Oregon IP 43 Dead, Dead, Dead

[teflon6string]

Sadly, this is only a delay in the inevitable. The anti-gun whiners will renew their efforts, refine their language and push something else through, just as bad if not worse.

I am thankful to organizations and individuals who oppose this post-American foolishness.

 

[Pete F]

Got a link to that?

Truly bubblegumty if hes selling us out like that.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjb-IvDiPrbAhUrFjQIHa76BAoQFggnMAA&url=https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/06/oregon_assault_weapons_ban_won.html&usg=AOvVaw1BacWihAglgbhFJV2p4w5E

You're welcome. Has Knutsen's comments also.

 

[AlphaFreeze]

\

• Limiting high-capacity magazines to 5 rounds (hunters in Oregon are limited to 5 rounds when hunting large game like elk

Why do anti-gun people believe so firmly that the second amendment is for hunting? The SCOTUS has ruled many times and quoted the 2nd amendment being for participation in a militia. United States V. Miller upheld the NFA on the grounds that a short barreled shotgun was not constitutionally protected under the 2nd amendment because a weapon of that style was not actively in use by any militia. Then you have DC V. Heller affirming that the 2nd amendment is for self defense while not connected to service in a militia.

 

[U8395279]

so by Richardson's reasoning, it's OK to obtain sigs with a title and language that may require changes which some would NOT sign.
Talk about deception-----they could disguise the whole intent of the bill and later unwrap a real stinker with previous sigs.

On the face of it, it would seem that Richardson cannot see the harm of doing that.

How could he be that naive? This makes me wonder about him.

.

 

[U8395279]

Why do anti-gun people believe so firmly that the second amendment is for hunting? The SCOTUS has ruled many times and quoted the 2nd amendment being for participation in a militia. United States V. Miller upheld the NFA on the grounds that a short barreled shotgun was not constitutionally protected under the 2nd amendment because a weapon of that style was not actively in use by any militia. Then you have DC V. Heller affirming that the 2nd amendment is for self defense while not connected to service in a militia.

Dude: IP 43 would have virtually outlawed all hunting with anything deemed to be an assault weapon.

Even autoloading 22 rimfire rifles that have tube magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds would have been banned.

Don't believe for a second that hunting is not going to be targeted by the left.

 

[brenty]

We absolutely must somehow humanize ourselves in the media.

One of the main problems is, too most people theres just this "gun lobby" boogeyman, when really its real people, good people that are on our side.

 

[SUPER X]

If ALL gun owners did it, it would be quite a sight. Alas, I don't know how many have it in them.

I agree we have to tell them to shuv it but every one of us witch will be hard some guys with family's to support will fold .they have to be there for their children .

 

[SUPER X]

I think her vagina vacated the premises quite some time ago

OMG

 

[ageingstudent]

Perhaps the most troubling thing is that the explanation points to dropping the initiative over its language instead of simply reciting the 2A. So a rewrite with acceptable language (whatever that is) could get on the ballot and do the same dammage to our rights. It will be back with a change of clothes you can bet on it. If the court didn't want to see this kind of legislation again they would just recite the 2A and say "no". Perhaps I'm an idealist lol.

 

[SUPER X]

Perhaps the most troubling thing is that the explanation points to dropping the initiative over its language instead of simply reciting the 2A. So a rewrite with acceptable language (whatever that is) could get on the ballot and do the same dammage to our rights. It will be back with a change of clothes you can bet on it. If the court didn't want to see this kind of legislation again they would just recite the 2A and say "no". Perhaps I'm an idealist lol.

No this is unconstitutional would work for me also. guess they don't want to hurt heir feelings with something so far out of line as honesty.

 

[U8395279]

Sadly, this is only a delay in the inevitable. The anti-gun whiners will renew their efforts, refine their language and push something else through, just as bad if not worse.

I am thankful to organizations and individuals who oppose this post-American foolishness.

Well, yes. They have already stated that they will attempt to get a high capacity mag ban past by the Oregon legislature next year.

And version 2.0 of the Oregon Assault Rifle ban initiative will be coming back for the 2020 election.

Obama's allies are still in power in Oregon. They still want to "transform" our state and our country.

 

[teflon6string]

Well, yes. They have already stated that they will attempt to get a high capacity mag ban past by the Oregon legislature next year.

And version 2.0 of the Oregon Assault Rifle ban initiative will be coming back for the 2020 election.

Obama's allies are still in power in Oregon. They still want to "transform" our state and our country.


View attachment 473905

I wasn't in Europe early-mid last century, but this whole "disarm the citizenry" thing has a really creepy familiar feel to it.

