2nd amendment.
Judge Alex Kozinski's who served on the 9th circuit stated a position so eloquently that resonates with me and possibly other so called members of the "gun lobby" when he said in his descent opinion on Silveria v. Lockyer (2003), "the simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out… My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history… The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed… However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." Judge Kozinski's parents were survivors of the holocaust, and his intimate worldview of this key issue may be bias, as well it should be.
There were 10 days to respond, to the ballot title as you stated in your article, but "the gun lobby [advocates] waited until the very last day – another attempt to delay the initiative." Firstly, the Oregon Constitution sets the deadline, and people like myself, and possibly others want to make sure our position is clearly stated and attempts to define the problems as we see them with the proposed bill. This takes time, and research, crossing the t's and dotting the i ' s if you will. I mean if you editor gives you a deadline, of 10 days, do you just give him your first draft, or do you go over it with a fine tooth comb to make sure all of your facts are straight, well never mind, by the look of this article, its easy to see that In the Crosshairs is simply propaganda aimed at discrediting people who stand behind what you might say is a "seemingly trivial matter" of – "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,[which] shall not be infringed."
--------
Kelly Kenoyer "In the Crosshairs" vs. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON - No. 32 June 27, 2018
I read Kelly Kenoyer's article, and the use of gross overgeneralizations and assumptions, regarding IP 43 and its opponents began to inspire me, so I began typing a response of dissent to Kenoyer's article In the Crosshairs. Meanwhile unbeknownst to me the Supreme Court of Oregon was issuing its opinion on IP 43 the same day, which stated this voter proposed initiative contains "inaccurate wording"[which]… does not accurately state" [limits], but still imposes a Class B felony, which it then fails to describe accurately. The Court "agree with petitioners [the "gun lobby" in Kenoyer's article] that the creation of a new felony—which carries far more significant penalties than a misdemeanor" must be addressed with far greater precision.
The court also "conclude(s) that the caption" contained within in the ballot title itself, which your reporter Kelly Kenoyer concluded was a "trivial matter" in her article, this inconsequential material "would confuse or mislead voters about the measure's subject matter" as to what "was meant by the terms "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines." In fact the definition of "assault weapons" is so broad that even according to the courts view "many semiautomatic" would fall under that definition. The Oregon Supreme Court previously has determined that using a quoted term [in this case assault weapons] in the title of the measure may not be permissible, when the measure defines the term in an "uncommon, if not unique" manner. "The Attorney General acknowledges the lack of a shared understanding of the terms "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines," [and] voters likely would not recognize that many "commonly used" items would be so "[en]snared." The court referenced precedents dating back to what some readers might remember as "job performance" for schoolteachers, and "clearcutting"… "when the proposed measure gave that term "a very different and uncommon meaning," but the caption did not so notify voters." The Court agreed, "different voters reasonably could draw different meanings from the term "assault weapons"...even if surrounded by quotation marks and accompanied by "(defined)", because this only succeeds to "confuse or mislead voters about the measure's subject matter…[and that] the caption does not substantially comply with ORS 250.035 (2)(a)."
This is not the only legal problem the court found with IP 43's wording; "The registration exception is another effect that flows from that prohibition… We [the members of the court state] agree with petitioners, however, that the caption inaccurately describes the registration exception…[and that] important aspects of IP 43 are either omitted or are described using only vague descriptions without any context." The court also agreed additional statements made later in the summary, when "read together" could be confused with other criteria, which again would mislead Oregonians in their understanding of what in actuality is the width and "the breadth of [IP 43's] impact."
Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum, stated in her view " "the measure specifies locations where registered firearms may be taken or held, which may limit the lawful uses of those firearms," but the Oregon Supreme court further stated "we agree with petitioners that the summary does not accurately state that IP 43 would impose limits on the use of registered items." – which is in stark disagreement with our AG. The Courts opinion concluded, "that the statement that IP 43 "may limit uses of covered items" is inaccurate. That statement conveys that the proposed measure may—or may not—limit the use" of the intended personal property beyond what is currently permissible.
