Oregon IP-44; thoughts

[3MTA3]

I created a thread 4 days ago announcing that it is time to get our challenges ready and there have not been any posts so far or challenges shared at this point. I really hope people aren't going to let this one slide by because it seems not as bad as IP-43, however, it still leaves a lot of concern. Having said that, I am not really sure how we are going to challenge this one if the owner has said firearm in their possession is not required to have it locked. This doesn't seem to apply to DC v. Heller because it still allows one access to defend themselves. Also, the 5 year rule only applies if the owner does not have said firearm locked when transferring or in the case of not reporting its loss or theft. What I don't understand is how this law would be enforced or how we can prove we were in compliance. Do we need to take a picture of the new owner receiving said firearm with the lock engaged? Would the burden of proof be on the seller or the buyer? Whatever the case is, let's get our challenges out before May 15th.

Oregon - It's here - 2018 IP-44 Draft Ballot Title

Just because it hasn't been posted does not mean there haven't been challenges. I think a few of us are still working on IP43 challenges as well. Something to bear in mind is that if you publish what you send it can be matched to your forum handle. Many people want to remain anonymous on these forums for varied reasons. It may not make a difference to some, but others could lose jobs or be otherwise targeted if they live in progressive areas.

Please do keep reminding folks to challenge the titles and do whatever they can to defeat these initiatives.

 

[3MTA3]

Recently, a robber was sentenced to 13 months in prison for holding up a Dutch Bros with a gun!! I thought the "gun" was supposed to add 5 years to whatever other crime was committed. Yet, if 43 passes, I am sure we will see homeowners sentenced to the full 10 years for nothing more than minding their own business!!

That's the real issue - why aren't we enforcing the laws already on the books that would make a real difference? Maybe we need an IP to require enforcement of existing laws?

 

[JavaDude]

Just because it hasn't been posted does not mean there haven't been challenges. I think a few of us are still working on IP43 challenges as well. Something to bear in mind is that if you publish what you send it can be matched to your forum handle. Many people want to remain anonymous on these forums for varied reasons. It may not make a difference to some, but others could lose jobs or be otherwise targeted if they live in progressive areas.

Please do keep reminding folks to challenge the titles and do whatever they can to defeat these initiatives.

I hear what you are saying regarding anonymity that is a legitimate concern.

 

[SnapShot]

so i was looking through the OR Constitution... which I highlighted some of these things in RED which i thought were contrary to the ip 43/44... some im not sure of. I'm working on a letter to the Sec State.






CONSTITUTION OF OREGON

2017 EDITION

ARTICLE I

BILL OF RIGHTS





Section 9. Unreasonable searches or seizures. No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.—


Does this prop. Create a list of people who will be now under probable cause have their persons, houses, papers and effects, searched and seized?



Section 20. Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.—


Is there an exclusion for police offers / law enforcement that active duty or retired stating that they can possess these types of firearms, whereby creating a separate 'class of citizen privileges or immunities"



Section 21. Ex-post facto laws; laws impairing contracts; laws depending on authorization in order to take effect; laws submitted to electors. No ex-post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall ever be passed, nor shall any law be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution; provided, that laws locating the Capitol of the State, locating County Seats, and submitting town, and corporate acts, and other local, and Special laws may take effect, or not, upon a vote of the electors interested.—


My understanding of Ex-post facto, are laws that are laws that are retroactive – does this apply, because when these firearms were obtained they were legal, but due to this proposition, they now illegal. --- the impairing the obligation of contract – would be our own section 27. Or the right to bear arms in the OR constitution





Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]


the most popular firearm used in the us for defense ….would become illegal.


ARTICLE II

SUFFRAGE AND ELECTIONS



Section 23. Approval by more than majority required for certain measures submitted to people. (1) Any measure that includes any proposed requirement for more than a majority of votes cast by the electorate to approve any change in law or government action shall become effective only if approved by at least the same percentage of voters specified in the proposed voting requirement.

(2) For the purposes of this section, "measure" includes all initiatives and all measures referred to the voters by the Legislative Assembly.

(3) The requirements of this section apply to all measures presented to the voters at the November 3, 1998 election and thereafter.

