Oregon IP17 &18 FAQ Webpage

[Cavedweller]

I am open to all ideas from flyers to signs to bumper stickers, etc. Share your ideas and how we can make them happen at a grassroots level. The big boys are unlikely to bail us out on this one and media is not on our side. We need participation by all gun owners, even those who don't normally hang out with each other.

For website, use large font, bold faced headings and bullet point subheadings, such as:

GUN LAWS DON't WORK

Proposed measures would not have prevented any of these crimes:

Followed by brief examples of gun crimes, preferably the anti's favorite mass shootings, where the firearms used were illegally obtained, or the proposed laws are irrelevant. Stick to bullet points, minimize the amount of text which must be read, go for impact, such as:

• XXX School shooting, shooter stole gun from ___________.
• XXX shooting, shooter used stolen firearm
• X% of crimes are committed with stolen firearms
• Only X% of crimes are committed with so-called assault weapons.

GUN LAWS ONLY PUNISH LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS

Again followed by bullet points explaining how rights of the law abiding would be infringed by the proposed measures and/or examples of how current gun laws haven't reduced crime.

Avoid lengthy explanations, or if needed follow bullet points with a "Read more" link where detailed explanations can be given.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head. I won't be offended if you don't use them or if you modify them in any way, but if they help your creative process in any way I 'll be glad for that. I can't code but I did work on state websites as a usability analyst for a number of years so IF you'd like me to help with design features or review layout for navigability, etc., I'll be glad to do that. Just let me know.

 

[Cavedweller]

https://www.reddit.com/r/pdxgunnuts/comments/qqbfbj

This must be a joke. Sounds like a prescription for defeat.

 

[arakboss]

This must be a joke. Sounds like a prescription for defeat.

There is a portion of IP 18 that only permits moving your evil firearm by vehicle. No more biking or walking it from one permitted place to another.

(e) While transporting the semiautomatic assault firearm in a vehicle to one of the locations authorized in paragraphs (a)
to (d) of this subsection, provided the semiautomatic assault firearm is unloaded and locked in a container or with a trigger
lock.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[AshWilliams]

I'm going to ask @Joe Link about setting up donations for the website and the proper channel to do so here.

 

[Member 75076]

This took about 3 minutes to create. I'm sure I can do much, much better with some input from the community here and more time.

View attachment 1082875

Good start but I'd consider changing it from "semi-automatic" to something like "modern firearms". Have to remember we're trying to appeal to a crowd that is likely less educated about firearms. I'd also change the word "grab" to "ban". We in the 2A community call them grabbers but to non gun people the term "gun grab" doesn't sound normal - gun ban is much more straight forward and to the point.

 

[Ferryman]

I don't know what's going into the water supply in Oregon, but man it needs to stop. Get up and running dudes, I'll send you a check!

 

[arakboss]

Good start but I'd consider changing it from "semi-automatic" to something like "modern firearms". Have to remember we're trying to appeal to a crowd that is likely less educated about firearms. I'd also change the word "grab" to "ban". We in the 2A community call them grabbers but to non gun people the term "gun grab" doesn't sound normal - gun ban is much more straight forward and to the point.

Good advice!

 

[arakboss]

I'm going to ask @Joe Link about setting up donations for the website and the proper channel to do so here.

What amount of cost are you thinking might be involved?

 

[arakboss]

Here is suggested write up for the Home Page of the FAQ site. I had two 16oz Milwaukies Best Ice beers and a number of rum and Frescas before typing this on my phone so forgive my grammar and structure. I am still trying to determine what the Ballot Measure numbers will be if LEVO is successful with their signature collection. I would rather use the ballot measure number rather than the name of the Act.




