Bronze Lifetime
- Messages
- 406
- Reactions
- 665
Well, we are definitely getting Rogered on with regard to IP 44. Very little changes made to the original title or summary. Hopefully the NRA or OFF will challenge this to the Oregon SC and get this sucker delayed for another 2 years.
Here is the response from the Attorney General's office to the SoS:
Stephen N. Trout
Director, Elections Division
Office of the Secretary of State
255 Capitol St. NE, Ste. 501
Salem, OR 97310
Re: Proposed Initiative Petition — Requires Firearms be Locked During Storage/Transfer, Loss Reported, Minors' Use Supervised; Imposes Penalties/Liabilities.
DOJ File #BT-44-18; Elections Division #2018-044
Dear Mr. Trout:
We received comments about the draft ballot title for the above-referenced measure from over 400 people. We have reviewed each and every comment. Numerous commenters do not challenge the draft ballot title in any manner. Rather, many simply stated support or opposition to the proposed measure, or suggested specific language for use in the ballot title. Our usual practice is to individually address each comment letter we received; it is not possible to do so here. However, many of the comments presented the same themes or arguments, and we address those common concerns in this letter.
Many of the comments received suggested some confusion about the process for citizen initiative petitions. Some commenters seemed to assume that the Attorney General drafted the proposed measure. Others urged your office to support or oppose the measure, or to simply refuse to place it on the ballot.
With regard to the Attorney General, her role in the process of drafting the ballot title is to prepare an impartial ballot title that complies with ORS 250.035. The comments on a draft ballot title are an important part of that process, pointing out flaws or nuances that may not be readily apparent. The end result, the certified ballot title, is intended to provide fair and accurate information to voters so that informed choices can be made.
The vast majority of the comments were directed to the caption of the ballot title. However, many of the comments were also applicable to the result statements and the summary, and we used the comments to refine our thinking as to all parts of the draft ballot title. As a result, we have made changes to the caption, both result statements, and the summary.
Page 2
This letter summarizes those comments, our responses to the comments and the reasons why we altered or declined to alter the draft ballot title in response to the comments. ORAP 11.30(7) requires this letter to be included in the record if the Oregon Supreme Court is asked to review the ballot title.
Procedural requirements and constitutional requirements
Numerous commenters raise the issue of whether the proposed measure violates the single subject rule of the Oregon Constitution. Those issues are beyond the scope of the ballot title drafting process. See OAR 165-014-0028 (providing for separate review process by Secretary of State to determine whether measure complies with constitutional procedural requirements for proposed initiative measures).
Numerous commenters contend that IP 44 is unconstitutional under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570, 128 S Ct 2783, 171 L Ed 2d 637 (2008), and that the ballot title must state that it is unconstitutional. When the question of a law's unconstitutionality is "settled" and its application to the measure is "clear," the attorney general may address that issue in a ballot title. Nearman v. Rosenblum, 358 Or 818, 827-30, 371 P3d 1186 (2016). See also Caruthers v. Myers, 344 Or 596, 601-03, 189 P3d 1 (2008) (when the measure "undisputedly conflicted with federal law" Attorney General was obligated to so describe measure). Here, we conclude that it is neither clear nor undisputed that IP 44, if enacted, would conflict with federal law. See, e.g., Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 746 F3d 953 (9th Cir 2014), cert den 135 S Ct 2799 (2015) (city ordinance requiring handguns in residence to be stored in locked container or disabled with trigger lock when not carried on person did not violate Second Amendment). Accordingly, we decline to address that in the ballot title.
A. Current law
Before addressing the comments on the draft ballot title, we first discuss current law and IP 44's changes to the law.
