Oregon IP43 is back...but worse.

[DuneHopper]

Well it might be a bad thing to say in a open forum, but pass your laws it won't change a damn thing for Dunehopper, and I know it wont change a damn thing for most here. Unlike OFF, I actually wont comply to any 43 laws or anything like it.

Being there are no firearms that are made for 5 rounds they basically are writing a law to prevent something that doesn't exist to make it exist. Its allow like limiting a car to only 3 and they only come with 4 or more makes this a proposal that would be dead in the water.

Well maybe LOL LOL OFF and the NRA will help...

i have lost all faith in the NRA or OFF's ability to do anything other the get funds from the cash cow which is panic.

 

[WoodsPlinker]

 

[DuneHopper]

View attachment 520238

I am going to give this the Meme of the day award... its very true.

 

[titsonritz]

Didn't see that coming.

 

[Hawaiian]

She lives in a fairy tale world. NY, CA and the other gun hating states stopped with limiting mags to ten rounds for a reason. While they would have loved to limit them to five rounds, it would be thrown out in court for being too restrictive. NY tried it with seven rounds and then backed off.

 

[3MTA3]

Short of getting the press to report this stuff fairly so voters will understand and make a ruckus, they will get this and more one way or another. If the IP fails then the Oregon Legislature and Governor will make it happen. There is nothing - zip, zero, nada - preventing them from overreach or the consequences of doing so.

I'll fight this as much as I can and donate funds where they will be most effective, but I'm pretty pessimistic. As they say "Please Change My Mind".

 

[MrRob96]

Maybe she'll follow the i1639 path, wrap it up in a "school safety" ballot statement, and you'll all soon be sending your 30 rounders up here to WA until we do the same thing.

 

[NW Backpacker]

That's why it is critically important for us to inoculate and protect ourselves from son-of-IP 43 by passing our own initiative, The Common Firearms Act Oregon - New Petition Oregon 2020-008

Sadly, some gun owners here just don't get it, don't understand it, and don't support it.

Educate me.
What is the current status of IP 008? Did the AG/SOS give it an official ballot title? Did they change the proposed title and caption, and if so did anyone with "standing" object, or is it settled?

 

[NW Backpacker]

i have lost all faith in the NRA or OFF's ability to do anything other the get funds from the cash cow which is panic.

Why have you lost faith? They have been fighting for us in the courts, right?

Edit:Everyone must be eating turkey, so I think I have time to add this:
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
Here is Rush Limbaugh telling the true story of Thanksgiving. It is excellent. If you have liberal relatives eating with you, play it if you can.

 

[NW Backpacker]

On the COMMON FIREARMS ACT (IP 008):
Below is the certified:
a) Ballot Title
b) Result of "Yes" vote, and
c) Result of "No" vote.

Is this the final form that our side is going to put on the 2020 ballot, or is it still being challenged in the courts?

How many of you find the sentence under Result of "No" Vote to be concerning?


Certified by Attorney General on October 24, 2018.


/s/ Denise G. Fjordbeck__

Assistant Attorney General

BALLOT TITLE

Amends Constitution: Creates constitutional right to possess, use, transfer

semiautomatic, other firearms. Limits new firearm regulations. Retroactive.

Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote creates constitutional right to possess, use,

transfer semiautomatic, other firearms currently allowed by federal statutes; nullifies

2018 domestic abuser restriction; limits new regulations.

Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains current constitutional protections for "arms"

similar to those used for self-defense at statehood, including some firearms; allows regulations

protecting public safety.

Summary: Amends constitution. The Oregon Constitution currently protects

"arms" similar to those used for self-defense in 1859, including some firearms. State and


local governments may regulate firearm ownership and use, in order to protect public

safety. Proposed measure creates constitutional right to possess, use, transfer

semiautomatic and "functionally similar" firearms that are currently available for civilian


purchase under federal statutes. Measure retains existing firearm restrictions for some

classes of individuals, including felons, but nullifies state restriction against possession

by some domestic abusers that became effective July 1, 2018. Future regulations may not

place "unreasonable burdens or special liabilities" (undefined) on acquisition of firearms

that are the subject of the measure, or on keeping such firearms in "readily available

operable state." Other provisions.

Source - page 10 of:
http://oregonvotes.org/irr/2020/008cbt.pdf

 

[beavernation]

Come and takem.......I dare ya!.....

 

[Stomper]

They'll run out of cops....

 

[mkwerx]

Be interesting to see where this nonsense goes.

 

[sdlsaginaw]

I only need one round to stop a threat.

not really.

This is true but shooting yourself in the head, apart from the attacker leaving very confused, is probably not the ideal method.

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

undocumented in a 2nd A sanctuary county .....try and find em

 

[BSG 75]

How many of you find the sentence under Result of "No" Vote to be concerning?

Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains current constitutional protections for "arms"

similar to those used for self-defense at statehood, including some firearms; allows regulations

protecting public safety.

Not me. A NO vote means we remain at the current status quo of our current Oregon constitutional "protection" i.e.

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[.]

that still allows for gun and magazine bans like IP 43.

A YES vote retains our current Oregon constitutional protection AND ADDS protection against bans of firearms and magazines that are currently in common use like modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines. It anticipates and inoculates against possible attacks from gun controllers who might try to claim IP 008 would prevent laws against "crazies" from getting guns by specifically allowing for (but not creating) laws that protect "public safety" that don't involve gun or magazine bans.

IP 008 would not remove any protections and adds additional protections of our gun rights.

 

[NW Backpacker]

It anticipates and inoculates against possible attacks from gun controllers who might try to claim IP 008 would prevent laws against "crazies" from getting guns by specifically allowing for (but not creating) laws that protect "public safety" that don't involve gun or magazine bans.

IP 008 would not remove any protections and adds additional protections of our gun rights.

It sounds great if it passes, but the AG rewrote the Result of No Vote and the Summary so that if it fails, it gives them ammo against us to say that only guns similar to those that existed in 1859 are protected by the Oregon Constitution. What the AG wrote is absolute BS, but it's in there. Has our side agreed to put it on the ballot as shown in my post above, or is it still being fought in the courts?

Do you think the authors of IP 008 intended it to nullify the 2018 domestic abuser restriction, as stated in the Result of "Yes" Vote? Or did the AG add that in so it would be less likely to pass?

 

[Edward Hull]

I don't own nor will I ever own a 30 round magazine for an assault rifle and I encourage ya'll to do the same before it's too late. I only own 458 Socom magazines that I converted to 7 and 9 round capacity because I believe in protecting the children.

 

[BSG 75]

It sounds great if it passes, but the AG rewrote the Result of No Vote and the Summary so that if it fails, it gives them ammo against us to say that only guns similar to those that existed in 1859 are protected by the Oregon Constitution. What the AG wrote is absolute BS, but it's in there. Has our side agreed to put it on the ballot as shown in my post above, or is it still being fought in the courts?

If it fails it doesn't give anyone ammo against us for anything. A failed initiative doesn't set any kind of precedent that can be pointed at or used to support a legal argument.

The "BS" that you mentioned wasn't written by the AG, it was a court decision (State v Kessler) that actually answers the argument that the arms protected by the Oregon constitution are only the arms suitable for militia use. The decision pointed out that the Oregon constitution protects a larger range of firearms, including those suitable for self-defense.

"If the text and purpose of the constitutional guarantee relied exclusively on the preference for a militia "for defense of the State," then the term "arms" most likely would include only the modern day equivalents of the weapons used by colonial militiamen. The Oregon provision, however, guarantees a right to bear arms "for defense of themselves, and the State." The term "arms" in our constitution therefore would include weapons commonly used for either purpose, even if a particular weapon is unlikely to be used as a militia weapon."

Do you think the authors of IP 008 intended it to nullify the 2018 domestic abuser restriction, as stated in the Result of "Yes" Vote? Or did the AG add that in so it would be less likely to pass?

No, I don't think that was their intention. In fact, they specifically didn't want to threaten current gun control because opponents of IP 008 would use that to scare away voters by claiming it would nullify current gun control.

You have to remember the tactical situation we are in. We are trying to pass a measure that would do something very important - prevent bans on semiauto firearms and standard capacity magazines, which are under the most threat of a ban - in a very blue state. If we try to do too much more it would have ZERO chance of passing in blue Oregon. The gun owners who whine that IP 008 doesn't protect NFA items that are not under imminent threat of a ban the way ARs, AKs, and "large cap" magazines are just don't get it.

 

[thorborg]

Embolden no less by 1639 passage, encouraged by the endless influx of Californians.