JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Just the other day, I asked Ed Diehl about the short session and if something similar to SB348 could be brought up. He says no. However, I have seen some twisting of the rules that leads me to believe anything could happen. Both Fahey and Wagner hold powerful positions as do Prozanski and his buddy Manning. I believe Manning is hinting about a SoS run and gun control victory would be a feather in his cap.

I simply do not trust the Democrats to follow the intent of the law, the constitution, or the rules of congress.
Illinois went from an insurance bill to gut and stuff AWB bill signed and enacted in three days total. So the bastards can pull the scam if they really want to.
 
Illinois went from an insurance bill to gut and stuff AWB bill signed and enacted in three days total. So the bastards can pull the scam if they really want to.
SB 348 was also a gut and stuff. Would not surprise me to see something similar come in at the last minute, with a vote on the same day as an important budget bill, to make it harder for Republicans to walk out. Since 2024 is also an election year, they can use both the budget and gun control as weapons against Republicans. Like you, I don't trust these people in the least. They twist the truth in unimaginable ways.
 
Of course WA and OR (among other states) would like a ban on hi-capacity magazines. They even wrote to the 9th Circuit Court to make their position known.


Aloha, Mark
 
You do understand how democracy and simple majority works, right? If your conflating that with "tyranny", i do believe i see the problem.

We all hate 114, but majority is majority, constitutionally valid or not.
Pure majority is mob rule, plain and simple. Many would say that states should not have a process for propositions or initiatives, this is the job of elected representatives. Because they fail to do their jobs on a regular basis is why we have allowed (mob rule) initiatives. It is tyranny when the government enables itself to run roughshod over citizen's rights.
 
Pure majority is mob rule, plain and simple. Many would say that states should not have a process for propositions or initiatives, this is the job of elected representatives. Because they fail to do their jobs on a regular basis is why we have allowed (mob rule) initiatives. It is tyranny when the government enables itself to run roughshod over citizen's rights.
Citizen initiatives should, at the bare minimum, require a supermajority or greater to pass. Not that it matters. If the meisterklassen likes them, they stand. If not, they are ignored (*cough* $80 car tabs in WA...twice *cough*)
 
Citizen initiatives should, at the bare minimum, require a supermajority or greater to pass. Not that it matters. If the meisterklassen likes them, they stand. If not, they are ignored (*cough* $80 car tabs in WA...twice *cough*)
It was $30... not $80... And you're right, the initiatives passed... both times....
...and TPTB just ignored the results of the votes... both times...
So much for "The Will of the People"...:rolleyes:

 
It was $30... not $80... And you're right, the initiatives passed... both times....
...and TPTB just ignored the results of the votes... both times...
So much for "The Will of the People"...:rolleyes:

Just like Oregon voters saying no drivers licenses for illegal immigrants…. Overridden by the legislature…

Oregonians have no voice if it goes against the agenda of the democrat party in Oregon, that's why generational incumbents must be voted out…
 
Just like Oregon voters saying no drivers licenses for illegal immigrants…. Overridden by the legislature…

Oregonians have no voice if it goes against the agenda of the democrat party in Oregon, that's why generational incumbents must be voted out…
Too often people just vote the letter by the name regardless of platform or tenure length
 
Pure majority is mob rule, plain and simple. Many would say that states should not have a process for propositions or initiatives, this is the job of elected representatives. Because they fail to do their jobs on a regular basis is why we have allowed (mob rule) initiatives. It is tyranny when the government enables itself to run roughshod over citizen's rights.
Citizen initiatives wouldn't necessarily all be bad. But a question of curtailing rights guaranteed in The Constitution. Or any rights that citizens have come appreciate for many years, should be disallowed from the get go by the Legislature. Measure 114 is a glaring example.
 
Citizen initiatives wouldn't necessarily all be bad. But a question of curtailing rights guaranteed in The Constitution. Or any rights that citizens have come appreciate for many years, should be disallowed from the get go by the Legislature. Measure 114 is a glaring example.
What is the law on constitutional changes via ballot measure or through the legislature? Can it be changed with a simple majority or is a greater percentage required?
 
