Oregon New Petition Oregon 2020-008

[Defense Minister]

I have to be very frank here as there are some clear misinterpretations of The Common Firearms Act:

This initiative DOES NOT BAN ANYTHING!!! It KEEPS THINGS FROM BEING BANNED!!!

 

[Wombat of Doom]

I have to be very frank here as there are some clear misinterpretations of The Common Firearms Act:

This initiative DOES NOT BAN ANYTHING!!! It KEEPS THINGS FROM BEING BANNED!!!

Its wording on NFA and bump stocks ensures they will be.

 

[rscinsc]

Agreed that we want to retain rights to these, but that door is already open and this initiative doesn't make it worse. The Common Firearms Act is a HUGE step in the right direction and we all need to back it 110% and urge every gun owner we know to do the same!

Then why not change the 2nd paragraph to incorporate the changes.
It makes no sense to even mention SBS, SBR, NFA...unless the author wanted to have those firearms lose their protections.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

And even if we are wrong. Nothing is lost in the proposed changes and much is gained.

 

[Defense Minister]

Its wording on NFA and bump stocks ensures they will be.

If anyone in the room thinks the anti's high-dollar lawyers didn't figure this out years ago, please raise your hand...

It's not the guns they hate, it's US, and they want to slap as many of US in the face as they can which is why NFA stuff hasn't been a big priority.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Why help them?

 

[rscinsc]

Agreed that we want to retain rights to these, but that door is already open and this initiative doesn't make it worse. The Common Firearms Act is a HUGE step in the right direction and we all need to back it 110% and urge every gun owner we know to do the same!

BTW, this would do nothing to stop an IP44 initiative....which is almost as bad.
I really wonder who wrote this

 

[Defense Minister]

If someone opened a suitcase with $1,000,000 cash in it and told you to take $900,000 of it, would you complain that you didn't get the other $100,000, or would you take the money and run???

 

[rscinsc]

If someone opened a suitcase with $1,000,000 cash in it and told you to take $900,000 of it, would you complain that you didn't get the other $100,000, or would you take the money and run???

What a stupid analogy...but to continue on that path

IF someone offered me $1MM dollars, but you will never earn another dollar...and you are going to more and more taxation going forward...Yes, I would turn it down.

How about you offer me $5MM dollars, and little taxation changes going forward?
You do this by writing a great Amendment today, but "bullet proofs" are rights (because the term "right to bear arms"...doesn't seem to be "bullet proof" enough).

Man, am I glad this site has the ignore button....life is just too short.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

If someone opened a suitcase with $1,000,000 cash in it and told you to take $900,000 of it, would you complain that you didn't get the other $100,000, or would you take the money and run???

This is ridiculous. 1 could make it a better petition by deleting a STUPID section that's only role is to guarantee loss of rights. It is something that at this point is flawed, but could be fixed. The maturity level is low when pointing out that something could be improved is regarded as ridiculous.

 

[BSG 75]

Anything that is specifically excluded from this law, has lost all protections:
--NFA items

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.

--Codifies, in even stronger language confiscation of firearms under an EPO

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

e) those who have had their possession of or access to firearms temporarily limited pursuant to legal processes designed to determine if they pose a serious risk to self or others;

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

AND HERE IS THE BIGGEST LIE OF ALL
--Nothing in this wording would protect Oregon from putting in place IP43 with the stipulation that guns owned prior to July 2018 are exempted. A future gun buying ban would be okay.

False. Read the proposition again:

"Common firearms for self-defense" also include any functionally similar models of firearms, mechanical actions, or magazines developed thereafter, so long as such items are not subject to civilian purchase restrictions under federal law at the time of purchase.

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.

--Does nothing to ban magazine limits or other accessories. This does nothing to keep us from being just like CA, with "featureless stocks", 5 round non-detachable magazines, etc.

Wrong again.