(4) The purpose of this section is to prevent greater-than-majority voting requirements from being imposed by only a majority of the voters.


[Created through initiative petition filed Jan. 15, 1998, and adopted by the people Nov. 3, 1998]

Section 1. Legislative power; initiative and referendum. (1) The legislative power of the state, except for the initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people, is vested in a Legislative Assembly, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

(2)(a) The people reserve to themselves the initiative power, which is to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and enact or reject them at an election independently of the Legislative Assembly.

(b) An initiative law may be proposed only by a petition signed by a number of qualified voters equal to six percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the election at which a Governor was elected for a term of four years next preceding the filing of the petition.

(c) An initiative amendment to the Constitution may be proposed only by a petition signed by a number of qualified voters equal to eight percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the election at which a Governor was elected for a term of four years next preceding the filing of the petition.

(d) An initiative petition shall include the full text of the proposed law or amendment to the Constitution. A proposed law or amendment to the Constitution shall embrace one subject only and matters properly connected therewith.


ONE SUBJECT ONLY ---------


ARTICLE IV

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

section 20. Subject and title of Act. Every Act shall embrace but one subject, and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an Act which shall not be expressed in the title, such Act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be expressed in the title.

This section shall not be construed to prevent the inclusion in an amendatory Act, under a proper title, of matters otherwise germane to the same general subject, although the title or titles of the original Act or Acts may not have been sufficiently broad to have permitted such matter to have been so included in such original Act or Acts, or any of them. [Constitution of 1859; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 41, 1951, and adopted by the people Nov. 4, 1952]



Section 21. Acts to be plainly worded. Every act, and joint resolution shall be plainly worded, avoiding as far as practicable the use of technical terms.—


Section 24. Suit against state. Provision may be made by general law, for bringing suit against the State, as to all liabilities originating after, or existing at the time of the adoption of this Constitution; but no special act authorizeing [sic] such suit to be brought, or making compensation to any person claiming damages against the State, shall ever be passed.—

ARTICLE XVII

AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS


Sec. 1. Method of amending Constitution

2. Method of revising Constitution


Section 1. Method of amending Constitution. Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in either branch of the legislative assembly, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered in their journals and referred by the secretary of state to the people for their approval or rejection, at the next regular general election, except when the legislative assembly shall order a special election for that purpose. If a majority of the electors voting on any such amendment shall vote in favor thereof, it shall thereby become a part of this Constitution. The votes for and against such amendment, or amendments, severally, whether proposed by the legislative assembly or by initiative petition, shall be canvassed by the secretary of state in the presence of the governor, and if it shall appear to the governor that the majority of the votes cast at said election on said amendment, or amendments, severally, are cast in favor thereof, it shall be his duty forthwith after such canvass, by his proclamation, to declare the said amendment, or amendments, severally, having received said majority of votes to have been adopted by the people of Oregon as part of the Constitution thereof, and the same shall be in effect as a part of the Constitution from the date of such proclamation. When two or more amendments shall be submitted in the manner aforesaid to the voters of this state at the same election, they shall be so submitted that each amendment shall be voted on separately. No convention shall be called to amend or propose amendments to this Constitution, or to propose a new Constitution, unless the law providing for such convention shall first be approved by the people on a referendum vote at a regular general election. This article shall not be construed to impair the right of the people to amend this Constitution by vote upon an initiative petition therefor. [Created through initiative petition filed Feb. 3, 1906, and adopted by the people June 4, 1906]


Note: The above section replaces sections 1 and 2 of Article XVII of the original Constitution.


