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

[Diamondback]

This initiative should be tossed out as written. Let the petitioners try a third attempt. Good work on your letter.

Part that worries me is next round... well, as we adapt so do they, and next time they'll file for a ballot so far out we can't tie it up past deadline in court. So we'll need to develop a counter tactic for that...

 

[arakboss]

Part that worries me is next round... well, as we adapt so do they, and next time they'll file for a ballot so far out we can't tie it up past deadline in court. So we'll need to develop a counter tactic for that...

That is a huge worry of mine. I feel like even if we swat this IP43 down they will be back in 2020 or worse the legislature will take over the cause in the next session, and every year that goes by we have a smaller percentage of voters who are 2nd amendment supporters. It almost feels like it is a lost cause but I am open to ideas for a long term solution to this problem. Anybody have one?

 

[Diamondback]

Go on offense, with initiatives of your own--like start with Reciprocity using the Florida model (even though I don't like the training requirement) of Substantially Similar reqs. Ginny Burdick's been singlehandedly holding this commonsense legislation back for DECADES, so time to try an End Run.

 

[arakboss]

Go on offense, with initiatives of your own--like start with Reciprocity using the Florida model (even though I don't like the training requirement) of Substantially Similar reqs. Ginny Burdick's been singlehandedly holding this commonsense legislation back for DECADES, so time to try an End Run.

How has G Burdick been holding this back?

 

[guido1161]

We need to start an initiative the would elect the Governor much like the President is elected, though an Electoral College model. Each county receives a vote(a) based on population. This would give the counties east of I-5 and south of Eugene more of a voice in electing the governor. If we ever hope to protect the liberties and freedoms we have left we need to erode the power that the liberal afterbirth currently has over our State.

 

[arakboss]

We need to start an initiative the would elect the Governor much like the President is elected, though an Electoral College model. Each county receives a vote(a) based on population. This would give the counties east of I-5 and south of Eugene more of a voice in electing the governor. If we ever hope to protect the liberties and freedoms we have left we need to erode the power that the liberal afterbirth currently has over our State.

do any other states have an electoral college model like that for electing a governor?

 

[arakboss]

The cover sheet that was issued by the Secretary of State's office with the draft ballot title on IP43 indicated the SOS was seeking public input "on whether the petition complies with the procedural constitutional requirements established in the Oregon Constitution for initiative petitions". This was a separate request to the written comments concerning the sufficiency of the draft ballot title itself.

I did both but with regard to the SOS request for input on the procedural constitution requirements, I sent him the following [these are just the points I made, not the actual letter itself] -

My argument –

IP 43 violates the Oregon Constitution's single issue clause for initiative petitions, which is Article IV, Section 1, subsection [2][d] and which states in part "A proposed law or amendment to the Constitution shall embrace one subject only and matters properly related therewith" [emphasis mine].

IP 43 identifies its goal or purpose [IP 43, Section 2] to be "…a reduction in the availability of assault weapons and [emphasis mine] large capacity ammunition magazines…".

Points which I detailed -

The chief petitioners identify two separate subjects in the description line of the initiative petition [IP 43] –
1. 'Assault weapons' and
2. large capacity ammunition magazines.

IP 43 further identifies two separate crimes covering the two separate subjects –
1. Unlawful possession of an assault weapon and
2. Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition magazine.

Granted these two points could be considered "matters properly related therewith" under Article IV Oregon Constitution. I argued that they should be considered separate because –
1. The type of firearms to be banned are of extreme popularity, high demand, commonality and,
2. The type of large capacity ammunition magazines to be banned are also of extreme popularity, high demand, and commonality.
3. Not all large capacity magazines are associated to semi-auto weapons commonly considered 'assault weapons'.
4. Persons not fully familiar with firearms commonly relate the term 'assault weapon' only with the AR-15 and AK-47 style weapons and not the great many other semi-auto rifles, pistols, and shotguns this initiative will ban.

In addition, I pointed out that IP 43, Section 4[3] establishes for the first time, a registry of firearm owners. I noted that firearm registries have historically been opposed by us, and that the establishment of a registry has nothing to do with the stated goal of IP 43, that being the "reduction of availability of assault weapons and large capacity magazines", and therefore this Section 4[3] is not "a matter related therewith" and should be considered a separate issue.