Kelly Kenoyer goes on to state that people like me and over 1000 others wrote into the state in regards to a "a seemingly trivial matter," which is simply the ballot title, but that is once again a overly simplistic view of the public outcry of IP 43. This "seemingly trivial matter" is what will be included in the language of the voter pamphlet, not only the ballot title, but the summary of the bill, and what a yes/no vote to present and future Oregonians will mean. All of these individual aspects of IP 43 are and could be considered extremely important, as the language that sells this bill to the voters is itself disingenuous and fraught with semantics, which evoke negative emotions, simply around the terms "assault weapon," and "large capacity magazine."
Kenoyer's assumption that over 1000 comments to the Sec. of State and to the AG Ellen Rosenbum, were merely "to delay" is farfetched, as even the courts have affirmed official disagreement in what IP 43 would actually effect; Even Debra Royal as quoted in your article said that receiving this amount of outcry was "highly unusual."
Kenoyer took another shot at defending IP 44, and again she provided an oversimplified and supportive stance. It is somewhat true gun rights advocates such as myself do feel that these two propositions violate the second amendment; your reporter had that assumption correct. Strangely enough I find myself planted in two worlds, as a registered Democrat and a gun owner I do stand for the expansion of civil rights granted to us by our government, which also includes the controversial support of the 2nd amendment.
Judge Alex Kozinski's who served on the 9th circuit stated a position so eloquently that resonates with me and possibly other so called members of the "gun lobby" when he said in his descent opinion on Silveria v. Lockyer (2003), "the simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out… My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history… The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed… However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." Judge Kozinski's parents were survivors of the holocaust, and his intimate worldview of this key issue may be bias, as well it should be.
There were 10 days to respond, to the ballot title as you stated in your article, but "the gun lobby [advocates] waited until the very last day – another attempt to delay the initiative." Firstly, the Oregon Constitution sets the deadline, and people like myself, and possibly others want to make sure our position is clearly stated and attempts to define the problems as we see them with the proposed bill. This takes time, and research, crossing the t's and dotting the i ' s if you will. I mean if you editor gives you a deadline, of 10 days, do you just give him your first draft, or do you go over it with a fine tooth comb to make sure all of your facts are straight, well never mind, by the look of this article, its easy to see that In the Crosshairs is simply propaganda aimed at discrediting people who stand behind what you might say is a "seemingly trivial matter" of – "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,[which] shall not be infringed."
- Messages
- 1,103
- Reactions
- 3,065
sounds like snowflake crap to me Im not going to apologize for not caving to the new PC crowd and the names they call us & name calling is the only thing they are good at
so who gives a rats a$$ what names the democrats call us......your not going to change the mind of a hoplophob with an irrational fear of guns....it's an exercise in futility
we are law abiding & SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.... its in the 2nd and that's our stance
Change it if you don't like it but till that time ....its SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 3,136
- Reactions
- 7,146
Yes they are already speaking of it. Banning assault weapon will stop all the gang shootings that are done with handguns in beautiful Portland
Last Edited:
Just be a good little citizen....comply
I am a good citizen, that's why I won't.
And I know for a fact that our county sheriff is against the idea and will not enforce it. So again, what are they going to really do?
- Messages
- 1,959
- Reactions
- 7,015
Just be a good little citizen....comply
Tell me, comrade, have you taken your soma today?
the only gun control that has passed through is by the phoney emergency clause being used as a road to a dictatorship.And if they do push through some BS "emergency" measure, they really expect us to comply?
I agree. Again, how will that make any of us comply?
Well, I did see a group of women yelling at Trump from their vaginas the other day - maybe they'll try that? I'm sure Gov. Kate will take the lead
Put away in a cage and never heard from again
If ALL gun owners did it, it would be quite a sight. Alas, I don't know how many have it in them.
There aren't enough cages......and that would also imply they are able to enforce it to begin with.....
And that right there is the root of the problem...
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
Central Wyoming Machine Gun And Cannon Shoot
- Laramie, WY
Ladies only beginning trap shooting
- Albany, OR
Classic Sportsman Gun & Knife Show
- Monroe, WA
New Classified Ads
-
Trijicon AGOG 3.5x35 TA11H Red Horseshoe .223 Ballistic
- Started by gun_dude
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
3 Glock 19 Ban era LE/MIL marked 15rd magazines $95 shipped- Started by aljames
- Replies: 0
-
12.5 Geissele Barrel with CMT Tano Rail
- Started by BeardedLegend
- Replies: 0
-
Staccato xl never fired with bag, paperwork and original mags- Started by AlaskinAssasin
- Replies: 0
-
-
-