 

[NW Backpacker]

I have a little less respect for our Secetary of State, Dennis Richardson after reading this. It was in the same KGW article as Knutson's. Petitioning the AG and OSC are part of the checks and balances with Initiatives, otherwise it would be the wild west with titles. Many voters are swayed by these emotionally charged titles - it is all that they read.

"Whether I agree or not with a particular cause, I strongly believe Oregonians should have the right to petition their government without the deck stacked against them," Richardson, a Republican, said in a press release. He referenced his unsuccessful appeal to the Legislature earlier this year to pass a bill to allow petitioners to begin collecting signatures using the attorney general's ballot title, even if that title is being appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Exactly right. I think Richardson changed the rules to allow signature gathering before the ballot title got final approval.

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewReceiptPDF.action?filingRsn=37757

Then, I think Our Oregon sued, and made him stop it:

Initiative petition rules suspended in wake of lawsuit

Maybe he's delusional and thinks he can still become governor some day, so he's playing politics trying to please everyone.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Why do anti-gun people believe so firmly that the second amendment is for hunting?

I assume that's a rhetorical question because the answer is right on the surface; it's the most restrictive interpretation they could find. Therefore popular with them, and when repeated often enough becomes what "everybody knows."

 

[3MTA3]

Exactly right. I think Richardson changed the rules to allow signature gathering before the ballot title got final approval.

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewReceiptPDF.action?filingRsn=37757

Then, I think Our Oregon sued, and made him stop it:

Initiative petition rules suspended in wake of lawsuit

Maybe he's delusional and thinks he can still become governor some day, so he's playing politics trying to please everyone.

I see the rule as a six of one, half a dozen of the other type of thing. While it would have allowed them to gather petitions while we challenged, what happens when we file a gun friendly initiative? They will use the same tactics (we learned dirty tactics from them) so the sword cuts both ways. I think Richardson's intent was to create a fair process to circumvent the challenge/delay tactic.

Our Oregon is a Union backed group. I don't think they would have challenged something that benefits gun owners let alone anything to the right of socialism. I noted that it was mentioned in the article that Our Oregon was objecting to a portion of the rule change regarding distribution of single signature petition sheets by signature gatherers.

 

[Pete F]

I see the rule as a six of one, half a dozen of the other type of thing. While it would have allowed them to gather petitions while we challenged, what happens when we file a gun friendly initiative? They will use the same tactics (we learned dirty tactics from them) so the sword cuts both ways. I think Richardson's intent was to create a fair process to circumvent the challenge/delay tactic.

Our Oregon is a Union backed group. I don't think they would have challenged something that benefits gun owners let alone anything to the right of socialism. I noted that it was mentioned in the article that Our Oregon was objecting to a portion of the rule change regarding distribution of single signature petition sheets by signature gatherers.

I don't think of them as dirty tactics. The Ballot Title for IP43 was inflammatory and deceptive. If they had started the process when they should have, no amount of "dirty tactics" would have stopped them from having plenty of time to gather signatures. They did it to themselves.

 

[arakboss]

Got a link to that?

Truly bubblegumty if hes selling us out like that.

That makes me worry about Sec Richardson as well.

 

[arakboss]

Sadly, this is only a delay in the inevitable. The anti-gun whiners will renew their efforts, refine their language and push something else through, just as bad if not worse.

I am thankful to organizations and individuals who oppose this post-American foolishness.

As they eluded to in the Oregonian article they are hoping for Salem to take care of it in 2019. And if the anti-gunners super majority is obtained they will take care of it.

 

[3MTA3]

As they eluded to in the Oregonian article they are hoping for Salem to take care of it in 2019. And if the anti-gunners super majority is obtained they will take care of it.

The 2/3 super majority is only required to overturn a Veto by the Governor. If Brown gets re-elected all they need is the 50%+ they already have.

 

[arakboss]

The 2/3 super majority is only required to overturn a Veto by the Governor. If Brown gets re-elected all they need is the 50%+ they already have.

From my understanding the super majority will allow them to pass tax legislation with out any Republican support therefore the Republicans won't have much if any sway to deter any legislation that the Dems want to pass. This is from Oregonian article:
"
Two years ago, the central question in Oregon legislative elections was whether Democrats could achieve the supermajority they needed to raise taxes.

That's the case again this year, with the answer to be decided in November. Democrats only need to win one additional seat in each chamber to hit supermajority status, meaning they would have the three-fifths vote required to pass tax bills without any Republican support.

But Democrats are also fighting their own internal battle in the May 15 primary that could determine whether the House and in particular the Senate shift further to the left.

Liberals' irritation has been growing in recent years, as some of their priority proposals on housing, climate change and corporate taxes died in the face of opposition from moderate and conservative Democrats, particularly in the Senate."