Oregon New Petition Oregon 2020-008

[Kruel J]

Rule #1 guys. We are all on the same team, so let's remember that. Disagree? Fine. But don't attack the person over it.

 

[Kruel J]

I could personally care less about anyone's thoughts on abortion, religion, capitol punishment or immigration. what I DO care about DEARLY is my right to carry and protect my family. Above all costs.

The name calling, trolling and general "mine is bigger than yours" attitude is what tears us down. Leave everything but the support of the 2A at the door please. And tip your waiters/waitresses.

 

[Superglide]

Hello, I'm Superglide and I will be your server tonight.
As I said before, I will support this measure.
I hope here, of all places, there could be some consensus as to the value of such a proposal.
Does it meet all MY needs? NO
I suggested in post # 120 the language I would prefer and why.
Think of the people who generally feel as we do, who will be trying to convince folks to sign this. It is an initiative petition after all. It seems like that had a bearing on the crafting of the proposal.
But also, if you would-- DEFINE the terms unreasonable burden, special liabilities and my favorite, reliable precision. I am afraid I can not stand with a clipboard and tell somebody what that means.
So I suggested CHANGE the first 2 to restrict, which I can define. Means like MC Hammer says- can't touch this. And strike out reliable precision-period. Not needed.

The NFA stuff I will save my thoughts for a later date. There has been good points that are well presented on both sides. I admire the passion evident.

If NFA is listed in some manner however, just call it that-NFA stuff. Do not go listing it item by item or providing an incomplete list of examples. It leaves room for screw-ups. It is BY LAW defined in the NFA.
Does "short-barreled rifles or shotguns" mean all shotguns or short-barreled shotguns? What are destructive devices? Again, they are spelled out in the NFA.
If I am asked when holding my clipboard "what about hand grenades?" I can confidently reply "that is not included here. That would be a NFA item. Fellow citizen you are saying, by signing here, that average Joe can have his common arms."

 

[ZigZagZeke]

No, it gives only those that live in this country that right. Not all people born from their creator, etc. The Constituion is not a religious document, nor does it give rights to those outside America. You can add as much as you please to the meaning but it does not change the factual and legal meaning of the document. I'm not sure how you can't deny the basic fact that The Constitution is a legal government document, I can see putting special meaning for your own sake, but it is still what it is.

There are a couple of things you are confused about.

Number one is the meaning of the word "state" as used in the 2nd Amendment. "State" in this case refers to a nation state. The USA is a nation state, as are all of the recognized nations around the world. That's why we have a Secretary of State and a State Department. This is a different concept from "states rights", which I also tend to support.

Number two is the origin of basic human rights. Although our founders referred to our human rights as detailed in the Bill of Rights as coming from our "Creator", the concept of God or a Creator need not come into the discussion. The philosophers Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant and Hume all support the idea that because we are human beings we have certain rights, which include the right to speak one's mind, the right to own things, and the right to defend one's life and property. These rights spring from our existence as human beings, possibly from a God or Creator if you believe in such things, and they accrue to every human being on the planet. Our Bill of Rights simply details these things and prohibits our government from interfering with them, because although they are not created or granted by government, their exercise can be curtailed by despotic governments.

 

[Superglide]

@ZigZagZeke .--the guy you quoted will not read this. See posts 105 and 106.

Well said however

 

[ZigZagZeke]

The wording of section 3(g) concerns me. i.e. - "(g) those who carry or use firearms in public". I assume the intent is to call out those who illegally carry or use firearms in public...?

The wording as-is would include any of us who conceal carry (carry firearms in public), wouldn't it? Thereby leaving the door open for an outright ban on carrying in all public spaces, permit or no.

Feel free to set me straight if I'm misreading or being overly paranoid.

The simplified statement about which you are concerned would read like this:
This section does not prevent the authority of the state or its authorized subdivisions to enforce firearm regulations in effect as of July 1, 2018, or any regulations enacted thereafter that are specifically limited to regulating the acquisition, possession or use of firearms by those who carry or use firearms in public.