The Reduction of Harm From Weapons Act and The Reduction of Gun Violence Act will criminalize the possession, use and purchase of the most common firearms owned and sold in the State of Oregon. It will also criminalize possession and use of many firearm magazines and parts. These Acts are designed to create criminals out of otherwise law abiding Oregonians and visitors in our State and make it very difficult to purchase a firearm. The titles of these Acts are misleading and the subject matter in the Acts is ambiguous and difficult to interpret especially for newer gun owners. This will lead to many Oregonians unknowingly violating the laws and subjecting themselves to potential felony criminal prosecution.

The Permit To Purchase requirement contained in The Reduction of Gun Violence Act is redundant and unnecessary as a person buying a firearm already goes through this background check process each and every time they purchase a firearm. This redundancy serves no other purpose than to make purchasing a firearm more difficult and more expensive. This will have a much greater impact on those Oregonians who can least afford it.

The exorbitant fee and requirements for the Permit To Purchase laid out in The Reduction of Gun Violence Act is especially egregious to those Oregonians who are struggling with high housing costs and other inflationary pressures. The $65 Permit To Purchase fee is just the beginning of the cost that an Oregonian will incur to purchase even the most modest of firearms. The Permit To Purchase application requirement to demonstrate that an individual can fire a gun, will require an expensive class at a shooting range and that could add another $150 to the cost of the Permit To Purchase application.

The Reduction of Gun Violence Act will place already understaffed Police Agencies in the position of providing policing to the communities they serve or processing an endless stream of Permit To Purchase applications.
The requirement to turn in the application in person at their Local Police Agency may be especially stressful for persons who are uncomfortable being around Law Enforcement officials.

Small Businesses like local gun shops, pawn shops, home based FFLs, gunsmith shops and others will be majorly and negatively impacted if these Acts are passed by Oregon voters. Wait times for a firearm purchase will likely take months instead of weeks. Small businesses could be involuntarily in violation of the law if an illegal firearm is shipped to them by an FFL or individual from another State.

The Authors of The Reduction of Harm From Weapons Act and The Reduction of Gun Violence Act claim to recognize the inequitable treatment of individuals based on race, gender, religion and other distinguishing characteristics. These Acts do not support that recognition. In fact these Acts are regressive and even discriminatory with their requirements.

If The Reduction of Harm From Weapons Act and The Reduction of Gun Violence Act make it on the November 2022 Ballot please vote no on both of these Acts.

For more detailed information on how the The Reduction of Harm From Weapons Act and The Reduction of Gun Violence Act will impact you and other Oregonians please visit the FAQ pages for each Act

 

[arakboss]

I hope the FFLs really take an active roll in raising awareness of these IPs.

It would be great if opponents would spend a bunch of time grilling the signature gatherers about various aspects of the IPs when they encounter them out and about.

I would also love to see opposition signs at tables in the gun shows and a booth or two at the sportsmans and outdoor shows.

 

[arakboss]

Some direct action ideas:

If these IPs make it on the ballot I am thinking about another banner display on freeway overpasses. I want a bigger banner with larger letters this time which would require a two man operation to display banner.

Smaller signs/banners out on Street fronts of larger firearm retailers. Cabelas, Sportsmans, etc.

Trips with my trailer decked out in vote no on signs crawling through rush hour traffic.

Weekend trips to visit FFLs across the western half of the State.

Reconnecting with that guy who has placed most of those signs on farmland along I5.

There may still be some non-hostile media outlets in rural areas who will report on opposition positions.

I definitely want a spot in the Voters pamphlet but would need to go in with a few others to cover the $1200 cost or find 500 voters to sign a petition. I will look in to whether or not a voter can sign more than one petition for an argument to be placed in the voters pamphlet. If there is not a limit you could technically have a group of lets say 600 voters sign each others petitions for an argument and have 500 or so arguments in the voters pamphlet. That would be amazing if a group could make that happen.

Edit: It appears to me that a registered voter can sign more than one Argument Petition for a Measure. This would be a huge task but would be record setting if we could get a large group together to flood the voters pamphlet with Arguments opposing these Acts if they get them on the ballot.