Section 2. Method of revising Constitution. (1) In addition to the power to amend this Constitution granted by section 1, Article IV, and section 1 of this Article, a revision of all or part of this Constitution may be proposed in either house of the Legislative Assembly and, if the proposed revision is agreed to by at least two-thirds of all the members of each house, the proposed revision shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered in their journals and referred by the Secretary of State to the people for their approval or rejection, notwithstanding section 1, Article IV of this Constitution, at the next regular state-wide primary election, except when the Legislative Assembly orders a special election for that purpose. A proposed revision may deal with more than one subject and shall be voted upon as one question. The votes for and against the proposed revision shall be canvassed by the Secretary of State in the presence of the Governor and, if it appears to the Governor that the majority of the votes cast in the election on the proposed revision are in favor of the proposed revision, he shall, promptly following the canvass, declare, by his proclamation, that the proposed revision has received a majority of votes and has been adopted by the people as the Constitution of the State of Oregon or as a part of the Constitution of the State of Oregon, as the case may be. The revision shall be in effect as the Constitution or as a part of this Constitution from the date of such proclamation.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, an amendment proposed to the Constitution under section 1, Article IV, or under section 1 of this Article may be submitted to the people in the form of alternative provisions so that one provision will become a part of the Constitution if a proposed revision is adopted by the people and the other provision will become a part of the Constitution if a proposed revision is rejected by the people. A proposed amendment submitted in the form of alternative provisions as authorized by this subsection shall be voted upon as one question.

(3) Subsection (2) of this section applies only when:

(a) The Legislative Assembly proposes and refers to the people a revision under subsection (1) of this section; and

(b) An amendment is proposed under section 1, Article IV, or under section 1 of this Article; and

(c) The proposed amendment will be submitted to the people at an election held during the period between the adjournment of the legislative session at which the proposed revision is referred to the people and the next regular legislative session. [Created through H.J.R. 5, 1959, and adopted by the people Nov. 8, 1960]

 

[alv7722]

so i was looking through the OR Constitution... which I highlighted some of these things in RED which i thought were contrary to the ip 43/44... some im not sure of. I'm working on a letter to the Sec State.

Really good job with your research. Unfortunately, what many are overlooking is with so many Liberal judges on the bench, the "Constitution" can mostly be used as toilet paper!! This has to stop!! All Democrats are anti-American. Most Republicans are Democrats!!

 

[This is Me]

I've never been very politically active, but IP #s 43 & 44 have really struck a chord in me.
I've sent my signed letter to the SoS about #43, but 44 is giving me some trouble. We can challenge the draft ballot title, as well as the results of a yes or no vote and the language of the summary.
I KNOW this IP is wrong on SO many levels, but trying to keep it to JUST the way these items are worded has me stumped.
Looking for some guidance here please.

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

^^^excellent!

 

[etrain16]

Just because it hasn't been posted does not mean there haven't been challenges. I think a few of us are still working on IP43 challenges as well. Something to bear in mind is that if you publish what you send it can be matched to your forum handle. Many people want to remain anonymous on these forums for varied reasons. It may not make a difference to some, but others could lose jobs or be otherwise targeted if they live in progressive areas.

Exactly

 

[Lonnie217]

Remembering that this is Bloomberg Money....

Clearly no one knows the law, the very fact that they suggest voters should pass a vague law then hand it over to the AG to do whatever she wants with it, seems inappropriate, to put it kindly.

Who the hell would ever vote for something that was undefined and then hold their breath to find out if what was written months later is what they thought they were voting on?

Gosh, the sheeples eat anything put in front of them.

 

[This is Me]

I still need some help writing up the challenge to IP44.
Any suggestions?

 

[trunner]

I still need some help writing up the challenge to IP44.
Any suggestions?

Here are my thoughts to date on IP 44 (not a lawyer). Hope this helps.

Comments on "Draft Ballot Title"
1. The proposed ballot title " Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities" is insufficient since it does not indicate that the theft of a firearm must also be reported in order to be in compliance with Initiative Petition 2018-044. This omission is also intentionally misleading to minimize the fact that a firearms owner can be held liable for injuries resulting from the theft of his/her firearm for a period of 5 years.

2. The section "Result of "YES" Vote" is insufficient, ambiguous and contains errors.
a. The nature and term of the proposed strict liability, i.e. 5 years after a violation of the storage, transfer, reporting, or minors provisions, are not described. This is intentionally misleading to minimize the fact that a firearms owner can be held strictly liable for injuries resulting from violations under Initiative Petition 2018-044 for a period of 5 years.
b. The requirements for reporting a stolen gun are not explicitly stated. Initiative Petition 2018-044 states "… theft occurred within 24 hours of the time the person knew or should have known of the loss or theft." The criteria for when the owner/possessor "should have known" are not stated. This makes the language undefined and ambiguous. Is it possible that "should have known" could be defined as within 24 hours of the loss or theft? Since this language is ambiguous and undefined, voters have insufficient information on which to base their votes.
c. This section recites " … imposes penalties/liability for injuries resulting from violations." According to the content of Initiative Petition 2018-044, Class A, B or C penalties are imposed for violations defined in SECTIONS 1-4. Penalties are not imposed for injuries resulting from said violations. It is proposed that firearms owners be held "strictly liable" for injuries resulting from the defined violations.

3. There are several undefined and ambiguous terms used in the "Summary" section.
a. The term "locked container" is ambiguous and not explicitly defined. Hence, voters have insufficient information on which to base their votes.
b. The term "firearms containers" is ambiguous and not explicitly defined. Hence, voters have insufficient information on which to base their votes.
c. This section states that the Attorney General is "… to adopt specifications for trigger locks, cable locks, firearms containers." These terms as undefined and ambiguous. Hence, voters have insufficient information on which to base their votes. This is equivalent to Nancy Pelosi saying of the Affordable Care Act in 2010: "We need to pass the bill in order to find out what [is] in it." What happens if citizens are unable to comply with the specifications that Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum defines for said locking devices or containers, e.g., the proposed devices do not yet exist, they are prohibitively expensive, etc.?
d. How is "failure to comply" to be determined? The burden of proof is on the claimant, i.e. law enforcement, that a firearms owner was in violation of this proposed measure. For example, how will law enforcement prove that a firearm that is stolen did not have a trigger or cable lock attached? You cannot prove a negative. Will the thief come forward and testify in court that the firearm he/she stole did not have a lock when he/she stole it? Incidentally, it takes all of a minute, or less, to remove or disable a trigger or cable lock using commonly-available tools.
e. The term "law enforcement" is not explicitly defined. To whom are firearms owners to report loss or theft, e.g., city police, county sheriff, state police, etc.? Even in SECTION 3.(1) of Initiative Petition 2018-044, it is unclear which law enforcement agency "… in the jurisdiction in which the loss or theft occurred" is to be contacted in the event of loss of theft of a firearm.

Comments to Secretary of State about " … whether the petition complies with the procedural constitutional requirements established in the Oregon Constitution for initiative petitions."
1. Must the content of initiative petitions in Oregon be consistent with United States Constitution? In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), 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."

2. Why is the Oregon Attorney General empowered to decide what constitutes trigger locks, cable, locks, and locked containers? This is a citizen's initiative petition. The Attorney General has no creative role in the initiative petition process. The petitioners are effectively receiving assistance from the Oregon Attorney General in drafting Initiative Petition 2018-044.

3. Is there any requirement that a state official, e.g., Secretary of State, Attorney General recuse themselves from participation in the initiative petition process is said official has a demonstrable conflict of interest? For example, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has stated a clear and public position regarding firearms and measures which might be enacted to reduce "gun violence" (for example, see Their bravery is our rallying cry: THE TIME IS NOW! | Ellen Rosenblum: Oregon's Attorney General and How we end our national gun violence epidemic | Ellen Rosenblum: Oregon's Attorney General). Particularly in light of the fact that the Attorney General is expected to provide input on the "specifications for trigger locks, cable locks, and firearms containers," I submit that she cannot be expected to be objective and impartial. For this reason, the Attorney General must not be permitted to provide input on Initiative Petition 2018-044.

 

[This is Me]

Great! This helps a lot, thanks!

 

[alv7722]

The part of this petition under Section 2: Transfer requires that a firearm be transferred with the trigger/cable lock engaged or the container locked. Part of the definition of "transfer" is "to loan", so does that mean we would need to lock the action or lock the gun in a container before transferring it to a friend while training? The measure also creates Class A, B, and C "violations", but does not state whether they are felonies or misdemeanors. The idiocy of these folks never ceases to amaze me...

Time to write another letter

Both these measures are written by people that know little about guns.....other than they hate them!!!!

 

[Lonnie217]

the sad part is no one give a shi* in Salem. If somehow we could find some common ground, maybe we could end up with conservative leadership.

The AG won't read a single comment that anyone has sent in. Won't change a thing, doesn't care about your rights, unless you want be be identified as "X". Anything liberal, sick, twisted and perverted... good to go...

The only recourse is forcing the law in Oregon Supreme Court. For that, a like on facebook or anywhere else won't get it done, money does. No one wants to part with that, yet belly ache about their rights disappearing. Gun folks have no guts to stand up for anything. That is the truth. Money= too precious....

If everyone throws $1000.00 in , I will. But your $5.00 or like, doesn't 'mean squat.

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

the sad part is no one give a shi* in Salem. If somehow we could find some common ground, maybe we could end up with conservative leadership.

The AG won't read a single comment that anyone has sent in. Won't change a thing, doesn't care about your rights, unless you want be be identified as "X". Anything liberal, sick, twisted and perverted... good to go...

The only recourse is forcing the law in Oregon Supreme Court. For that, a like on facebook or anywhere else won't get it done, money does. No one wants to part with that, yet belly ache about their rights disappearing. Gun folks have no guts to stand up for anything. That is the truth. Money= too precious....

If everyone throws $1000.00 in , I will. But your $5.00 or like, doesn't 'mean squat.

I will pay the filing fee or join another team. Either way, I will fight!

 

[RaceFan]

I still need some help writing up the challenge to IP44.
Any suggestions?

This communication comments on the legal sufficiency of the draft ballot title of Initiative Petition 2018-044 (hereinafter referred to as "IP44").

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 250.035, Form of ballot titles for state and local measures, promulgates ballot title requirements. As a State initiative, the following applies (copied from Chapter 250):

ORS 250.035(2)(a): A caption of not more than 15 words that reasonably identifies the subject matter of the state measure. The caption of an initiative or referendum amendment to the Constitution shall begin with the phrase, "Amends Constitution," which shall not be counted for purposes of the 15-word caption limit;

ORS 250.035(2)(d): A concise and impartial statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state measure and its major effect.

Comment #1: The IP44 caption fails to reasonably identify the subject matter by omitting reference to rules that shall be adopted by the Attorney General under "Rules" within the body of the proposed measure.

Comment #2: The draft Summary fails to fully inform regarding the full effect of IP44 if enacted. Specifically, the open-ended nature for future "specifications for trigger locks, cable lock and containers equipped with tamper-resistant locks." The signer/voter is not made aware of future, currently undefined, personal obligations to allow informed decision-making.

For these reasons, IP44 should be rejected.

 

[aksu747]

This bill is unjust, in theory if it passes they can fine you for sales that happened pre-SB941.
If they do that it would make me a criminal overnight, I sold and traded quite a few guns over the years pre-SB941, one of which the ATF contacted me about because it had been used in crime. I'm guessing it was probably stolen from the guy who got it from me as I don't think a criminal would have waited until 2017 to commit a crime or sign a bill of sale and get license numbers. Either way I'm not too worried about it,I'm sure I'll be fine.

 

[This is Me]

Thanks!
I hope this helps others get their challenges together & sent in.
The longer it takes to go thru the whole process, the less time for the opposition has to get its signatures.

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

Some thoughts on anonmymity; in the fight for Individual Liberty...

I think it's an individual decision; (smart on many levels/demensions), but at some point in the fight, a personal reconning should occur and anonmymity (safety) may take a back seat in the fight for Individual Liberty.

I frequently think about changing my NWFA callsign to include my real name; like two or three (brave & smart) others have always done here....on NWFA, heck, a 2-bit hacker (or someone I've traded with on NWFA) could probably "spill the beans" if he/she wanted-to anyway.....

A PO Box (in another town) instead of a street address can go a long way towards personal security (so I've heard).

As the fight intensifies, the opposition (anti-liberty behemoth) will definately
show it's ugliest head, and anonymity (safety) won't be of much use; any more.

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually affirm our oath and pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor".

Founding Fathers; the original Oath Keepers.

 

[aksu747]

Thanks!
I hope this helps others get their challenges together & sent in.
The longer it takes to go thru the whole process, the less time for the opposition has to get its signatures.

I already sent an email regarding IP 43,and I became the 117,000th to join the Oregonians Against Assault Weapons Ban on facebook.