I also noted that Section 5[4] severely restricts locations where an 'assault weapon' and large capacity ammunition magazines may be possessed. I pointed out that this section appears to prohibit possession of those items on public lands, which are extensive in Oregon. I argued that this section of IP 43 also was not "a matter related therewith" to its stated goals, and should be considered a separate issue as well.
---

I would hope that SOS Richardson will concur with my arguments and not certify this initiative.

If any of you have yet to send in your comments, please do so now. Note that the cutoff date for both the written comments on the draft ballot title and the public input to the SOS are due by 5/8/18. If you think any of the points I've made are valid, use them.

 

[nammac]

We need to be on the offensive, always...

Get pro-gun legislation introduced, get pro-gun initiatives into the process, every legislative and election season we should have an entire litany of pro-gun bills. Start taking charge and fighting for our Civil Rights...

 

[nammac]

We need to start an initiative the would elect the Governor much like the President is elected, though an Electoral College model. Each county receives a vote(a) based on population. This would give the counties east of I-5 and south of Eugene more of a voice in electing the governor. If we ever hope to protect the liberties and freedoms we have left we need to erode the power that the liberal afterbirth currently has over our State.

Amen, from your lips to God's ears!

 

[awshoot]

We need to be on the offensive, always...

Get pro-gun legislation introduced, get pro-gun initiatives into the process, every legislative and election season we should have an entire litany of pro-gun bills. Start taking charge and fighting for our Civil Rights...

Exactly. Right now we are in a fight against a bad law but aside from education and marketing, what do we have?

If instead we had a proposal that was pro-gun in the legislature, one could bargain -- "OK OK, we'll give up the requirement that everyone own a semi-auto if you give up the requirement that all semi-autos will be banned." Or something like that.

Of course, that doesn't work with initiatives because there is nobody to bargain with really.

 

[Diamondback]

Unless she retired without me hearing about it up here in WA, Burdick's used obstruction on HB3093 and similar as leverage to try to horse-trade for her Ugly Gun Ban which she's now at alarmingly good chance of getting by initiative. Did it with previous recip bills too IIRC, probably will with future ones.

 

[arakboss]

The cover sheet that was issued by the Secretary of State's office with the draft ballot title on IP43 indicated the SOS was seeking public input "on whether the petition complies with the procedural constitutional requirements established in the Oregon Constitution for initiative petitions". This was a separate request to the written comments concerning the sufficiency of the draft ballot title itself.

I did both but with regard to the SOS request for input on the procedural constitution requirements, I sent him the following [these are just the points I made, not the actual letter itself] -

My argument –

IP 43 violates the Oregon Constitution's single issue clause for initiative petitions, which is Article IV, Section 1, subsection [2][d] and which states in part "A proposed law or amendment to the Constitution shall embrace one subject only and matters properly related therewith" [emphasis mine].

IP 43 identifies its goal or purpose [IP 43, Section 2] to be "…a reduction in the availability of assault weapons and [emphasis mine] large capacity ammunition magazines…".

Points which I detailed -

The chief petitioners identify two separate subjects in the description line of the initiative petition [IP 43] –
1. 'Assault weapons' and
2. large capacity ammunition magazines.

IP 43 further identifies two separate crimes covering the two separate subjects –
1. Unlawful possession of an assault weapon and
2. Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition magazine.

Granted these two points could be considered "matters properly related therewith" under Article IV Oregon Constitution. I argued that they should be considered separate because –
1. The type of firearms to be banned are of extreme popularity, high demand, commonality and,
2. The type of large capacity ammunition magazines to be banned are also of extreme popularity, high demand, and commonality.
3. Not all large capacity magazines are associated to semi-auto weapons commonly considered 'assault weapons'.
4. Persons not fully familiar with firearms commonly relate the term 'assault weapon' only with the AR-15 and AK-47 style weapons and not the great many other semi-auto rifles, pistols, and shotguns this initiative will ban.

In addition, I pointed out that IP 43, Section 4[3] establishes for the first time, a registry of firearm owners. I noted that firearm registries have historically been opposed by us, and that the establishment of a registry has nothing to do with the stated goal of IP 43, that being the "reduction of availability of assault weapons and large capacity magazines", and therefore this Section 4[3] is not "a matter related therewith" and should be considered a separate issue.

I also noted that Section 5[4] severely restricts locations where an 'assault weapon' and large capacity ammunition magazines may be possessed. I pointed out that this section appears to prohibit possession of those items on public lands, which are extensive in Oregon. I argued that this section of IP 43 also was not "a matter related therewith" to its stated goals, and should be considered a separate issue as well.
---

I would hope that SOS Richardson will concur with my arguments and not certify this initiative.

If any of you have yet to send in your comments, please do so now. Note that the cutoff date for both the written comments on the draft ballot title and the public input to the SOS are due by 5/8/18. If you think any of the points I've made are valid, use them.

I was thinking about your suggestion that there are multiple subjects in IP43 and how could it pass procedural constitutional muster. I think what you and I were considering as multiple subjects is actually one subject. I am going to include a few paragraphs from a very long description of how the courts have looked at the one subject rule. Basically you have a one "subject", in the case of IP43 it's semi-auto firearms and then you have "matters" that deal with different aspects of that one subject. As long as the courts can find a reasonable connection between the matters and the subject then it passes muster. This is my interpretation but read it for yourself and see if you come up with the same idea, Here is a link to the full case discussion but it is long and boring, following that is a few paragraphs that explain what I feel will allow IP43 to get a pass.

State Ex Rel. Caleb v. Beesley

"A measure must first be scrutinized to determine whether it embraces more than *728 one subject. If it does, it offends the constitutional limitation even if the subjects are `properly connected,' and that is the end of the inquiry. If it does not, the single subject must be identified. When that is done, and if the proposal embraces no other matters, there is no need to inquire into proper connection. * * * "If the proposal embraces one subject only and also other `matters,' then, and only then, it must be determined whether those other matters are properly connected with the subject." Id. at 100, 727 P.2d 602.

McIntire v. Forbes, 322 Or. 426, 443-44, 909 P.2d 846 (1996), provided the analytic framework for Article IV, section 20 one-subject challenges to the body of an act. To determine if the act "embraces but one subject," the court attempts to identify a unifying principle logically connecting all provisions in the act. First the court examines the body of the act. Second, if the court is unable to ascertain such a principle in the body of the act, then the court considers whether the act's title provides a unifying principle identified by the legislature. Ibid. In McIntire, 322 Or. at 443, 909 P.2d 846, this court explained:

"One can extract from this court's cases interpreting Article IV, section 20, over the last century certain shared ingredients in the definition of what constitutes `one subject.' The legislature may choose a comprehensive subject for legislation. But, for the contents of a bill to embrace one subject, there must be a unifying principle, referred to variously as `one general subject,' `one general object,' `one general idea,' or `the object in view.' Relatedly, for a bill to embrace one subject, there must exist among its parts some logical connection relating each to the others." Id. at 433, 909 P.2d 846 (emphasis in original; footnote omitted).

 

[arakboss]

I was thinking about your suggestion that there are multiple subjects in IP43 and how could it pass procedural constitutional muster. I think what you and I were considering as multiple subjects is actually one subject. I am going to include a few paragraphs from a very long description of how the courts have looked at the one subject rule. Basically you have a one "subject", in the case of IP43 it's semi-auto firearms and then you have "matters" that deal with different aspects of that one subject. As long as the courts can find a reasonable connection between the matters and the subject then it passes muster. This is my interpretation but read it for yourself and see if you come up with the same idea, Here is a link to the full case discussion but it is long and boring, following that is a few paragraphs that explain what I feel will allow IP43 to get a pass.

State Ex Rel. Caleb v. Beesley

"A measure must first be scrutinized to determine whether it embraces more than *728 one subject. If it does, it offends the constitutional limitation even if the subjects are `properly connected,' and that is the end of the inquiry. If it does not, the single subject must be identified. When that is done, and if the proposal embraces no other matters, there is no need to inquire into proper connection. * * * "If the proposal embraces one subject only and also other `matters,' then, and only then, it must be determined whether those other matters are properly connected with the subject." Id. at 100, 727 P.2d 602.

