Oregon Measure 114 Legislation 2023 Session

[PiratePast40]

I'm starting a new thread for information specific to the legislative side of 114. Regardless of the outcomes of the legal battles, there is little doubt in my mind that the legislature will take up some form of lawmaking with regard to 114. At this point, we don't know what will remain, but you can be assured that, since the Dems still have a majority, some form of the measure will be enacted into law. I suspect that some type of delay will remain in effect. The measure does contain a severability clause. Here it is:

SECTION 12. If any provision of this 2022 Act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. The people hereby declare that they would have adopted this Chapter, notwithstanding the unconstitutionality, invalidity and ineffectiveness of any one of its articles, sections, subsections, sentences or clauses.

I suspect that the reason given will be that "it's the will of the people", and that reasoning will be used to insist that some parts of 114 not ruled to be unconstitutional, illegal, or impossible to enact, will require legislative action. I'm assuming that action will start with the Senate Committee on Judiciary. I have the list of members and their contact information from last session, but won't post that again until we see if there are changes to committee assignments for the 2023 session.

Would like to try to keep this thread on topic so people know where to go to find legislative information. I realize that will be impossible, but would like to make the attempt.

Read More

 

[PiratePast40]

Anyone know what kind of changes to the measure can be made by the legislators? I would suspect that some are scrambling to change wording in several areas. One would be the issue of increased time for background checks. They could easily change the wording to require a ten day delay for people under 21. I don't believe that get much pushback by the republicans. Even Betsy Johnson was in favor of that. They could also make exceptions for periods, like we're in now, when OSP can't handle the backlog, and make that an exception to something like a ten day delay rule for anyone that doesn't get an immediate NICS approval?

The objectionable sections of the permit system could also be modified. Once the system is in place, most of the present objections go out the window since most objections seem to be aimed at not having resources in place. Could they get rid of the demonstration portion so it would be easier to get the permit? The overall question is, how much can the legislature change the wording of the measure? Do we have anyone here that can make educated comments?

 

[Yarome]

Soooo.... this is the dedicated "what if" random speculation and airchair lawyering thread. Gotcha!

 

[MxOverkill]

Anyone know what kind of changes to the measure can be made by the legislators? The overall question is, how much can the legislature change the wording of the measure? Do we have anyone here that can make educated comments?

The measure is statutory, (not an amendment to the OR constitution). The Legislature can make any and all or no changes as they see fit.

 

[BillM]

Well heck. Let's give them SOMETHING to salvage from 114 so they
aren't totally butthurt. How about this---Section 6(9):

"(9) When a firearm is delivered, it shall be unloaded."

There---a common sense gun law---and that's about the only part of 114
that is.

 

[Cavedweller]

Anyone know what kind of changes to the measure can be made by the legislators? I would suspect that some are scrambling to change wording in several areas. One would be the issue of increased time for background checks. They could easily change the wording to require a ten day delay for people under 21. I don't believe that get much pushback by the republicans. Even Betsy Johnson was in favor of that. They could also make exceptions for periods, like we're in now, when OSP can't handle the backlog, and make that an exception to something like a ten day delay rule for anyone that doesn't get an immediate NICS approval?

The objectionable sections of the permit system could also be modified. Once the system is in place, most of the present objections go out the window since most objections seem to be aimed at not having resources in place. Could they get rid of the demonstration portion so it would be easier to get the permit? The overall question is, how much can the legislature change the wording of the measure? Do we have anyone here that can make educated comments?

I don't think the legislature can change the measure. The measure becomes law when passed by the voters.

However, the legislature can change law. But there would have to be a bill introduced, committee hearings, and a floor vote, just like any other legislative action. That's my uneducated guess.

Edit: I don't think the legislature is even in session right now. The 2023 session is projected to run from Feb to Jun. From what info I could find on line, the 2022 session has already adjourned. So I don't see how they could change anything right now.

 

[Yarome]

Edit: I don't think the legislature is even in session right now. The 2023 session is projected to run from Feb to Jun. From what info I could find on line, the 2022 session has already adjourned. So I don't see how they could change anything right now.

Exactly. Good luck getting any funding to setup the PP's until at least February, too. "30-days" my wind maker.

 

[Librarian]

I don't think the legislature can change the measure. The measure becomes law when passed by the voters.

However, the legislature can change law. But there would have to be a bill introduced, committee hearings, and a floor vote, just like any other legislative action. That's my uneducated guess.

Edit: I don't think the legislature is even in session right now. The 2023 session is projected to run from Feb to Jun. From what info I could find on line, the 2022 session has already adjourned. So I don't see how they could change anything right now.

Your guess is spot on.

I've pointed to the fix-up bill for 2020's Measure 110. See https://www.oregon.gov/OHA/HSD/AMH/Pages/Measure110.aspx and its embedded link to SB 755, https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Measures/Overview/SB755

Here's how the bill was introduced: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB755/Introduced ; looks like that was on Feb 18, 2021

 

[arakboss]

The measure is statutory, (not an amendment to the OR constitution). The Legislature can make any and all or no changes as they see fit.

I thought this was correct but I can't find a link to info proving it. Do you have this info available?

 

[PiratePast40]

Edit: I don't think the legislature is even in session right now. The 2023 session is projected to run from Feb to Jun. From what info I could find on line, the 2022 session has already adjourned. So I don't see how they could change anything right now.

I was concerned that they could get something going because of the committee meetings held last week. I now see that they convene Jan 17th: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/calendar/. How did the state intend to get the permit system up and running if there was no way to get any funding before the 2023 congress convened? Must be some interesting backroom discussions going on.

 

[PiratePast40]

Soooo.... this is the dedicated "what if" random speculation and airchair lawyering thread. Gotcha!

The thread is an attempt to keep things somewhat organized so we don't have another 87 separate threads. Things like committee members contact information, schedules, and actual legislative action could be kept here so they would be easier to find.

 

[Member 66129]

Soooo.... this is the dedicated "what if" random speculation and airchair lawyering thread. Gotcha!

I had to go back and double check who the OP was. There's two of them now

 

[El Mariachi]

The entire thing is unconstitutional.

 

[E4mafia]

I was concerned that they could get something going because of the committee meetings held last week. I now see that they convene Jan 17th: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/calendar/. How did the state intend to get the permit system up and running if there was no way to get any funding before the 2023 congress convened? Must be some interesting backroom discussions going on.

tl;dr - it's all a scam and the state was hoping to outright deny firearm ownership/rights as long as possible


That's what I was trying to bring up in the main No to 114 thread pre voting.

How would the state have a PTP in place and ready without any funding and any finalized legislation until 2023? Dec 8th 2022 until summer 2023 is a LOOOONG time to not have the full course ready and sounds like an outright defacto ban. The fact that the SOS pushed Dec 8th ( yes I'm aware of OR constitution 30 days after election day) even tho final vote certification wasn't until Dec 15th 2022 was another dead give away when it just barely passed (wasn't even in a commanding lead either just barely ahead) in a deep blue state that even had (FREE HEALTHCARE on the ballot - which received less total votes than 114 oddly)

States answer: WE HAVE A SYSTEM READY!
Yeah you can just apply for the permit but there's still many steps required which won't be ready until post 2023 legislation anyways. They knew and they lied.

The AG originally wanted 60 days to implement, Immergut gave them 30 days and then 3hrs later Raschio said LOL NO and was backed by OSC - which nobody seen coming.

 

[PiratePast40]

That's a lot to unpack and brings up other questions.

 

[E4mafia]

Now LEVO wants the higher courts to abide by the will of the people ala 50% of the state...

 

[Jay Walk]

Reports are that the mag ban will be tied up in the courts for years,
just two years equals another 728 new 114 threads, that's if no one starts any on Christmas day.

 

[MxOverkill]

I don't think the legislature can change the measure. The measure becomes law when passed by the voters.

1. "Passed by the voters" Election day is not when it goes into effect. Minor detail. We all understand that.

2. This measure is statutory. There is nothing sacred about citizen initiatives. In fact, the legislature generally doesn't like citizen initiatives as it is an end-run around the Legislature. After passage, initiatives are sometime 'adjusted' by the legislature. That in itself is a lengthy process cited earlier.

3. Just playing this out apart from the current legal challenges....the statutory law has to actually be put into effect through administrative rules; Oregon State Police procedures and whatever other agencies are involved.

The legislature and the administrative rules process are each a place to amend this unnecessary statute....and that's if the courts don't overturn it in its entirety which is somewhat likely

 

[Cavedweller]

1. "Passed by the voters" Election day is not when it goes into effect. Minor detail. We all understand that.

2. This measure is statutory. There is nothing sacred about citizen initiatives. In fact, the legislature generally doesn't like citizen initiatives as it is an end-run around the Legislature. After passage, initiatives are sometime 'adjusted' by the legislature. That in itself is a lengthy process cited earlier.

I didn't mean to say it went into effect on election day. However, it did become the law as worded when passed by the voters. The legislature cannot change it without going into session. So they can't change any language of the measure before then.

3. Just playing this out apart from the current legal challenges....the statutory law has to actually be put into effect through administrative rules; Oregon State Police procedures and whatever other agencies are involved.

The legislature and the administrative rules process are each a place to amend this unnecessary statute

The rule making process does not amend the measure. It only establishes the procedures under which implementation will take place, as written when passed.

....and that's if the courts don't overturn it in its entirety which is somewhat likely

That would be great!

 

[Cavedweller]

How would the state have a PTP in place and ready without any funding and any finalized legislation until 2023?

How did the state intend to get the permit system up and running if there was no way to get any funding before the 2023 congress convened?

Is funding that big an issue for the state? They are going to hire a couple of people (A coordinator and a program manager). They've already advertised those positions, so they must have been funded already. You can't just create a new position in the state system overnight. They are going to buy some additional equipment, and will have to process more background checks, but other than that what do they need money for?

The main burden of this, in terms of workload, is going to fall on the localities (the "permit agents"). It's an unfunded mandate on county and city governments. They are the ones who have to come up with most of the people and the bucks. Wasn't this one of the objections of local LE? I haven't seen anything that says the state is going to raise the money and then dole it out to local government. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.