Frankly, I would prefer the word "limit" instead of "prevent", but that's just my preference. What this statement does is reassure potentially concerned voters that nothing is changing in that area. We are not trying to get Constitutional carry or universal reciprocity (yet). We won't have to have that argument before we can get this protection passed. I think it's a smart move. We can address those issues AFTER we get this in place.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Amendments are completely ratifiable. So the states in unison and agreement do in fact have the right to ratify, limit, regulate, and restrict Amendments.

Edit: and as I mentioned in another comment SC interpretations leave states open to their 10th powers in creating gun control

This is utter nonsense, and the 10th Amendment has little or nothing to do with the argument. It is the 14th Amendment which applies the prohibitions in the Bill of Rights to the several individual states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I'm here.

Welcome!!! I'm excited about the IP. I could tell on the first reading that you were quite aware of the value of not giving our opponents arguments to use against us. I'm 100% behind you.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

NFA items ARE NOT "PROTECTED" NOW in Oregon. You can't "lose" a protection that doesn't currently exist.

If 2020-008 passes NFA items and bump stocks would not be any less "protected" than they are now.

If you try to add NFA item and bump stock protection to 2020-008 the gun controllers will rightly claim it is trying to make sure people can buy machine guns and silencers and bump stocks, and IT WON'T PASS in blue Oregon.

Then guess what, not only will NFA items and bump stocks not be protected (as they are not protected now) nothing else would be protected. Then the gun controllers will pass IP 43, and while you would theoretically be able to buy NFA items (until they ban those too) you wouldn't be able to buy AR-15s, AKs, Marlin 60s, anything with a threaded barrel, and a whole host of other semiauto firearms. I guess that sounds good to you.



No it doesn't. It simply restates "codified" CURRENT LAW:



It doesn't codify SB 719. SB 719 is already law.



False. Read the proposition again:



2020-008 would prospectively protect future designs and items, as long as they aren't banned at the Federal level. If they are banned at the Federal level then we are out of luck anyway.



Wrong again.





Again, you couldn't be more wrong.



Because it already has the protections for magazines and future developments that you want. You're nitpicking about the way it is worded.



There is nothing protecting NFA items now. There is nothing stopping Michael Bloomberg or Paul Allen from trying to ban NFA items in Oregon now. NFA items would not be any less "protected" if 2020-008 passes than they are now.



You couldn't be more wrong.

2020-008 is a PREEMPTIVE strike. For once, we will be on OFFENSE, instead of on defense as usual. The alternative is to stay on defense in blue Oregon, fighting the next gun ban, and the one after that, and the one after that, ad infinitum.

Those of you that don't understand or support 2020-008, that's OK. Grumble and gripe and complain and nitpick all you want in the trenches, stay on defense and try to fight off the next attack on our rights. The rest of us are going over the top and going on offense. If you aren't going to help at least stay out of the way and don't help our enemies by badmouthing 2020-008.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!

 

[Superglide]

Regarding NFA exclusion in this petition, I feel it MAY be thought of along the lines of distinction between beer and liquor regarding laws in the State of Oregon. (Please bear with and do not go the route of the BOR does not say anything about The Right to Drink....)

Arms akin to alcohol
Beer akin to arms for home defense
Spirits (hard stuff) akin to NFA

The STATE laws were changed for making and selling beer in the late 80's bringing the rise of brewpubs and microbrews. Items, people and rules were defined and the law changed. Not too bad a thing, right?

The laws regarding making and selling hooch did not change (special license, OLCC oversight etc). They still may or may not change (Bacardi at Costco anyone?), but the microbrew law is in place. The NFA may change one way or another, but that is a Federal issue at this time. I hope SCOTUS takes us in the right direction.

Let's build this one brick at a time. I support any effort to reinforce our rights.

