JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Please see that the Secretary of State has rejected one initiative 54 on the grounds of spanning multiple subjects yet did NOT reject initiative 60 on the same grounds.
I could imagine one of the reasons IP 60 was split into 61 & 62 was for the unlikely event that the SOS & courts actually enforced the ballot initiative rules impartially.
 
I noticed that with at least two of the Initiatives 60, 61 and 62 that they have a REGISTRATION for the guns transferred or purchased. The State Police maintains the registration information including - Initiative 60, section 4 (11) The department will retain an electronic record created as a result of the request for a criminal background check that includes, at a minimum, the identifying information of the purchaser or transferee and the identifying information related to any semiautomatic assault firearm including the serial number, make and model, that was the subject of the transfer upon which the request for approval was made.

REGISTRATION
is the first step in CONFISCATION. Be sure to point this out in any challenges to the Title or general opposition letters. This may put it over the single subject requirement.

I also noticed that transferring any semiautomatic assault firearm to a relative will be illegal unless it goes through a FFL. Another important piece that is not included in the Title.

Also, keep posting on this to keep it on the NWFA NEW Post list. We need more members to see this.
 
I could imagine one of the reasons IP 60 was split into 61 & 62 was for the unlikely event that the SOS & courts actually enforced the ballot initiative rules impartially.
I'm pretty sure IP60 is a distraction to take focus away from 61 and 62. We have to hammer away at all of them!
 
Copy or modify as you see fit. I could not down load the PDF file. This is a copy/paste from the PDF, but some formatting was lost/changed. EDIT: Per suggestions by ZigZagZeke and tiggers97, I've made some edits and added bold to text concerning the insufficiency of the draft ballot title and the constitutionality.

EDIT to add IP 60 ballot title: "Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits"

Comments on IP 2020-60 draft ballot title:
IP 2020-60 violates the US and Oregon Constitutions, violates the Oregon one subject rule for initiative petitions, is based on provable lies, will make Oregonians less safe, and will result in needless lawsuits that will result in repeal of the law and that will costs the state millions in court costs.
IP 2020-60 should not have received a draft ballot title because it is in violation of the United States and Oregon Constitutions; it also fails the one subject rule. A review of why this was processed thru the Oregon offices of the Attorney General and Secretary of State (and not rejected) should occur, with potential criminal penalties. Per the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, "…..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Clearly IP 2020-60 is unconstitutional, and the US Supreme Court and other courts have ruled as such on recent similar laws involving magazine capacity limits.
IP 2020-60 fails the one subject rule required for initiative petitions in Oregon. This petition includes the following subjects and more. The draft ballot title is deceptive and in violation Oregon law because it covers very few of these subjects.
Subject 1 – Section 2 falsely claims that firearms that hold no more than 10 rounds will promote the public health and safety of residents.
This is refuted by the Center for Disease Control which says firearms are used approximately 2.5 million times per year in self-defense. See Reason.com article "CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns".
The reason.com article understates the number of defensive gun uses – the reality is that somewhere between 50 and 100 million homes have a gun for self-defense. The knowledge that they may be shot prevents criminals from committing millions of crimes every year, making all Americans safer. Sometimes multiple criminals enter a home and survival of the home occupants depends on standard 20 or 30 round magazines. Police routinely fire 10 or more rounds to stop 1 criminal – bullets do not magically stop bad guys. It is not good policy to base laws on blatant, provably false lies and misinformation that will endanger the public and that is also unconstitutional as IP 2020-60 clearly does.
See YouTube dramatization: "MB Studio Productions High Capacity Magazine PSA":
See real life defensive gun use YouTube video "Oklahoma man kills three home intruders with AR-15":
Subject 2 – Section 3(9) defines "Semiautomatic assault firearm" and includes fully automatic firearms in that definition! The ballot title does not mention fully automatic firearms – this could mislead owners of such firearms into thinking IP 2020-60 does not apply!
Subject 3
– Section 4 restricts purchase or transfer of semiautomatic assault firearms.
Subject 4Section 4((3)(e), parts (A) thru (F) requires training (training not listed in ballot title) within 4 years of purchase or transfer of firearm to include firearm safety training, child gun safety training, secure storage training, suicide prevention training, training on state and federal firearm laws, ammunition safety training, etc.
Subject 5 – Section 4(4) State police department may require "other information" for the purchase or transfer. [So now the state police are making Oregon law?!]
Subject 6 – Section 4(5) thru (8) defines background check requirements for purchase or transfer.
Subject 7 – Section 4(8) defines a new "5 day waiting period" for purchase or transfer (not listed in ballot title).
Subject 8 – Section 4(11) requires state police to create and maintain a registry of firearms (not in ballot title).