McIntire v. Forbes, 322 Or. 426, 443-44, 909 P.2d 846 (1996), provided the analytic framework for Article IV, section 20 one-subject challenges to the body of an act. To determine if the act "embrace but one subject," the court attempts to identify a unifying principle logically connecting all provisions in the act. First the court examines the body of the act. Second, if the court is unable to ascertain such a principle in the body of the act, then the court considers whether the act's title provides a unifying principle identified by the legislature. Ibid. In McIntire, 322 Or. at 443, 909 P.2d 846, this court explained:

"One can extract from this court's cases interpreting Article IV, section 20, over the last century certain shared ingredients in the definition of what constitutes `one subject.' The legislature may choose a comprehensive subject for legislation. But, for the contents of a bill to embrace one subject, there must be a unifying principle, referred to variously as `one general subject,' `one general object,' `one general idea,' or `the object in view.' Relatedly, for a bill to embrace one subject, there must exist among its parts some logical connection relating each to the others." Id. at 433, 909 P.2d 846 (emphasis in original; footnote omitted).

I don't know why the last two paragraphs are lined out but it is important to read them. Never mind fixed line out problem, thanks to Diamondback's help.

 

[Diamondback]

Lined out because an S in brackets is BB code to start a Strikethrough.

 

[arakboss]

Lined out because an S in brackets is BB code to start a Strikethrough.

thanks I will see if I can fix that.

 

[NW Backpacker]

How much would it cost me in time and money (for court/legal fees) if I write a letter in opposition to the ballot title and follow through on it up to the Supreme Court?

 

[1Asterisk]

I was thinking about your suggestion that there are multiple subjects in IP43 and how could it pass procedural constitutional muster. I think what you and I were considering as multiple subjects is actually one subject. I am going to include a few paragraphs from a very long description of how the courts have looked at the one subject rule. Basically you have a one "subject", in the case of IP43 it's semi-auto firearms and then you have "matters" that deal with different aspects of that one subject. As long as the courts can find a reasonable connection between the matters and the subject then it passes muster. This is my interpretation but read it for yourself and see if you come up with the same idea, Here is a link to the full case discussion but it is long and boring, following that is a few paragraphs that explain what I feel will allow IP43 to get a pass.

Good research! You may be right. If the court only requires that the 'other matters' be vaguely related to the subject of firearms then we could lose on this argument. However, at this point we only need to convince the Sec. of State. If we can do that, then I see no way this gets on the ballot...this year anyway. At this point anything is worth a shot IMO.

 

[Captain O]

How much would it cost me in time and money (for court/legal fees) if I write a letter in opposition to the ballot title and follow through on it up to the Supreme Court?

See if we can get a "2nd amendment friendly" attorney to write a letter (for a reasonable fee) to submit to the Supreme Court as a petition and see where that could take us.

 

[guido1161]

I'm good for a couple hundred towards the cost.

 

[1Asterisk]

That is a huge worry of mine. I feel like even if we swat this IP43 down they will be back in 2020 or worse the legislature will take over the cause in the next session, and every year that goes by we have a smaller percentage of voters who are 2nd amendment supporters. It almost feels like it is a lost cause but I am open to ideas for a long term solution to this problem. Anybody have one?

We need to be on the offensive, always...

Get pro-gun legislation introduced, get pro-gun initiatives into the process, every legislative and election season we should have an entire litany of pro-gun bills. Start taking charge and fighting for our Civil Rights...

Exactly. Right now we are in a fight against a bad law but aside from education and marketing, what do we have?

If instead we had a proposal that was pro-gun in the legislature, one could bargain -- "OK OK, we'll give up the requirement that everyone own a semi-auto if you give up the requirement that all semi-autos will be banned." Or something like that.

Of course, that doesn't work with initiatives because there is nobody to bargain with really.

Sadly, if we defend our rights this year, they'll be back next year.
If we pass pro-2A legislation next year, they'll try to defeat it the year after.

We are in a cycle of our history where people don't remember, and don't care to remember the role firearms played in winning our liberties. They are too comfortable with their current relative safety to care about how firearms have been used in our history to keep their liberties. Too many just don't care. Too many of our own don't care.

It will take some event, of some magnitude to change that.