"Common firearms for self-defense" are firearms that enable persons to defend themselves or others with reliable precision and include those firearms and compatible ammunition magazines that were not subject to civilian purchase restrictions as of July 1, 2018, in Oregon,

Basically this does nothing.

Again, you couldn't be more wrong.

I still have not heard one argument, that holds any water, on why the change I suggested (or something similar) would not work?

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

Your argument makes no logical sense: do you think that by listing NFA items as not being protected you will stop the Michael Bloomingtons [sic] and Paul Allens of the world from funding groups that still equate "assault rifles" to machine guns and full auto. This will do nothing to protect us going forward.

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.

This will do nothing to protect us going forward.

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.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Remove the diatribe about bump stocks and NFA items. Simply going unsaid does more than making a laundry list of items to ban.

 

[Defense Minister]

Good luck to you BSG 75. I'm with you, but the voice of reason seems to have left this thread only to be replaced by the immaturity of insults...

Folks have been asking for a pro-2A Initiative for a while, and now that they have it more of them seem to be complaining about it, and those of us who support it, than rallying behind it. It's no wonder we're losing this war for our rights

 

[Defense Minister]

From another thread:

An email from OFF.

07.30.18
A ballot measure to protect common firearms from new and restrictive regulations has been filed and we need your help to get it on the ballot.
We will need 1000 signatures to get a "ballot title". That is the first step. Then, after the expected court challenges we'll need a lot more signatures to actually get it on the ballot.
To start, here is the website for the measure https://www.commonfirearms.com/index.php
Here is the link to read the language of the measures and download a petition you can sign with instructions on how to print it and where to send it. PLEASE read the instructions and follow them. If you don't, your signature won't count. https://www.commonfirearms.com/sign.php
Here is a link for FAQ's about the measure: https://www.commonfirearms.com/faq.php
There has been an enormous amount of misinformation floating around the web about this measure. People believe it creates new restrictions on NFA firearms and things like "bumpstocks." It does not. We strongly urge you to read the FAQs so you have accurate info.
Some folks are claiming this is some kind of "Trojan Horse" and or is a scam to collect data on gun owners. Others are saying OFF has "sold out" because the measure does not include machine guns in the definition of "common firearms." But the fact is the measure was carefully written to survive not only judicial scrutiny, but the inevitable lies and misinformation that the media and the anti-gunners will create to oppose it.
A lot of work went into crafting a measure that not only would withstand the coming attacks, but would also get a good ballot title and have a good chance of passing.
We hear from gun owners every day who ask "What can I do?" Well folks, this is what you can do.
Please download and sign the petition and encourage others to do the same, then send them in as soon as possible.
Please send your signed TWO SIDED petition to:
Common Firearms
2570 Greenwood Road S.
Independence, OR 97351

The sooner we have the required number of signatures the sooner we can move on to the next phase. It's up to you now.
Did someone forward this to you? You can sign up for our free alerts here.

Do you want to support our efforts? You can donate here.

 

[BSG 75]

Remove the diatribe about bump stocks and NFA items. Simply going unsaid does more than making a laundry list of items to ban.

The general public, members of the media, and gun controllers don't understand the difference between semiauto and full auto.

Gun controllers take advantage of that confusion in the general public - or maybe they are just confused themselves. The authors of 2020-008 wisely anticipated that opponents of 2020-008 would try to claim that 2020-008 would protect "assault weapons" that in gun controllers' minds and in the minds of many voters are full auto machine guns. Supporters of 2020-008 as it is written can correctly point out that it would NOT protect machine guns. It anticipates and removes that line of attack while not making NFA items any less "protected" than they are right now.

You can't play chess the way you play checkers. You have to think several moves ahead and anticipate your opponent's lines of attack, and block them.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Agreed and you are playing checkers. Sometimes stealth is your ally. Explicitly protecting everything but something is sacrificing pieces for no reason other than ignorance and pride.

