- Messages
- 1,447
- Reactions
- 3,147
I think there may be a crime or ethics violation due to:
1 – Extreme leftist Ellen Rosenblum being involved in the ballot title process.
2 – Using the words "assault weapon" in the suggested ballot title; clearly a blatant lie to deceive voters.
3 – Tax exempt religious organizations involved this deeply in making legislation.
4 - I'm not an attorney so I could be wrong, but there may be a felony crime that the Chief Petitioners committed when they submitted form SEL 310 with information that they knew was false - they (or their attorney) had to know that the term "assault weapon" in the ballot title was a false description. Book 'em Dano!
Read the warning from SEL 310:
"State Initiative and Referendum
rev 01/18
ORS 250.045
Warning Supplying false information on this form may result in conviction of a felony with a fine of up to $125,000 and/or prison for up to 5 years.
Each chief petitioner is required to provide, on the same form, their name, residence address, contact phone number and signature attesting that the information on the form is true and correct."
Source: http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/SEL310.pdf
Evidence of the crime:
http://egov.sos.state.or.us/elec/web_irr_search.record_detail?p_reference=20180043..LSCYYYASSAULT
IP43 Unconstitutional by Oregon Constitution – the people cannot defend the State with bolt action or single action firearms in today's world:
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 clause: "……but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power" explicitly gives us the right to own arms equal to those of the military; of course we can't have full auto arms due to federal law, but this should explicity give us the right to own semi-autos without limitation.
More thoughts on IP43:
Did the pro-gun-rights side have observers who verified each and every signature for IP43?
Are IP43 signature forms public records like our ballot title comments? If not, why not? If so, are they on the internet?
Regarding our ballot title comments, do they have to do anything with each comment? Who has the ball in this game right now – DA or SOS?
I think that the "religious leaders" who started IP43 should read every comment on the 1573 pages of comments to their congregations and to every signature gatherer.
Per page 10 of the State Initiative and Referendum Manual, initiative petitions: "must be legislative rather than administrative in nature". Is requiring the State Police to make a firearm registry administrative? Any other administrative parts to IP43?
Some states require a geographic distribution based on legislative districts for collection of signatures. This is a good idea, but apparently was rejected at the ballot box in 2000 – perhaps due to poorly worded initiative petition?
<broken link removed>
I cannot wait to see Dennis Richardson's signature next to the box checked, "It does not comply with the procedural constitutional requirements", as shown at the bottom of page 2 here:
http://oregonvotes.org/irr/2018/022cbt.pdf
1 – Extreme leftist Ellen Rosenblum being involved in the ballot title process.
2 – Using the words "assault weapon" in the suggested ballot title; clearly a blatant lie to deceive voters.
3 – Tax exempt religious organizations involved this deeply in making legislation.
4 - I'm not an attorney so I could be wrong, but there may be a felony crime that the Chief Petitioners committed when they submitted form SEL 310 with information that they knew was false - they (or their attorney) had to know that the term "assault weapon" in the ballot title was a false description. Book 'em Dano!
Read the warning from SEL 310:
"State Initiative and Referendum
rev 01/18
ORS 250.045
Warning Supplying false information on this form may result in conviction of a felony with a fine of up to $125,000 and/or prison for up to 5 years.
Each chief petitioner is required to provide, on the same form, their name, residence address, contact phone number and signature attesting that the information on the form is true and correct."
Source: http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/SEL310.pdf
Evidence of the crime:
http://egov.sos.state.or.us/elec/web_irr_search.record_detail?p_reference=20180043..LSCYYYASSAULT
IP43 Unconstitutional by Oregon Constitution – the people cannot defend the State with bolt action or single action firearms in today's world:
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 clause: "……but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power" explicitly gives us the right to own arms equal to those of the military; of course we can't have full auto arms due to federal law, but this should explicity give us the right to own semi-autos without limitation.
More thoughts on IP43:
Did the pro-gun-rights side have observers who verified each and every signature for IP43?
Are IP43 signature forms public records like our ballot title comments? If not, why not? If so, are they on the internet?
Regarding our ballot title comments, do they have to do anything with each comment? Who has the ball in this game right now – DA or SOS?
I think that the "religious leaders" who started IP43 should read every comment on the 1573 pages of comments to their congregations and to every signature gatherer.
Per page 10 of the State Initiative and Referendum Manual, initiative petitions: "must be legislative rather than administrative in nature". Is requiring the State Police to make a firearm registry administrative? Any other administrative parts to IP43?
Some states require a geographic distribution based on legislative districts for collection of signatures. This is a good idea, but apparently was rejected at the ballot box in 2000 – perhaps due to poorly worded initiative petition?
<broken link removed>
I cannot wait to see Dennis Richardson's signature next to the box checked, "It does not comply with the procedural constitutional requirements", as shown at the bottom of page 2 here:
http://oregonvotes.org/irr/2018/022cbt.pdf
Last Edited:
