OR Sec of State request for IP43 procedural compliance - here is mine

[awshoot]

FOPA is probably the reason why they have a separate form. I doubt OSP is stupid enough to make the mistake of using form 4473 info.

The data collected in the form WA uses has been mandated since 1935 although the information required to be gathered has changed a bit over the years. That WA has a separate form is probably just an accident of history, but also why we still have a pistol registry.

 

[Stomper]

As for banning/restricting a class of firearm(s), the answer to a defense lies within United States v. Miller

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia



I don't know why the "minds that be" haven't attacked anti-2A doin's in ernest with this ruling....

 

[awshoot]

I really don't like Miller -- let's remember that what Miller did was uphold as Constitutional, a Federal gun control act. Scalia dances around Miller in Heller quite a bit because invalidating Miller would invalidate the laws prohibiting automatic firearms and he probably couldn't have gotten the necessary votes if that was to be the outcome of Heller. Instead, Scalia essentially recast the language of Miller to a large degree without overruling it, in order to get to a place where he could say the 2A provides an individual right AND secure enough votes to get that argument a majority.

 

[CountryGent]

Thanks for the heads up on this. I'm drafting a letter now.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Can any one smarter then me dig up the specifics that allow the OSP to violate the law out side what Gov'nss Kate did?
I know the OSP has been caught lying about it in the past, and they do not pass muster for exemption prior to the AWB/Brady B.S.!

 

[Stomper]

I really don't like Miller -- let's remember that what Miller did was uphold as Constitutional, a Federal gun control act. Scalia dances around Miller in Heller quite a bit because invalidating Miller would invalidate the laws prohibiting automatic firearms and he probably couldn't have gotten the necessary votes if that was to be the outcome of Heller. Instead, Scalia essentially recast the language of Miller to a large degree without overruling it, in order to get to a place where he could say the 2A provides an individual right AND secure enough votes to get that argument a majority.

But US vs Miller sets precedent that weapons NOT in common use by the military aren't "protected" for civilian use by the 2A. The AR pattern rifle (and arguably the AK), semi-auto pistols, "banana-mags", etc ARE in common use by the military.

Also, the above mentioned platforms ARE in common use by by the citizenry, and the finer points of FA vs SA are superfluous worries at this point.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Surprised that hasn' been over turned, especially years after with the Army issuing the M-23 which had barrels shorter then 20 inches with out extended chokes!

 

[41mag]

How is it that "law abiding citizens" are not afforded 'equal rights' and 'equal protection' under the law....just like violent criminals who ignore gun laws?

 

[Slobray]

BINGO! NAILED IT!
HERE is the low down, Or. state politzi do in fact maintain a regrestry wild IS illegal and they have been caught lying about it at least twice, and Gov'nss Brown even issued an E.O. mandating the collection of records pertaining to firearms purchases! And we all know where OSP gets that info, yup, form 4473. So, why hasn' this been taken up in the courts and stricken as anti Constitutnal law? Again, where the hell is the NRA? Obviously not intreated in supporting OryGunions!
This needs more investigation going forward, once we get rid of Kate, this should be pushed hard!

You know, it might be better to run that one by the 2AF, as they seem to take and win more cases than the NRA.



Ray

 

[Ura-Ki]

Surprised that hasn' been over turned, especially years after with the Army issuing the M-23 which had barrels shorter then 20 inches with out extended chokes!

I miss spoke, it's not the M-23, its the Ithaca M-37, and further more, I believe the U.S.C.G. had at one time the Benelli pump and Savage M-12 with 18 in barrels for boarding inspections and such!

 

[awshoot]

But US vs Miller sets precedent that weapons not common use by the military aren't "protected" for civilian use. The AR pattern rifle (and arguably the AK), semi-auto pistols, "banana-mags", etc ARE in common use by the military.

Also, the above mentioned platforms ARE in common use by by the citizenry, and the finer points of FA vs SA are superfluous worries at this point.

Right -- which leads to the strange result that all of Andy's black powder rifles would completely open to total regulation and confiscation because the 2A would not apply to them under a Miller analysis. This is one example of why Scalia essentially overruled Miller by changing what it originally said to something else.

Justice Stevens (of "repeal the 2A" fame) used Miller in his dissent to the Heller case. Scalia addresses the Miller based argument Stevens made:

That the Second Amendment "protects
the right to keep and bear arms for certain military pur-
poses, but that it does not curtail the legislature's power to
regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons."

and ends by saying what Miller really means is:

We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

It's really an amazingly well done job of keeping Miller valid in order to keep the ban on automatic weapons in place (probably to get votes) and at the same time, recasting Miller as saying something it never really said. It's worth reading, p49 - 53: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

 

[Ura-Ki]

If the SCOTUS were to invalidate Miller, they would be forced to overturn both the 1934 and 1968 NFA, invalidating those as th ere was in fact never a out right ban, only a Tax and regrestry plus a fixing of numbers of transferables! So, in essence, Miller was overturned by default, because there IS no ban!

 

[awshoot]

If the SCOTUS were to invalidate Miller, they would be forced to overturn both the 1934 and 1968 NFA, invalidating those as th ere was in fact never a out right ban, only a Tax and regrestry plus a fixing of numbers of transferables! So, in essence, Miller was overturned by default, because there IS no ban!