Oregon law does not currently require that a person owning a firearm to store or secure the firearm in any particular manner when it is not in use or being transferred. Likewise, federal law does not impose any storage or securing requirements on firearm owners. 18 USC § 922(z)(1) requires that "any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer"1 who "sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed under
Page 3
this chapter" must "provide[]" the transferee "with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgun."2 Nothing in that statute requires that the storage or safety device be used on the handgun during the sale, delivery or transfer. It only requires that the device be "provided" to the transferee. Nor does 18 USC § 922(z)(1) require the transferee to use a secure storage or safety device for the handgun. The requirement that a secure storage or safety device be provided to the transferee applies only to handguns, and does not apply to other types of firearms such as shotguns or rifles.3
Oregon law currently places some limits on a minor's access to firearms. ORS 166.250(1) prohibits a person "under 18 years of age" from possessing a firearm. That prohibition does not apply if the firearm (other than a handgun) was transferred to the minor "by the minor's parent or guardian or by another person with the consent of the minor's parent or guardian[.]" ORS 166.250(2)(a)(A). A minor may also "[t]emporarily" possess a firearm "for hunting, target practice or any other lawful purpose[.]" ORS 166.250(2)(a)(B).
ORS 166.470(1) provides in pertinent part that "a person may not intentionally sell, deliver or otherwise transfer any firearm when the transferor knows or reasonably should know that the recipient: (a) Is under 18 years of age[.]" But ORS 166.470(3) provides that subsection (1)(a) does not prohibit:
(a) The parent or guardian, or another person with the consent of the parent or guardian, of a minor from transferring to the minor a firearm, other than a handgun; or
(b) The temporary transfer of any firearm to a minor for hunting, target practice or any other lawful purpose.
Page 4
ORS 497.350-360 limits hunting by minors. Persons under 14 who are hunting with a firearm must be accompanied by an adult, unless the person is hunting "on land owned by the parent or legal guardian of the person." ORS 497.350(2). Persons under 18 may not hunt wildlife, except on the person's own land or on land owned by the parent or legal guardian of the person, unless the person has completed a course in the "safe handling of lawful hunting weapons" or is engaged in a hunt with an appropriately licensed supervisory hunter who is over 21. ORS 497.360(1), (3).
Under current law, determining whether a firearm owner is liable for injuries caused by another person's use of the owner's firearm is generally analyzed under a foreseeability theory. See Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 17, 734 P2d 1326 (1987) ("nless the parties invoke a status, a relationship, or a particular standard of conduct that creates, defines, or limits the defendant's duty, the issue of liability for harm actually resulting from defendant's conduct properly depends on whether that conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk to a protected interest of the kind of harm that befell the plaintiff.").
B. IP 44's changes to current law
IP 44 contains six sections. Section 1 requires that an owner or possessor of a firearm "must secure the firearm with a trigger or cable lock engaged or in a locked container equipped with a tamper-resistant lock" unless the "firearm [is] carried or [is] under the control of the owner or possessor of the firearm."
A violation of the securing requirements is a Class C violation,4 unless "the owner or possessor knew or should have known that a minor would gain unauthorized access to the firearm," in which case it is a Class A violation.5 IP 44(1)(3)(a),(b). Each firearm stored in violation of the securing requirement "constitutes a separate violation." IP 44(1)(3)(c).
Section 2 requires that a "person who transfers a firearm must transfer the firearm with a trigger or cable lock engaged or in a locked container equipped with a tamper-resistant lock." IP 44(2)(1). A violation of that requirement is a Class C violation, and each firearm transferred in violation of that requirement "constitutes a separate violation." IP 44(2)(2).
Section (3) requires that a person who "owns, possesses or controls a firearm must report the loss or theft of the firearm to a law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the loss or theft occurred within 24 hours of the time the person knew or should have known of the loss
Page 5
of theft." IP 44(3)(1). A violation of that requirement is a Class B violation, and each firearm for which a person does not make the required report constitutes a separate violation. IP 44 (3)(2).
Section (4) requires that a "person who transfers a firearm to a minor that the minor does not own must directly supervise the minor's use of the firearm." IP 44(4)(1).
If a person's violation of the securing requirements of subsection (1)(1), the transfer requirements of subsection (2)(1), the reporting requirements of subsection (3)(1), or the supervision requirements of (4)(1) "results in injury [from the use of a firearm] to person or property within five years of the dates of the violation" the person is "strictly liable for the injury." IP 44 (1)(4), (2)(3), (3)(3). The liability imposed by those subsections "does not apply if the injury results from a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person." IP 44 (1)(5), (2)(4), (3)(4).