If you don't say anything about stamped items or bump stocks you leave that kettle of fish alone. If you bring it up, you ensure loss of rights. Now this may be an acceptable loss to you, but in that case, you are actually aiding gun banners, rather than the 2a.

 

[rscinsc]

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.

You need to take a High School level Civics class.
The current laws you state are just that, laws...they are subject to review by the Courts of Oregon and the Federal Court System.
An Amendment to the Oregon Constitution would keep the Oregon Court from now, or in the future overturning these laws. In addition Federal Courts are loath to overturn State Constitutions...will they occasionally do it; yes...but it is rare. So basically this will STRENGTHEN THESE EXISTING LAWS, AND REMOVE ANY OBSTACLES TO THEIR IMPLEMENTATION.

The Amendment doesn't have to add protections for 'bump stocks'...it just needs to not mention them. Do you think that having this provision will get you 1 anti gun vote.....it adds nothing. It is better left un-codified than given away.

You are wrong....on all of your counts.
What does this Amendment do to keep the Legislative body from passing IP43 or IP44 in session; with the caveat that all guns are banned starting August 1 2018?
It does nothing....and that is why this proposal does nothing....a simple re-writing of the 2nd & 3rd paragraph would take this proposed change from "do nothing"...to "do everything".
Then there needs to be a 5th paragraph added:

Firearms being necessary to the self defense of the Residents of the State of Oregon. The state shall pass no lo increasing the civil liability of any lawful owner of firearms due to the unlawful or criminal conduct of others.

That is going on the offensive.

IP43 & IP44 (which also needs to be addressed)...were Hail Mary attempts to take away rights; you go on the offensive by running the same Hail Mary the other way. You don't go on the offensive to get back to a stalemate..you go on the offensive to win a vicory.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Folks, let's back off a bit here, this is just the rough draft of what I'm sure will be a few more! This is the first step in a offensive move forward to be fine protecting our selves from unjust laws brought by agenda and emotion driven people! I for one am excited to for once have a strong chance at fighting back against the loss of my freedom, you all should be too! Let's keep focused on the task at hand and try to work together to make this a reality! STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and stop playing by the antis rules! Until suchtime as we have a final draft to review, all these arguements are not helping any one with any thin! Hopefully the good folks who have takes the lead and begin the task of bringing this out will not be swayed in their resolve to fight back! Hopefully they can feel welcome here and we can have a civil discourse on things moving forward! Let's face it, right now, we're not being excelent to each other and that's not helping. Breaking this down to semantics isn't helping, and while there are differences of opinion, arguing minutia isn't going to do any good ether! We all need to knuckle up and get behind this, no matter if we agree with every single word or not, or like said before, we will be stuck on the spin cycle fighting to stop the other side from taking freedom!

 

[rscinsc]

Folks, let's back off a bit here, this is just the rough draft of what I'm sure will be a few more! This is the first step in a offensive move forward to be fine protecting our selves from unjust laws brought by agenda and emotion driven people! I for one am excited to for once have a strong chance at fighting back against the loss of my freedom, you all should be too! Let's keep focused on the task at hand and try to work together to make this a reality! STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and stop playing by the antis rules! Until suchtime as we have a final draft to review, all these arguements are not helping any one with any thin! Hopefully the good folks who have takes the lead and begin the task of bringing this out will not be swayed in their resolve to fight back! Hopefully they can feel welcome here and we can have a civil discourse on things moving forward! Let's face it, right now, we're not being excelent to each other and that's not helping. Breaking this down to semantics isn't helping, and while there are differences of opinion, arguing minutia isn't going to do any good ether! We all need to knuckle up and get behind this, no matter if we agree with every single word or not, or like said before, we will be stuck on the spin cycle fighting to stop the other side from taking freedom!

This is not a 'rough draft'...this was submitted to the SOS office for the 2020 ballot. I cannot be changed; if changed (which it should be)....it would need to be re-submitted.
Would I vote for this yes....but this takes away our last, best shot of making permanent changes to protect Oregon Gun rights. I feel 2020 will be our last chance to make 2A protections rock solid and bullet proof in this state...and this ruins that chance. This will be picked apart over the next 10 years.
Semantics are everything! The details of laws, what is left in...and what is left out, is what makes the differences between laws. The 2A is usually argued in nothing but semantics (does the comma mean anything...or is it just an English language usage...is about as minute as you can get).
This does nothing from a future firearms ban, magazine restriction, "assault weapons feature", etc.
This does nothing to keep something like IP44 from making us all civilly liable for firearms that are stolen from our homes.
This takes existing laws, that could be challenged in court...and makes them part of the Constitution (or above challenge).

Is this better than nothing...I don't really know. I think I would rather "keep my powder dry" and my legal donation funds for something that makes real change. To me, this is just a lost opportunity...and given the demographics of this state; this is probably our last opportunity.

To put it economically, the opportunity cost of this project outweighs the benefits of the project.

 

[BSG 75]

You need to take a High School level Civics class.

You should take your own advice. See below.

The current laws you state are just that, laws...they are subject to review by the Courts of Oregon and the Federal Court System.
An Amendment to the Oregon Constitution would keep the Oregon Court from now, or in the future overturning these laws. In addition Federal Courts are loath to overturn State Constitutions...will they occasionally do it; yes...but it is rare. So basically this will STRENGTHEN THESE EXISTING LAWS, AND REMOVE ANY OBSTACLES TO THEIR IMPLEMENTATION.

An amendment to constitution is necessary, because anyone who not only took but passed a civics class AND knows anything about constitutional law should know that legislatures can not with ordinary laws bind the actions of future legislatures.

There is a principle of constitutional law holding that "one legislature may not bind the legislative authority of its successors."' The Supreme Court recently discussed that principle at length in United States v. Winstar, and although the case was decided on other grounds, it is clear that the Court sees the principle as a constitutional axiom.
When cashed out in terms of constitutional doctrine, the principle means that legislatures may not enact entrenching statutes or entrenching rules: statutes or rules that bind the exercise of legislative power, by a subsequent legislature, over the subject matter of the entrenching provision.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2784&context=journal_articles

2020-008 must be an amendment to the Oregon constitution if it is to prohibit future legislatures from passing gun bans. An ordinary law would be thrown out as unconstitutional. And it does not "strengthen" those gun control laws at all. Nothing in 2020-008 would prevent those gun control laws from being overturned. You would have to understand things beyond the level of a high school civics class to know that.

The Amendment doesn't have to add protections for 'bump stocks'...it just needs to not mention them. Do you think that having this provision will get you 1 anti gun vote.....it adds nothing. It is better left un-codified than given away.

We're trying to prevent bans on common semiauto rifles and you're obsessed with bump stocks. You're going to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

You are wrong....on all of your counts.

Actually no, I'm not.

What does this Amendment do to keep the Legislative body from passing IP43 or IP44 in session; with the caveat that all guns are banned starting August 1 2018?

I'll keep repeating it until it sinks in:

"Common firearms for self-defense" also include any functionally similar models of firearms, mechanical actions, or magazines developed thereafter, so long as such items are not subject to civilian purchase restrictions under federal law at the time of purchase.

2020-008 would expressly forbid such a law.

It does nothing....and that is why this proposal does nothing....a simple re-writing of the 2nd & 3rd paragraph would take this proposed change from "do nothing"...to "do everything".

Instead of arguing here, why don't you contact the people who wrote it and they will explain why it is written the way it is. If you don't like it you can always vote NO and then wait for gun controllers to try to pass IP 43, which I heard Rev. Knutson say at the OregonLive gun control debate/discussion - I was there in person, were you? - that he is determined to do in 2020. You must enjoy being on the defensive (on the receiving end of an attacking thrust). This is our chance to be on offense for once.

You need to take a High School level Civics class.

Any more condescending, low-information suggestions, Professor?