Look over this info starting on page 21 and see if you can find anything that prohibits a voter from signing more than one Argument petition: https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/VPManual.pdf

 

[arakboss]

Something else to consider is having signature gathering watchers (like poll watchers). If the signature gatherers provide false information about the petition they are collecting signatures for, they are breaking the law. I don't know if that would invalidate all the signatures that person collected or just the signature of the person they provided the false information to. If it would cause all of the signatures to be tossed that a lying signature gatherer collected, it would be well worth watching them collect signatures and looking for any evidence of them providing false information. This would be especially helpful if they are collecting signatures at a large event like the State Fair for example.

 

[arakboss]

Large FFLs could also gather 500 plus signatures and supply an Argument for the Voters Pamphlet. It would be double duty as they would also be making their customers aware of these Acts.

 

[arakboss]

Another rally could provide a perfect environment for 500 people to exchange signatures.

An example of how that might work would be to have 500 NWFA members who are registered Oregon voters agree to meet at a rally. Each would be issued a number like runners display in races. 1 through 500. Each of those people have their Argument Petitions ready to circulate with lines 1 through 500. There would need to be some coordination on how the circulaors move around the perimeter.

 

[arakboss]

PennyO couldn't resist getting a little publicity.

 

[arakboss]

If IP18 becomes law will somebody be able to use their S/A Assault Weapon as collateral for a Pawn Shop Loan? I believe the Pawn Shop puts the firearm in their FFL book and when the person pays back the loan they have to go through the transfer process to get the firearm back? I know there was an exemption listed in IP18 for gunsmith work but I didn't see an exemption for pawn shops?

 

[arakboss]

IP17 and IP18 can't be good for the environment. Firearm owners will be required to replace perfectly useable firearms and or parts that will be restricted. They will also have to replace magazines that are being restricted. Instead of carrying the three 17rnd mags that came with their pistol they will need to purchase five new 10rnd mags and more plastic or heaven forbid animal skin gear to hold the extra mags. The AR15 owner will be even more environmentally impacting since they will need to buy three new 10rnd mags to replace each 30rnd mag they had previously been using. The production of those extra magazines and gear to carry all those extra mags will have a negative impact on our environment. Multiply that times the million plus firearm owners and mother nature will not be happy with Lift Every Voice Oregon and those who vote for these environmentally unfriendly and wasteful Acts.

 

[arakboss]

Imagine if a sympathetic anti-gun group created a companion Initiative Petition in Oregon that was similar to the Texas Abortion law. It would allow tattle tales to sue those individuals and businesses (with no risk) if they believed that persons or business were violating the laws proposed in IP17 and IP18. Do you think that would create more urgency among firearm owners and businesses to defeat the Initiative Petitions?

The lawsuit IP could be designed to be actionable on any type of firearm violation.

To be clear I am asking a what if question. What if there is a more extreme anti-gun group who make their intention known before the November 2022 election that they intend to build on the successes of LEVO and pass even more restrictive firearm laws including lawsuit bounty intiative (assuming SCOTUS upholds Texas law).

I am not sure how extreme the proposed intiaitives will need to be before a majority of Oregonians will oppose them but there is likely a limit that the majority will accept. I would like to see Oregonians enlightened as to where we are headed before IP17 and IP18 are voted on.

IP17 and IP18 are only the first of what LEVO and others have in store for firearm owners. I believe the slow creep of gun restrictions is coming to an end sooner rather than later. Anti-gunners are positioning themselves to go full tilt in Oregon.

 

[arakboss]

During Monday's proceedings, Kavanaugh continued to test the state's perception of the limits of its own law. He posed a hypothetical directly tied to gun ownership rights.

"Say everyone who sells an AR-15 is liable for a million dollars to any citizen," he began asking Texas' lawyer. "Would that kind of law be exempt from pre-enforcement review in federal court?"

Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone, after some waffling, answered yes: The courts have no ability to overturn this type of enforcement....