Subject 9 – Section 4(14)(a) creates new crime for gun dealers.
Subject 10 - Section 5 creates new law prohibiting sale or transfer to a person age 21 (not in ballot title).
Subject 11 – Section 6 defines "large-capacity magazine" and more.
Subject 12 – Section 6(2)(b) requires new marking requirements for large capacity magazines.
Subject 13 – Section 6(3) restricts purchase, import, sale or transfer of large capacity magazines.
Subject 14 – Section 6(4)(b) creates new crime for failure to comply.

ETA: That looks like A LOT more than one subject, much of it not in the ballot title - that this got by the SOS without being rejected is sickening! She owes us an explanation!
 
Last Edited:
I am finishing some edits and will have my comments sent early tomorrow. Thanks @NW Backpacker for the reminder. Luckily, I kept my comments from IP43 to use as a template.

We need more comments sent in. Last time there were over a thousand.

Keep this thrread on the NEW Posts list.
 
Some thoughts:
-------------------------------------------------------
The ballot initiative uses the term "assault rifle", which the Oregon supreme court found is a political term during last years challenge. The ballot title does not disclose the nature of the bill. i.e. "certain semi-auto firearms" does not adequately describe the firearms to the general public, nor reflects the ballot act name of "Regulation of Semiautomatic Assault Firearms and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazines.")

Ballot title implies that the proposal would cover only firearms sold by a gun dealer. The proposal would cover ALL transfers.

Title does not describe the storage and transportation requirements in section 5; d of the ballot.

"magazine capacity limits" does not cover the scope and breath of ammunition storage devices described in the ballot section 3, 4.
Title does not describe new unique regulations and restrictions for manufacturers (Section 6).
Does not describe restrictions on storage and transportation requirements of magazines. (section 6(c)) (impacts concealed carry holders)


"adds purchase restrictions " is too generic, broad and does not encompass the expansive new requirements and could be interpreted many ways, thus confusing or misleading the public.
Title does not adequately describe the new age discrimination restrictions. (section 4, 3b)(Section 5)
Title does not adequately describe new waiting period restrictions.(section 4, 8A)
Title does not adequately describe changes in dealer handling of the background check process. (section 4)
Title does not adequately describe the new training requirements (pass handgun concealed carry license course to purchase a rifle, etc...), (section 4, 3e)
Title does not adequately describe the creation of new State procedures for licensing firearms owners, or additional costs to the state (section 4)
Title does not adequately describe the changes and expansion of the background check system as performed by the State of Oregon. (Section 4, part 5 and 6)

Title does not disclose that restrictions also apply to a transfer NOT thru a gun dealer (Section 4, 14(a))(Section 5) (i.e. lending or temporary transfer, such as hunting or rifle range)



-------------------------------------------------------
In short; if it is a major and significant change in the law, and it's not explained in the title adequately enough.

And can someone make sense of Section 4, 15(a) of the ballot (end of Page 5)
 
And can someone make sense of Section 4, 15(a) of the ballot (end of Page 5)

I don't know what it means, it's gibberish, but violating most of this garbage is a Class A misdemeanor. What is the punishment/fine for a Class A misdemeanor? Maybe we should let it pass and just ignore the whole thing! If you get caught, go get your butt spanked and pay your fine. :)
 
For IP60 Comments Due TODAY!
January 29, 2020


Be sure to include that the subjec of the email is IP60.
How to Submit
Scan and Email: [email protected]
Fax: 503.373.7414
Mail: 255 Capitol St NE Ste 501, Salem OR 97310


Then rewords and resubmit separately for IP61 and 62.
Might also include why ballot initiatives with multiple subjects are being allowed.
 
I am still willing to help anyone who needs it to submit on IP61 and IP62. PM me with a email address (only way I can send documents) and I will send you a copy of mine.
 
Comments have been posted. Only around 140 pages. :( OFF and NRA comments start on page 111 and the anti-gun sponsors are below those. There are many comments in favor of IP60. :( Time to get IP 61 and 62 done. They're due Friday the 31st.:eek:
IP 60 COMMENTS:

Can @Joe Link do an email blast to all 45,995 members here with comments to copy/paste along with the state email address for comments? Note, based on comments in link above, it appears that a physical address is not required and if you provide your comments on a pdf, only the pdf is shown, and not your email address. ;)
 
Last Edited:
Comments have been posted. Only around 140 pages. :( OFF and NRA comments start on page 111 and the anti-gun sponsors are below those. There are many comments in favor of IP60. :( Time to get IP 61 and 62 done. They're due Friday the 31st.:eek:
IP 60 COMMENTS:

Can @Joe Link do an email blast to all 45,995 members here with comments to copy/paste along with the state email address for comments? Note, based on comments in link above, it appears that a physical address is not required and if you provide your comments on a pdf, only the pdf is shown, and not your email address. ;)


Comments in favor/against don't matter at this point, and miss the point of hte initiative process step; challenging the ballot title.
 
Wow. Page 126, the attorny representing the "censor every voice, Oregon" dosn't even know the laws in Oregon. She thinks the "gun show loophole where private sellers didn't have to do a background check" was passed in 2015. Not 2000.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top