What is the law on constitutional changes via ballot measure or through the legislature? Can it be changed with a simple majority or is a greater percentage required?
I have no idea! I just know that it seems very, very wrong to allow the public to vote away rights by such a miniscule margin. Were not talking about a vote to decide whether a bridge should be painted green or blue.
 
What is the law on constitutional changes via ballot measure or through the legislature? Can it be changed with a simple majority or is a greater percentage required?

This is amusing, and reasonable -
Section 23. Approval by more than majority required for certain measures submitted to people. (1) Any measure that includes any proposed requirement for more than a majority of votes cast by the electorate to approve any change in law or government action shall become effective only if approved by at least the same percentage of voters specified in the proposed voting requirement.
(4) The purpose of this section is to prevent greater-than-majority voting requirements from being imposed by only a majority of the voters. [Created through initiative petition filed Jan. 15, 1998, and adopted by the people Nov. 3, 1998]
You want Article IV, Legislative Branch.

Section 1. Legislative power; initiative and referendum. (1) The legislative power of the state, except for the initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people, is vested in a Legislative Assembly, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

(2)(a) The people reserve to themselves the initiative power, which is to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and enact or reject them at an election independently of the Legislative Assembly.

(b) An initiative law may be proposed only by a petition signed by a number of qualified voters equal to six percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the election at which a Governor was elected for a term of four years next preceding the filing of the petition.

(c) An initiative amendment to the Constitution may be proposed only by a petition signed by a number of qualified voters equal to eight percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the election at which a Governor was elected for a term of four years next preceding the filing of the petition.

(d) An initiative petition shall include the full text of the proposed law or amendment to the Constitution. A proposed law or amendment to the Constitution shall embrace one subject only and matters properly connected therewith.
(c) All elections on initiative and referendum measures shall be held at the regular general elections, unless otherwise ordered by the Legislative Assembly.

(d) Notwithstanding section 1, Article XVII of this Constitution, an initiative or referendum measure becomes effective 30 days after the day on which it is enacted or approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon. A referendum ordered by petition on a part of an Act does not delay the remainder of the Act from becoming effective.
Not 'majority of registered voters' or 'majority of people eligible to vote' but majority of votes cast on the measure.
 
I have no idea! I just know that it seems very, very wrong to allow the public to vote away rights by such a miniscule margin. Were not talking about a vote to decide whether a bridge should be painted green or blue.
Yep poeple, states can not vote away a right. Problem is anti-gunners behave as if they can. And then we have to take it all the way to scotus to stop them.
 
Last Edited:
I thought GOA had abandoned the m114 fight. Got an email today which seems to imply they are responsible for the victory (they don't say that directly though). I think I may write this guy and ask for details.



Ballot Measure 114 ReceivesA Permanent Injunction!​

Dear

Oregonians received a huge victory on defeating the anti-gun Ballot Measure 114!

Just before Thanksgiving last week, Judge Robert S. Raschio placed a permanent injunction on Measure 114, stopping this anti-gun monstrosity in its tracks.

Raschio stated that Measure 114 was unconstitutional and infringed on the rights of the people of Oregon.
Well as you might imagine, getting to this point has been a very long and costly process.

GOA jumped into the fight with a lawsuit on this unconstitutional overreach after the measure was first passed last year, and we received a temporary injunction in December.

Then in September, GOA's attorney spent several days in court challenging BM114 during a lengthy trial, where the attorney ratio was 8-1 in favor of the government.
The permanent injunction that GOA secured before Thanksgiving was a huge victory, but it is most certainly NOT the end of the battle.

The governor has twice tried to get the Oregon Supreme Court to set aside the court's decision from last December. So you can be sure that our attorneys will need to continue this battle for the foreseeable future.

With that in mind, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Gun Owners Foundation's Legal Defense Fund to help us keep fighting for your Second Amendment rights.