Part of Scalia's magic in Heller:

Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordi-
nary military equipment" could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must
be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily
when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time."

 

[Ura-Ki]

ZACKLY!

 

[1Asterisk]

Sorry to burst your bubble but here is why states can have registries. FOPA only prevented federal records from being used to create registries. For example if Oregon contacted the BATF and wanted the records of previously purchased firearms by Oregonians, the feds would have to decline providing that info under FOPA law. So the state will have to have the owners with previously purchased firearms register them with the state to have them included in the registry. Good try though.

I'm with Arkaboss on this.

Firearm Owners Protection Act, Pub. L. 99–308, § 106(4)..."No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established".

I read it to say the federal government cannot make any rule or regulation after the date of the enactment that would require records or any part of the record, to be recorded at or transferred to any entity controlled by any state or political subdivision. In other words, the fed gov can't provide any database of firearms records to a state. That doesn't mean that the state can't require all or part of the same information from a federal form 4473 for inclusion into a state registry. Nor does it prohibit state or local law enforcement from requesting specific information [ie; in a criminal investigation] from the fed records. It just means the fed gov cannot make a regulation requiring that information be provided to a state.

Nor can the fed gov establish any system of firearms owners registration. I don't read it to prohibit the state from keeping their own registry.

Just my opinion - I've been known to be wrong.

 

[awshoot]

... [prohibits storage of 4473 data] by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established".

I still think the part starting with "nor" is a separate requirement because we are talking about two different topics:

1) Storage of 4473 data
2) "ANY system of registration ..."

If part 2 means the same thing as part 1, it would be completely superfluous wasted language, and courts are hesitant to believe that legislatures waste their breath: Rule against Surplusage

One argument an Anti could use against my line of reasoning, is that nothing in the part 2 indicates it applies to states, but while I see two separate topics in this paragraph, I also see two subjects, the Feds and the States, and to suddenly switch to a single subject would be an odd use of English, so that would be a counter-counter-argument.

Anyway, so far as I'm aware, no court has interpreted this section so there is no definitive answer one way or the other and I could be totally wrong. But I hope I'm right if it ever does get decided. ;-)

EDIT: FOPA probably has nothing to say about state registration: OR Sec of State request for IP43 procedural compliance - here is mine

 

[arakboss]

My comments:

"The proposed caption for Initiative Petition 2018-043, proposed for the November 6, 2018, General Election does not meet the requirements of the Oregon State Constitution which requires that initiative measures address only one subject:

"Article IV, Section 1(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"

Initiative Petition 2018-043 addresses two separate subjects, those being the possession of a certain class of firearms, and the possession of a certain class of firearm magazines which may or may not be applicable to the aforementioned class of firearms, and may be relevant to an entirely different class of firearms. If an elector desires to approve only one subject or the other he or she must approve both.


Further, Initiative Petition 2018-043 violates ORS 250.035:

(2)The ballot title of any state measure to be initiated or referred shall consist of:

(a)A caption of not more than 15 words that reasonably identifies the subject matter of the state measure. The caption of an initiative or referendum amendment to the Constitution shall begin with the phrase, "Amends Constitution," which shall not be counted for purposes of the 15-word caption limit;


Initiative Petition 2018-043 uses the ambiguous and emotionally charged term "assault weapon". While the full text of the measure goes on to define what petitioners believe constitutes an "assault weapon", the general public has been indoctrinated to believe that "assault weapons", whatever they might actually be, are intrinsically evil. There are numerous definitions of the term "assault weapon" that have been routinely explained in the media, in previous legislation, and in public debate for decades. These definitions vary wildly in their scope and meaning, and the design features covered. The use of the term "assault weapons" in this ballot caption is misleading and plays upon the emotional responses of the voters.


For these reasons, the proposed ballot caption for Initiative Petition 2018-043 should be rejected and revised."

I would like to point out another failing of the caption/title, which is the fact that it doesn't mention the storage requirements. I also believe the storage requirement portion of the law breaks the single subject law. But it is a double no-no that they also failed to mention it in the caption/title. This initiative should be tossed out as written. Let the petitioners try a third attempt. Good work on your letter.

 

[awshoot]

I'm with Arkaboss on this. ...

I read it to say the federal government cannot make any rule or regulation ....

The more I think about this, the more I think you might be right as depressing as that may be. If we read the line about storage in a state as meaning the Feds can't store info in a state, then there is only one subject in that paragraph (the Feds) and not two (the Feds and the States).

EDIT: indeed, it looks like FOPA probably has nothing to say about state registration: OR Sec of State request for IP43 procedural compliance - here is mine

 

[SUPER X]

It probably will not help, but I wrote President Trump and asked him to declare a national emergency due to hordes of foreign invaders pouring over our borders; and that this emergency should remain until a complete border wall is constructed and illegal immigration has stopped. Further, the national emergency order should prohibit state, local, or federal governments from assault weapon bans, confiscation, registration schemes, taxing, etc so that legal owners of AWs may be available to defend the nation should it be required.

Good Job

 

[Ura-Ki]

One step at a time here folks, let's get this thing swatted down and then start in on the rest of the infringements!!
I really wanna see the OSP burn, I wanna see the NFA and AWB struck down, and I wanna see Constitutional Carry for starters!