Oregon IP16 Strategy

Discussion in 'Firearm Legislation & Activism' started by arakboss, Feb 6, 2019.

Tags:
  1. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,190
    Would it be effective to file our own improved IP16 type petitions and compete with IP16 signature gatherers?
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2019
  2. cigars

    cigars
    USA.
    DON'T CALIFORNIA OREGON. Platinum Supporter 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    13,516
    Normally I would say take the high road. However when we are dealing with Progressive Facists, it's either roll them or get rolled by them. Playing law-abiding Mr. Nice Guy has gotten West coast Conservatives nothing and much to desire. IMHO, time to take the bubbleguming gloves off.
     
    Legs, partsed, ob1 and 8 others like this.
  3. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,190
    Fun facts about IP16 petitioner Greg Wasson:
    Activist challenges Salem's rules for petitions

    And a photo with bonus article he wrote:

    Why initiatives should remain a power tool for citizens

    And finally this:
    Oregon Initiative Aimed at Tightly Regulating Firearms Returns

    Notice his primary reason for filing IP16 wasn't to ban "assault weapons" but was to: "First, it gives me legal standing to try and rescue the people's initiative power from an over-reaching state government."

    This guy doesn't seem like the type who will gather an army of volunteers to collect signatures for his IP. I think he is more in it for the attention. I am guessing he would look forward to any court challenges too.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2019
    OldTengu, bbbass and usausausa like this.
  4. OldTengu

    OldTengu
    East Multnomah county
    Silver Supporter Silver Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    1,072
    I think I said it once before, but if we can get an initiative together to prevent further erosion of individual rights, disallowing the state to roll back bills that have been passed that ensure personal certain personal liberties, and can relate that to the legal cannabis situation (being a little sneaky, but focusing on cannabis use as an individual right lumped in with the civil right to keep and bear arms), we would have the young people's vote all around.
    I'm still behind on coffee. If this is incoherent, thats why.
     
    Dyjital likes this.
  5. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,190
    Rep Nearman and a couple of gals tried it with IP8 but the problem is serious legal scholars (gun rights attorneys) believe as many do here that our rights are already protected via the constitution both federal and state. I guess it's better to fight for old rights than make new rights which you will end up fighting for anyways. I get it!
     
    Legs and OldTengu like this.
  6. ZigZagZeke

    ZigZagZeke
    Eugene
    Curmudgeon Gold Supporter 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    4,210
    Likes Received:
    8,876
    We need an Oregon state ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to permanently enshrine state preemption for all firearms laws and to provide that Oregon citizens are entitled to own, carry, and use any arms normally carried by contemporary infantry soldiers on the battlefield.
     
    partsed, cigars and OldTengu like this.
  7. OldTengu

    OldTengu
    East Multnomah county
    Silver Supporter Silver Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    1,072
    I feel the same way about gun rights. What I was trying to convey was an idea for a petition that would make it impossible for any further erosion of our gun rights, and to include other personal liberties in the same bill so as to make it palatable for everyone.
     
    cigars likes this.
  8. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,190
    After researching this Mr. Wasson fellow I don't think IP16 is going to materialize in to a big threat. If he gets the initial batch of signatures collected we can challenge the heck out of it like we did for IP43. I am pretty sure that is all Mr Wasson is looking for is to get his jollies off in court. I seriously doubt he would be interested in mobilizing the army of signature gatherers like the Church crowd was doing. I have been wrong before though so it will stay on my radar.
     
  9. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,190
    I hear ya but it seems like they will always find a way to frick with us. I am feeling better about this year already with SB 501 hopefully out of the way. I am somewhat anxious about what the church crowd is going to serve up but if it's extreme we might be able to get it put on the shelf with SB 501.
     
    OldTengu likes this.
  10. DivCurlGrad72

    DivCurlGrad72
    Washington County, OR
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    643
    Isn’t that what these initiatives are trying to do? Maybe not 100% what you’re looking for, but close.

    Good News On Two Pro Gun Ballot Measures - Oregon Firearms Federation

    Common Firearms Act
     
  11. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,190
    yes and I think we need to get some info from Kevin at OFF on the status of this IP8. It appeared to me that OFF's attorney Mr. Winters was arguing against the draft ballot title. See those arguments here. http://oregonvotes.org/irr/2020/008cbt.pdf

    I am thoroughly confused about what's going on with this IP8.
     
  12. WasrNwarpaint

    WasrNwarpaint
    Portland
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    2,988
    I suggested that we go after cannabis as a tool to slam the liberal democrats back... many times over the past 3-4 years but ....crickets.... I think most likely the majority here secretly indulge & DO NOT WANT TO ROCK THAT BOAT and we are constantly remind here to be tolerant of the intolerant democrat ideology that is constantly attacking our constitutional rights AS IF THEY MAY STOP THE ONSLAUGHT AND BE RESPECTFUL OF OUR RIGHTS AT SOME POINT IF WE ARE NICE TO THEM .....HA! :oops: .......HOWS THAT BEEN WORKING ?

    we didnt even need a cannabis threat weapon, voting to protect the 2nd in individual counties would have been a far better approach but apparently that was too much to ask of the MAJORITY of Oregonian gun owners, so it was easier to scoff at the offensive tactic that ended up being successful on a small scale, what a colossal wasted opportunity :(

    I believe the democrats have been so thoroughly & systematically programed for hate of the conservatives by the democratic party and the weaponized media so greatly the democrats are willing to vote their own rights away with blind with outrage ....

    oh ya and there is free stuff in this country if you vote against Trump...genius!
     
    OldTengu and arakboss like this.
  13. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,190
    Back to the original point of this thread. I propose that if a threatening anti-gun IP comes up again that we file a similar IP (but more enticing to the antis) and compete for support of orgs, signature gatherers, media coverage, etc.
     
    OldTengu likes this.
  14. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,190
  15. ZigZagZeke

    ZigZagZeke
    Eugene
    Curmudgeon Gold Supporter 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    4,210
    Likes Received:
    8,876
    What?!!! The ballot title and summary statements I read were not perfect, but they were not a reason to just quit.
     
  16. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,190
    I just found out about this crazy azz bill SB 761. If passed it will require the person filling out a petition signature sheet to print the form out for themselves. They can not use a signature sheet printed out by somebody else. I am planning on printing out some IP11 signature sheets for my mom and coworkers to sign. Those signatures would be invalid if SB761 was passed in to law. Read this text of the law carefully:

    (B) Only an elector who has personally printed a copy of the electronic signature sheet
    for a petition or prospective petition may sign the sheet. A copy of an electronic signature
    sheet may not be printed by one person and signed by an elector who is not the person who
    printed the sheet.
    (d) If the secretary determines that a violation of paragraph (c)(B) of this subsection has
    occurred with respect to a particular petition or prospective petition, the secretary:
    (A) Shall stop making publicly available the electronic signature sheet for that petition
    or prospective petition;
    (B) May not accept the submission of electronic signature sheets for that petition or
    prospective petition that are submitted after the date on which the secretary determined
    that a violation of paragraph (c)(B) of this subsection has occurred; and
    (C) Shall place a notice on the secretary’s website, stating the date on which the elec-
    tronic signature sheet may no longer be used to submit a signature for that petition or
    prospective petition.

    So the left side of my brain said this bill stinks and I'm going to have to add this to my list of bills to fight.
    But then the right side of my brain said wait a minute how could this law be useful? Note that under the proposed law in this bill, if the SOS finds out that sheets printed by one person were signed by another they are invalid. But not only are those signatures invalid but so are other peoples electronic signature sheets received by the SOS after the date the SOS determined that the violation had occurred.

    Example using IP16 the assault weapons ban.

    A person prints out some electronic signature sheets for IP16 and has friends and family sign them.

    He delivers them in person to the SOS office and lets them know that he printed them out and had friends & family sign them so he could deliver them.

    Instantly the SOS jumps in to action and follows the law in SB761. They shut down the electronic signature sheet option for IP16. And any electronic signature sheets delivered to SOS after that date are deemed invalid. The only option for collecting signatures for IP16 at that point is through signature sheets obtained from the SOS. I would think that will make it less likely people are going to sign the petition.
     
    GUNARCHER likes this.
  17. Defense Minister

    Defense Minister
    Eugene/Springfield
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    851
    While Mr. Wasson himself may just be an attention-starved orphan, other snowflake-propagated, anti-gun, political orgs like Augustana Lutheran, Mom’s Against..., Everytown, etc. could easily jump on board and provide support.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2019
  18. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,190
    I agree that could happen which is why I am thinking about ways to counteract the IP if it picks up steam. But, I expect the gun control groups will probably wait to see what the LEVO (IP43 authors) group comes up with first. Getting something done through the Legislature will be easier than the ballot measure method.

    We really need to take back enough seats to eliminate the super majority in Nov 2020.
     
  19. WoodsPlinker

    WoodsPlinker
    Scappoose OR
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    You know this thing here says no county city etc may "regulate" doesn't say anything about "deregulating"

    ORS 166.170 - State preemption - 2017 Oregon Revised Statutes

    Maybe a city or county law to deregulate whatever they come up with would be OK... Probably not, but I know the city of Portland wanted to get rid of this, maybe we should let them and then regulate on the county level to get rid of whatever they come up with.

    And yes I'm only saying that because I am living in one of the counties that passed second amendment preservation ordinances.
     
  20. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,190
    One other positive aspect of an "assault weapon and mag ban" initiative is that if a viable IP like IP 43 is in circulation it would give the antis in Salem cover to delay voting on "assault weapon and mag ban" legislation in Salem. I would think many of them would rather have the voters handle banning guns and mags directly which would deflect some grief they would be getting from their more moderate constituents.
     
    WoodsPlinker likes this.

Share This Page