There is a lot at stake with GOA's lawsuit. If fully implemented in Oregon, Ballot Measure 114 would:
  • Ban magazines over ten rounds.
  • Require a permit to purchase any firearm.
  • Require a training course, application fee, fingerprinting, and a duplicative background check to obtain the permit-to-purchase.
But thanks to your activism and Judge Raschio's permanent injunction, Ballot Measure 114 is dead…
…for now.

Again we know this is not the end of the fight, as the Oregon State Attorney General already stated that she plans to appeal Judge Raschio's decision.

So please, make a tax-deductible contribution to Gun Owners Foundation's Legal Defense Fund to help us keep fighting for your Second Amendment rights.

GOA will be here every step of the way, ensuring that the gun-grabbing left will not succeed in their tyrannical overreach on your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

In Liberty,

Monte Bowen
Pacific Regional Director
Gun Owners of America
 
I thought GOA had abandoned the m114 fight. Got an email today which seems to imply they are responsible for the victory (they don't say that directly though). I think I may write this guy and ask for details.



Ballot Measure 114 ReceivesA Permanent Injunction!​

Dear

Oregonians received a huge victory on defeating the anti-gun Ballot Measure 114!

Just before Thanksgiving last week, Judge Robert S. Raschio placed a permanent injunction on Measure 114, stopping this anti-gun monstrosity in its tracks.

Raschio stated that Measure 114 was unconstitutional and infringed on the rights of the people of Oregon.
Well as you might imagine, getting to this point has been a very long and costly process.

GOA jumped into the fight with a lawsuit on this unconstitutional overreach after the measure was first passed last year, and we received a temporary injunction in December.

Then in September, GOA's attorney spent several days in court challenging BM114 during a lengthy trial, where the attorney ratio was 8-1 in favor of the government.
The permanent injunction that GOA secured before Thanksgiving was a huge victory, but it is most certainly NOT the end of the battle.

The governor has twice tried to get the Oregon Supreme Court to set aside the court's decision from last December. So you can be sure that our attorneys will need to continue this battle for the foreseeable future.

With that in mind, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Gun Owners Foundation's Legal Defense Fund to help us keep fighting for your Second Amendment rights.

There is a lot at stake with GOA's lawsuit. If fully implemented in Oregon, Ballot Measure 114 would:
  • Ban magazines over ten rounds.
  • Require a permit to purchase any firearm.
  • Require a training course, application fee, fingerprinting, and a duplicative background check to obtain the permit-to-purchase.
But thanks to your activism and Judge Raschio's permanent injunction, Ballot Measure 114 is dead…
…for now.

Again we know this is not the end of the fight, as the Oregon State Attorney General already stated that she plans to appeal Judge Raschio's decision.

So please, make a tax-deductible contribution to Gun Owners Foundation's Legal Defense Fund to help us keep fighting for your Second Amendment rights.

GOA will be here every step of the way, ensuring that the gun-grabbing left will not succeed in their tyrannical overreach on your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

In Liberty,

Monte Bowen
Pacific Regional Director
Gun Owners of America
GOA sponsored and paid for the trial on behalf of the plaintiffs.
 
What is the law on constitutional changes via ballot measure or through the legislature? Can it be changed with a simple majority or is a greater percentage required?
The State should NOT be allowed to Usurp the Fed Constitution, especially on enumerated rights which is what Oregon just did!

Look at what is required to change the Fed. B.o.R, no state should be able to preempt the Fed. on any of this!

The State also violated the "Single Issue" clause with BM-114, in that it contained ( At least) 2 separate issues, AND, the state did not include the full text of the effect of that bill in the description!
 
Yep poeple, states can not vote away a right. Problem is anti-gunners behave as if they can. And then we have to take it all the way to scotus to stop them.
They can, they do, and they have voted to suppress/restrict/infringe the freedom to exercise a Natural Right.

It isn't constitutional in the USA, but it has happened (and will continue to happen).
 

Upcoming Events

ARPC Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR
Central Oregon Sportsmen's show
Redmond, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top