 

[Mister Bisley]

Neat analogy @Superglide

 

[3MTA3]

Official Website: Common Firearms Act
Don't forget to download or request a petition while you are there

FAQs at the official website: Common Firearms Act

Q) Where can I read the text of the proposed measure?

A) Go here and scroll down



Q) This measure does not protect my hunting rifles? Why not?

A) If you read the definition of the protected firearms in Section 2 you will see that virtually all modern firearms would be protected. Your hunting rifles and shotguns included. The measure is not intended however to protect hunting. We strongly support the rights of hunters, but we can't make a constitutional argument to defend hunting.


Q). Does this measure ban "bump stocks" or similar devices?

A) No this measure does not regulate these devices in anyway. It simply does not include them in the term "common firearms for self defense"


Q) Does this measure ban or regulate NFA items such as machine guns, short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns?

A) No. As you are aware, these items are already heavily regulated by Federal government. This measure does not add or provide for any additional regulations for them.


Q) Why were these items not included in the protected items in the measure?

A) The measure sought to protect as many items as possible while still being crafted in a way to get the best ballot title possible and the best chance of passage.

We knew that the anti-gunners and the media would try to paint this measure as "extreme" and would lie about it. Those items were mentioned as not in the category of "common firearms for self defense" because they actually are not. While we strongly support the rights of Oregonians to own them, there is no recent constitutional history protecting them. But it is important to note that nothing in the measure increased regulation of them or gives the state any power they do not have now.


Q) Why does Section three give the state the power to write laws controlling "those who carry or use firearms in public?"

A) It does not give the state that power. The state already has that power and currently imposes rules for carrying firearms in public. In fact all persons mentioned in Section 3 have current restrictions imposed on them by the state. Keep in mind, the measure was designed to be able to counter any argument from anti-gunners that this measure would allow anyone to use a gun for anything, anytime. We wanted defenders of the measure to easily be able to refute those claims by simply pointing to the actual language of the measure.


Q) If this measure passes, will that mean there will be no more gun control in Oregon?

A) No. This measure could not possibly address every single attack the legislators or the promoters of other ballot measures could dream up. There will be other fights. The measure was designed to protect the firearms that are most at risk in the current anti-gun climate.


Q) Under this measure could there not be efforts made to regulate ammunition?

A) Yes. The measure does not cover every possible attack on the Second Amendment. However we think it is broad enough that if in place, attacks on ammunition will be far more difficult to pass or enforce.

We think that an ammunition regulation that unreasonably burdened one's right to possess an available, operable common firearm for self-defense would be unconstitutional under this Common Firearms Act. You can't defend yourself (very well) with an unloaded firearm. The state could obviously not ban ammunition. The question would be whether an ammunition regulation created an unreasonable burden to your right to defend yourself with a common firearm. We believe it would.


Q) Where do I send completed signature sheets?

A) Send them to:

Common Firearms
2570 Greenwood Road S.
Independence, OR 97351​

 

[Cavedweller]

(3) This section does not prevent the authority of the state or its authorized subdivisions to enforce firearm regulations in effect as of July 1, 2018, or any regulations enacted thereafter that are specifically limited to regulating the acquisition, possession or use of firearms by: (g) those who carry or use firearms in public,

Sounds like an open door to infringement to me.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

(3) This section does not prevent the authority of the state or its authorized subdivisions to enforce firearm regulations in effect as of July 1, 2018, or any regulations enacted thereafter that are specifically limited to regulating the acquisition, possession or use of firearms by: (g) those who carry or use firearms in public,

Sounds like an open door to infringement to me.

This measure does not increase the state's ability in any way to regulate firearms in public. Any "open door to infringement" exists already. In order to get this measure passed we need to refrain from offering our opponents anything they can point to as radical or a loosening of current regulations. By doing so, we give them nothing to argue about. For once, we will look like the reasonable ones and those who oppose us as radicals.