Section (5) requires the Attorney General to adopt rules "establishing the specifications for trigger locks, cable locks and containers equipped with tamper-resistant locks." Section (6) sets forth definitions for terms used in IP 44.
C. The caption
The caption of a ballot title is limited to fifteen words, and must "reasonably identif[y] the subject matter of the state measure." ORS 250.035(2)(a). The draft ballot title contains the following caption:
Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities
To meet the applicable statutory standard, case law requires that the caption "state or describe the proposed measure's subject matter 'accurately and in terms that will not confuse or mislead potential petition signers and voters.' " Kain/Waller v. Myers, 337 Or 36, 40, 93 P3d 62 (2004), quoting Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169, 174–75, 903 P2d 366 (1995). "Subject matter," refers to the "actual major effect" of a measure or, if the measure has more than one major effect, all such effects (to the limit of the available words). See, e.g., Terhune v. Myers, 342 Or 475, 480, 154 P3d 1284 (2007) (so holding).
The caption must "inform potential petition signers and voters of the sweep of the measure." Terhune, 342 Or at 479. In identifying the "principal effect" or "actual major effect" of the proposed measure, id., the caption must not be inaccurate or underinclusive. Hunnicutt v. Myers, 342 Or 491, 495, 155 P3d 870 (2007). Yet, with those requirements, "[t]he Caption is not meant to serve as a comprehensive statement of the measure's effects." Carson v. Myers, 326 Or 248, 254, 951 P2d 700 (1998).
Page 6
A number of commenters assert that the subject matter of IP 44 is the imposition of strict civil liability for a person whose violation of sections (1) through (4) results in injury to person or property within five years. In their view, that is the most important change made by IP 44, and the failure to emphasize that change at the expense of the other changes is deceptive and misleading. Relatedly, they argue that the use of "imposes penalties/liabilities" is underinclusive because it does not notify voters that the imposed liability is the most important aspect of IP 44.
We conclude otherwise. For one thing, the application of strict liability for injury to persons or property is conditional. That is, it is contingent on a person's violation of the requirements for securing or transferring firearms, for reporting loss or theft, or for failing to supervise a minor's use of a firearm and injury to persons or property results. Strict liability does not attach if the firearm owner has complied with those requirements, or if no injury results. In addition, the actual extent of the liability created by the measure is difficult to assess in the abstract. Although the measure uses the phrase "strictly liable," other parts of the measure limit liability to cases where "violation [of the measure's requirements] results in" the injury. Because liability under the measure is conditional, and the extent of that liability is somewhat unclear, we do not believe that it is appropriate to emphasize strict liability in the caption. But, as discussed below, we have changed the "Yes" result statement to include a reference to strict liability.
A number of commenters assert that, as drafted, IP 44 would place firearm owners in the position of being presumed guilty and having to prove their innocence if charged with a violation. We disagree. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the state to prove a violation beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., In re Winship, 397 US 358, 90 S Ct 1068, 25 L Ed 2d 368 (1970). We perceive nothing in IP 44 that shifts that burden.
A number of commenters contend that IP 44's requirements would extend to antique firearms, and suggest that the failure to exclude antique firearm is a major effect. Though we agree that the measure appears to apply to antique firearms, we do not agree that this issue is significant enough to merit discussion in the ballot title. We think it is sufficient that nothing in the ballot title that suggests that antique firearms are excluded from the scope of the measure. For the same reason, we decline to make changes based on some commenters' suggestions that IP 44's requirements apply to law enforcement personnel
Some commenters assert that the caption is insufficient because it does not explain to voters there is a lack of clarity in the definition of "transfers," or provide clarification as to when a firearm is "carried by or under the control" of the owner or possessor of a firearm and thus not subject to the locking or securing requirements. Any shortcomings in IP 44 due to a lack of clarity are not an "actual major effect" of the initiative. Similarly, some commenters contend that IP 44's proposed changes are undesirable, and may be burdensome, expensive or difficult to comply with. A discussion of the merits of enacting IP 44 is best left to the voters' pamphlet and the political process.
Considering the comments as a whole, we certify the following caption:
Page 7
Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities
D. The results statements.
ORS 250.035(2)(b) and (c) require a ballot title to contain "[a] simple and understandable statement of not more than 25 words that describes the result if the state measure" is approved or rejected. The draft ballot title contains the following result statements:
Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote requires firearms to be locked during storage/transfer, loss/theft reported, minors' firearm use supervised; imposes penalties/liability for injuries resulting from violations.
Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains current laws which regulate transfer of firearms, but do not require firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss/theft reported, minors supervised.
As with the caption, numerous commenters contend that the imposition of strict liability for violations that result in injuries is the subject matter of IP 44, and therefore should be the main point of the "Yes" statement. For the reasons set out above with respect to the caption, we reject those assertions. However, in light of the larger word limit, we agree that the "Yes" statement can usefully alert people to the fact that the measure creates some type of strict liability, and to the fact that the liability created by the measure is limited to a five year period. We therefore change the "Yes" statement to include that information.
A number of commenters assert that the "No" statement inaccurately implies that there are no current limits on a minor's use of a firearm. We make changes to clarify current law on that subject. We also revise the "No" statement to note that negligence is the current standard for liability under Oregon law.
We certify the following "Yes" and "No" statements:
Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss/theft reported, minors' use supervised. Penalties; "strictly liable" for injuries resulting within five years.
Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains current laws regulating firearm transfer/possession, limiting minors' use; no locks or reporting loss/theft required; maintains negligence liability standard for injuries.
E. The summary
ORS 250.035(2)(d) requires a "concise and impartial statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state measure and its major effect." "The purpose of a ballot title's
`
Page 8
summary is to give voters enough information to understand what will happen if the initiative is adopted." McCann v. Rosenblum, 354 Or 701, 709, 320 P3d 548 (2014). The draft summary provides:
Summary: Requires owner/possessor of firearm to secure it with trigger or cable lock, or in locked container when not being carried by owner/possessor; must transfer firearm with trigger or cable lock, or in locked container; must report theft or loss of firearm to law enforcement within 24 hours; person who transfers firearm to minor must directly supervise minors' use of firearm. Failure to comply with requirements treated as violation. Person failing to comply with requirements is strictly liable if injury to person or property results within five years from failure to comply; liability does not apply if injury results from self-defense/defense of another. Attorney General to adopt specifications for trigger locks, cable locks, firearms containers. Defines "firearm," "transfer," other terms. Other provisions.
Numerous commenters assert that the summary contains the same shortcomings as the caption and result statements. For the reasons set out above, we revise the summary to be consistent with the caption and results statements, and to clarify the changes made by IP 44.
Additionally, a number of commenters appear to construe IP 44 as imposing criminal penalties for failing to comply with its requirements. They assert that violating IP 44's requirements would result in felony charges. To the contrary, failures to comply are expressly defined by IP 44 as "violations," either Class A or Class C. A "violation" is not a "crime." ORS 161.505-506. See also ORS 161.505 ("An offense is either a crime, as described in ORS 161.515, or a violation, as described in ORS 153.008."); ORS 153.008 (setting forth definition of violation); ORS 161.525 (felony is a crime with a sentence of one year of more imprisonment). In light of those comments, we change the summary to clarify the nature of the penalties for violating IP 44's requirements.
Page 9
We certify the following summary:
Summary: Requires firearm owner/possessor to secure it with trigger or cable lock, or in locked container when not carried by owner/possessor; must transfer firearm with trigger or cable lock, or in locked container; must report theft or loss of firearm to law enforcement within 24 hours; person transferring firearm to minor must directly supervise minor's firearm use. Failure to comply with requirements treated as a violation (not a crime). Person failing to comply with requirements is "strictly liable" if injury to person/property results within five years from failure to comply; liability does not apply if injury results from self-defense or defense of another. Attorney General to adopt specifications for trigger locks, cable locks, firearm containers. Defines "firearm," "transfer," other terms. Other provisions.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jeff J. Payne
______________________________
Jeff J. Payne
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Here is the response from the Attorney General's office to the SoS:
Stephen N. Trout
Director, Elections Division
Office of the Secretary of State
255 Capitol St. NE, Ste. 501
Salem, OR 97310
Re: Proposed Initiative Petition — Requires Firearms be Locked During Storage/Transfer, Loss Reported, Minors' Use Supervised; Imposes Penalties/Liabilities.
DOJ File #BT-44-18; Elections Division #2018-044
Dear Mr. Trout:
We received comments about the draft ballot title for the above-referenced measure from over 400 people. We have reviewed each and every comment. Numerous commenters do not challenge the draft ballot title in any manner. Rather, many simply stated support or opposition to the proposed measure, or suggested specific language for use in the ballot title. Our usual practice is to individually address each comment letter we received; it is not possible to do so here. However, many of the comments presented the same themes or arguments, and we address those common concerns in this letter.
Many of the comments received suggested some confusion about the process for citizen initiative petitions. Some commenters seemed to assume that the Attorney General drafted the proposed measure. Others urged your office to support or oppose the measure, or to simply refuse to place it on the ballot.
With regard to the Attorney General, her role in the process of drafting the ballot title is to prepare an impartial ballot title that complies with ORS 250.035. The comments on a draft ballot title are an important part of that process, pointing out flaws or nuances that may not be readily apparent. The end result, the certified ballot title, is intended to provide fair and accurate information to voters so that informed choices can be made.
The vast majority of the comments were directed to the caption of the ballot title. However, many of the comments were also applicable to the result statements and the summary, and we used the comments to refine our thinking as to all parts of the draft ballot title. As a result, we have made changes to the caption, both result statements, and the summary.
Page 2
This letter summarizes those comments, our responses to the comments and the reasons why we altered or declined to alter the draft ballot title in response to the comments. ORAP 11.30(7) requires this letter to be included in the record if the Oregon Supreme Court is asked to review the ballot title.
Procedural requirements and constitutional requirements
Numerous commenters raise the issue of whether the proposed measure violates the single subject rule of the Oregon Constitution. Those issues are beyond the scope of the ballot title drafting process. See OAR 165-014-0028 (providing for separate review process by Secretary of State to determine whether measure complies with constitutional procedural requirements for proposed initiative measures).
Numerous commenters contend that IP 44 is unconstitutional under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570, 128 S Ct 2783, 171 L Ed 2d 637 (2008), and that the ballot title must state that it is unconstitutional. When the question of a law's unconstitutionality is "settled" and its application to the measure is "clear," the attorney general may address that issue in a ballot title. Nearman v. Rosenblum, 358 Or 818, 827-30, 371 P3d 1186 (2016). See also Caruthers v. Myers, 344 Or 596, 601-03, 189 P3d 1 (2008) (when the measure "undisputedly conflicted with federal law" Attorney General was obligated to so describe measure). Here, we conclude that it is neither clear nor undisputed that IP 44, if enacted, would conflict with federal law. See, e.g., Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 746 F3d 953 (9th Cir 2014), cert den 135 S Ct 2799 (2015) (city ordinance requiring handguns in residence to be stored in locked container or disabled with trigger lock when not carried on person did not violate Second Amendment). Accordingly, we decline to address that in the ballot title.
A. Current law
Before addressing the comments on the draft ballot title, we first discuss current law and IP 44's changes to the law.
Oregon law does not currently require that a person owning a firearm to store or secure the firearm in any particular manner when it is not in use or being transferred. Likewise, federal law does not impose any storage or securing requirements on firearm owners. 18 USC § 922(z)(1) requires that "any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer"1 who "sell
Page 3
this chapter" must "provide[]" the transferee "with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgun."2 Nothing in that statute requires that the storage or safety device be used on the handgun during the sale, delivery or transfer. It only requires that the device be "provided" to the transferee. Nor does 18 USC § 922(z)(1) require the transferee to use a secure storage or safety device for the handgun. The requirement that a secure storage or safety device be provided to the transferee applies only to handguns, and does not apply to other types of firearms such as shotguns or rifles.3
Oregon law currently places some limits on a minor's access to firearms. ORS 166.250(1) prohibits a person "under 18 years of age" from possessing a firearm. That prohibition does not apply if the firearm (other than a handgun) was transferred to the minor "by the minor's parent or guardian or by another person with the consent of the minor's parent or guardian[.]" ORS 166.250(2)(a)(A). A minor may also "[t]emporarily" possess a firearm "for hunting, target practice or any other lawful purpose[.]" ORS 166.250(2)(a)(B).
ORS 166.470(1) provides in pertinent part that "a person may not intentionally sell, deliver or otherwise transfer any firearm when the transferor knows or reasonably should know that the recipient: (a) Is under 18 years of age[.]" But ORS 166.470(3) provides that subsection (1)(a) does not prohibit:
(a) The parent or guardian, or another person with the consent of the parent or guardian, of a minor from transferring to the minor a firearm, other than a handgun; or
(b) The temporary transfer of any firearm to a minor for hunting, target practice or any other lawful purpose.
Page 4
ORS 497.350-360 limits hunting by minors. Persons under 14 who are hunting with a firearm must be accompanied by an adult, unless the person is hunting "on land owned by the parent or legal guardian of the person." ORS 497.350(2). Persons under 18 may not hunt wildlife, except on the person's own land or on land owned by the parent or legal guardian of the person, unless the person has completed a course in the "safe handling of lawful hunting weapons" or is engaged in a hunt with an appropriately licensed supervisory hunter who is over 21. ORS 497.360(1), (3).
Under current law, determining whether a firearm owner is liable for injuries caused by another person's use of the owner's firearm is generally analyzed under a foreseeability theory. See Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 17, 734 P2d 1326 (1987) ("nless the parties invoke a status, a relationship, or a particular standard of conduct that creates, defines, or limits the defendant's duty, the issue of liability for harm actually resulting from defendant's conduct properly depends on whether that conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk to a protected interest of the kind of harm that befell the plaintiff.").
B. IP 44's changes to current law
IP 44 contains six sections. Section 1 requires that an owner or possessor of a firearm "must secure the firearm with a trigger or cable lock engaged or in a locked container equipped with a tamper-resistant lock" unless the "firearm [is] carried or [is] under the control of the owner or possessor of the firearm."
A violation of the securing requirements is a Class C violation,4 unless "the owner or possessor knew or should have known that a minor would gain unauthorized access to the firearm," in which case it is a Class A violation.5 IP 44(1)(3)(a),(b). Each firearm stored in violation of the securing requirement "constitutes a separate violation." IP 44(1)(3)(c).
Section 2 requires that a "person who transfers a firearm must transfer the firearm with a trigger or cable lock engaged or in a locked container equipped with a tamper-resistant lock." IP 44(2)(1). A violation of that requirement is a Class C violation, and each firearm transferred in violation of that requirement "constitutes a separate violation." IP 44(2)(2).
Section (3) requires that a person who "owns, possesses or controls a firearm must report the loss or theft of the firearm to a law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the loss or theft occurred within 24 hours of the time the person knew or should have known of the loss
Page 5
of theft." IP 44(3)(1). A violation of that requirement is a Class B violation, and each firearm for which a person does not make the required report constitutes a separate violation. IP 44 (3)(2).
Section (4) requires that a "person who transfers a firearm to a minor that the minor does not own must directly supervise the minor's use of the firearm." IP 44(4)(1).
If a person's violation of the securing requirements of subsection (1)(1), the transfer requirements of subsection (2)(1), the reporting requirements of subsection (3)(1), or the supervision requirements of (4)(1) "results in injury [from the use of a firearm] to person or property within five years of the dates of the violation" the person is "strictly liable for the injury." IP 44 (1)(4), (2)(3), (3)(3). The liability imposed by those subsections "does not apply if the injury results from a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person." IP 44 (1)(5), (2)(4), (3)(4).
Section (5) requires the Attorney General to adopt rules "establishing the specifications for trigger locks, cable locks and containers equipped with tamper-resistant locks." Section (6) sets forth definitions for terms used in IP 44.
C. The caption
The caption of a ballot title is limited to fifteen words, and must "reasonably identif[y] the subject matter of the state measure." ORS 250.035(2)(a). The draft ballot title contains the following caption:
Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities
To meet the applicable statutory standard, case law requires that the caption "state or describe the proposed measure's subject matter 'accurately and in terms that will not confuse or mislead potential petition signers and voters.' " Kain/Waller v. Myers, 337 Or 36, 40, 93 P3d 62 (2004), quoting Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169, 174–75, 903 P2d 366 (1995). "Subject matter," refers to the "actual major effect" of a measure or, if the measure has more than one major effect, all such effects (to the limit of the available words). See, e.g., Terhune v. Myers, 342 Or 475, 480, 154 P3d 1284 (2007) (so holding).
The caption must "inform potential petition signers and voters of the sweep of the measure." Terhune, 342 Or at 479. In identifying the "principal effect" or "actual major effect" of the proposed measure, id., the caption must not be inaccurate or underinclusive. Hunnicutt v. Myers, 342 Or 491, 495, 155 P3d 870 (2007). Yet, with those requirements, "[t]he Caption is not meant to serve as a comprehensive statement of the measure's effects." Carson v. Myers, 326 Or 248, 254, 951 P2d 700 (1998).
Page 6
A number of commenters assert that the subject matter of IP 44 is the imposition of strict civil liability for a person whose violation of sections (1) through (4) results in injury to person or property within five years. In their view, that is the most important change made by IP 44, and the failure to emphasize that change at the expense of the other changes is deceptive and misleading. Relatedly, they argue that the use of "imposes penalties/liabilities" is underinclusive because it does not notify voters that the imposed liability is the most important aspect of IP 44.
We conclude otherwise. For one thing, the application of strict liability for injury to persons or property is conditional. That is, it is contingent on a person's violation of the requirements for securing or transferring firearms, for reporting loss or theft, or for failing to supervise a minor's use of a firearm and injury to persons or property results. Strict liability does not attach if the firearm owner has complied with those requirements, or if no injury results. In addition, the actual extent of the liability created by the measure is difficult to assess in the abstract. Although the measure uses the phrase "strictly liable," other parts of the measure limit liability to cases where "violation [of the measure's requirements] results in" the injury. Because liability under the measure is conditional, and the extent of that liability is somewhat unclear, we do not believe that it is appropriate to emphasize strict liability in the caption. But, as discussed below, we have changed the "Yes" result statement to include a reference to strict liability.
A number of commenters assert that, as drafted, IP 44 would place firearm owners in the position of being presumed guilty and having to prove their innocence if charged with a violation. We disagree. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the state to prove a violation beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., In re Winship, 397 US 358, 90 S Ct 1068, 25 L Ed 2d 368 (1970). We perceive nothing in IP 44 that shifts that burden.
A number of commenters contend that IP 44's requirements would extend to antique firearms, and suggest that the failure to exclude antique firearm is a major effect. Though we agree that the measure appears to apply to antique firearms, we do not agree that this issue is significant enough to merit discussion in the ballot title. We think it is sufficient that nothing in the ballot title that suggests that antique firearms are excluded from the scope of the measure. For the same reason, we decline to make changes based on some commenters' suggestions that IP 44's requirements apply to law enforcement personnel
Some commenters assert that the caption is insufficient because it does not explain to voters there is a lack of clarity in the definition of "transfers," or provide clarification as to when a firearm is "carried by or under the control" of the owner or possessor of a firearm and thus not subject to the locking or securing requirements. Any shortcomings in IP 44 due to a lack of clarity are not an "actual major effect" of the initiative. Similarly, some commenters contend that IP 44's proposed changes are undesirable, and may be burdensome, expensive or difficult to comply with. A discussion of the merits of enacting IP 44 is best left to the voters' pamphlet and the political process.
Considering the comments as a whole, we certify the following caption:
Page 7
Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities
D. The results statements.
ORS 250.035(2)(b) and (c) require a ballot title to contain "[a] simple and understandable statement of not more than 25 words that describes the result if the state measure" is approved or rejected. The draft ballot title contains the following result statements:
Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote requires firearms to be locked during storage/transfer, loss/theft reported, minors' firearm use supervised; imposes penalties/liability for injuries resulting from violations.
Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains current laws which regulate transfer of firearms, but do not require firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss/theft reported, minors supervised.
As with the caption, numerous commenters contend that the imposition of strict liability for violations that result in injuries is the subject matter of IP 44, and therefore should be the main point of the "Yes" statement. For the reasons set out above with respect to the caption, we reject those assertions. However, in light of the larger word limit, we agree that the "Yes" statement can usefully alert people to the fact that the measure creates some type of strict liability, and to the fact that the liability created by the measure is limited to a five year period. We therefore change the "Yes" statement to include that information.
A number of commenters assert that the "No" statement inaccurately implies that there are no current limits on a minor's use of a firearm. We make changes to clarify current law on that subject. We also revise the "No" statement to note that negligence is the current standard for liability under Oregon law.
We certify the following "Yes" and "No" statements:
Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss/theft reported, minors' use supervised. Penalties; "strictly liable" for injuries resulting within five years.
Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains current laws regulating firearm transfer/possession, limiting minors' use; no locks or reporting loss/theft required; maintains negligence liability standard for injuries.
E. The summary
ORS 250.035(2)(d) requires a "concise and impartial statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state measure and its major effect." "The purpose of a ballot title's
`
Page 8
summary is to give voters enough information to understand what will happen if the initiative is adopted." McCann v. Rosenblum, 354 Or 701, 709, 320 P3d 548 (2014). The draft summary provides:
Summary: Requires owner/possessor of firearm to secure it with trigger or cable lock, or in locked container when not being carried by owner/possessor; must transfer firearm with trigger or cable lock, or in locked container; must report theft or loss of firearm to law enforcement within 24 hours; person who transfers firearm to minor must directly supervise minors' use of firearm. Failure to comply with requirements treated as violation. Person failing to comply with requirements is strictly liable if injury to person or property results within five years from failure to comply; liability does not apply if injury results from self-defense/defense of another. Attorney General to adopt specifications for trigger locks, cable locks, firearms containers. Defines "firearm," "transfer," other terms. Other provisions.
Numerous commenters assert that the summary contains the same shortcomings as the caption and result statements. For the reasons set out above, we revise the summary to be consistent with the caption and results statements, and to clarify the changes made by IP 44.
Additionally, a number of commenters appear to construe IP 44 as imposing criminal penalties for failing to comply with its requirements. They assert that violating IP 44's requirements would result in felony charges. To the contrary, failures to comply are expressly defined by IP 44 as "violations," either Class A or Class C. A "violation" is not a "crime." ORS 161.505-506. See also ORS 161.505 ("An offense is either a crime, as described in ORS 161.515, or a violation, as described in ORS 153.008."); ORS 153.008 (setting forth definition of violation); ORS 161.525 (felony is a crime with a sentence of one year of more imprisonment). In light of those comments, we change the summary to clarify the nature of the penalties for violating IP 44's requirements.
Page 9
We certify the following summary:
Summary: Requires firearm owner/possessor to secure it with trigger or cable lock, or in locked container when not carried by owner/possessor; must transfer firearm with trigger or cable lock, or in locked container; must report theft or loss of firearm to law enforcement within 24 hours; person transferring firearm to minor must directly supervise minor's firearm use. Failure to comply with requirements treated as a violation (not a crime). Person failing to comply with requirements is "strictly liable" if injury to person/property results within five years from failure to comply; liability does not apply if injury results from self-defense or defense of another. Attorney General to adopt specifications for trigger locks, cable locks, firearm containers. Defines "firearm," "transfer," other terms. Other provisions.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jeff J. Payne
______________________________
Jeff J. Payne
Senior Assistant Attorney General