 

[3MTA3]

This measure does not increase the state's ability in any way to regulate firearms in public. Any "open door to infringement" exists already. In order to get this measure passed we need to refrain from offering our opponents anything they can point to as radical or a loosening of current regulations. By doing so, we give them nothing to argue about. For once, we will look like the reasonable ones and those who oppose us as radicals.

As soon as we win this grain of sand we move on to the next. That' how we've lost our rights and how we will get them back.

 

[BSG 75]

(3) This section does not prevent the authority of the state or its authorized subdivisions to enforce firearm regulations in effect as of July 1, 2018, or any regulations enacted thereafter that are specifically limited to regulating the acquisition, possession or use of firearms by: (g) those who carry or use firearms in public,

Sounds like an open door to infringement to me.

That section doesn't make things any better or worse than they are TODAY. The state currently has the power to "to enforce firearm regulations in effect as of July 1, 2018, or any regulations enacted thereafter that are specifically limited to regulating the acquisition, possession or use of firearms by: (g) those who carry or use firearms in public". Are you bothered by that right now? Because that's the way it is right now. That section just states 2020-008 wouldn't change the status quo regarding other gun laws. But it DOES remove a line of attack that gun controllers might use i.e. "This measure will keep us from banning carrying guns IN OUR SCHOOLS!!!!" Supporters can say "No it doesn't. Read the proposition."

This measure is very well written to accomplish what it is intended to do - preempt and prevent gun and magazine bans like IP 43 now and in the future - while also anticipating and removing lines of attack that opponents might use to criticize it. Unfortunately, those carve-outs listing things it wouldn't change - things that already exist now - seem to be confusing some people here into thinking it gives the state new powers to regulate guns when in reality it wouldn't give the state any new powers at all. The state already has those powers. 2020-008 doesn't give Oregon any more restrictions on guns than it has now, but it does take away the ability to ban so-called "assault weapons" and so-called "large capacity magazines". Everything else stays the same as it is today.

 

[Defense Minister]

That section doesn't make things any better or worse than they are TODAY. The state currently has the power to "to enforce firearm regulations in effect as of July 1, 2018, or any regulations enacted thereafter that are specifically limited to regulating the acquisition, possession or use of firearms by: (g) those who carry or use firearms in public". Are you bothered by that right now? Because that's the way it is right now. That section just states 2020-008 wouldn't change the status quo regarding other gun laws. But it DOES remove a line of attack that gun controllers might use i.e. "This measure will keep us from banning carrying guns IN OUR SCHOOLS!!!!" Supporters can say "No it doesn't. Read the proposition."

This measure is very well written to accomplish what it is intended to do - preempt and prevent gun and magazine bans like IP 43 now and in the future - while also anticipating and removing lines of attack that opponents might use to criticize it. Unfortunately, those carve-outs listing things it wouldn't change - things that already exist now - seem to be confusing some people here into thinking it gives the state new powers to regulate guns when in reality it wouldn't give the state any new powers at all. The state already has those powers. 2020-008 doesn't give Oregon any more restrictions on guns than it has now, but it does take away the ability to ban so-called "assault weapons" and so-called "large capacity magazines". Everything else stays the same as it is today.

I sure appreciate your persistence, tenacity, and logic, but I'm not sure we're winning the war of reason here... Hopefully we'll have the chance to support this together at the polls!

 

[bunnybunny]

The point is to prevent another IP-43 or the legislature trying to do the same thing. This is excellent in my mind. Even if it does not change the status quo on NFA items, it will really hurt gun control efforts in OR. I say this as someone who owns 10 NFA items and believe they are protected under the 2nd amendment. The fact of the matter is, gun rights will be won back or protected incrementally. The people who take them away figured that out long ago. Protecting NFA items can happen another day, right now protecting semi auto rifles and standard magazines is essential. The NFA argument really won't matter if the IP-43 people try again and succeed.