Oregon IPs 17 and 18 - They're back at it...

[dancinghippos]

I would not add to the written statement, but comment to you here: The same people who have pushed defunding police and "no-bail" and "no punishment" policies know the chaos their policies have produced and still support disarming innocents.

 

[3MTA3]

Email this:
People of Color must live with high rates of crime in their neighborhoods. The gangsters and criminals who already terrorize them do not obey robbery and murder laws, thus they are undeterred by magazine laws and license requirements. The innocents who live there will be hampered in their own self-defense, while the aggressors do as they please.

Far too much truth for the political class to understand. To them it looks like


Might want to focus on how it will interfere with the use of preferred pronouns or how it will prevent drag queens from library story book reads. They might attempt to at least listen.

 

[tkdguy]

Posted on FB with request to contact the Elections.SOS tonight or tomorrow morning early.

 

[dancinghippos]

Oregon's website shows an incorrect email address. They misspelled Oregon orgon.. Surely just a typo, right?

Please remind them with every submission that their link is wrong.

Oregon Secretary of State

The Oregon Secretary of State works to maximize voter participation, is a watchdog for public spending, makes it easier to do business in Oregon, and preserves and promotes Oregon history.

sos.oregon.gov

Send comments to

[email protected]

 

[rhollister71]

Keep these good points coming i can email everyday which we all should send 1 a day just because..

 

[SonicBlue03]

I commented in the other thread, but I hope some of you got to watch this today. Two of the most notable speakers were Democrats and they highlighted just how bad this initiative is. One of those is one of the people who was ON THE COMMITTEE to assemble the wording.

 

[rhollister71]

I commented in the other thread, but I hope some of you got to watch this today. Two of the most notable speakers were Democrats and they highlighted just how bad this initiative is. One of those is one of the people who was ON THE COMMITTEE to assemble the wording.

you have a link to watch whatever it is your referring?

 

[cmrcr]

The zoom call he is referring to just happened this morning between 9:30-10:30. I listened in and it was great. All supported the 2nd amendment and highlighted the negative impact to all races especially the poor people of all races.

 

[3MTA3]

The zoom call he is referring to just happened this morning between 9:30-10:30. I listened in and it was great. All supported the 2nd amendment and highlighted the negative impact to all races especially the poor people of all races.

I hope the video becomes available, but it sounds like something they don't want people to see

 

[rhollister71]

Someone has to have a copy? right? If i would of paid attention i could of recorded it, but i totally spaced it was this morning!

 

[dancinghippos]

Oregon's website shows an incorrect email address. They misspelled Oregon orgon.. Surely just a typo, right?

Please remind them with every submission that their link is wrong.

Oregon Secretary of State

The Oregon Secretary of State works to maximize voter participation, is a watchdog for public spending, makes it easier to do business in Oregon, and preserves and promotes Oregon history.

sos.oregon.gov

Send comments to

[email protected]

Looks like somebody fixed their broken email link

 

[dancinghippos]

As I read these, I see many seem to be duplicates of others. Better to use your own words and understandings. You know this stuff and they don't. Don't get your letters ignored because you used someone else's words when you know this stuff as well as anyone. What is important:

1: Be right. Post what you KNOW to be true, not what you read someone else said.
2: Be clear. Spend some time to craft your words to deliver the message short and succinct.
3: Read it aloud to yourself. Does it sound good?

 

[AshWilliams]

As I read these, I see many seem to be duplicates of others. Better to use your own words and understandings. You know this stuff and they don't. Don't get your letters ignored because you used someone else's words when you know this stuff as well as anyone. What is important:

1: Be right. Post what you KNOW to be true, not what you read someone else said.
2: Be clear. Spend some time to craft your words to deliver the message short and succinct.
3: Read it aloud to yourself. Does it sound good?

I would add that you should be civil in tone, like you are trying to appeal to someone's reason. A scathing rant will win you no favor in this case.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Agree with these. I'll share what I sent in on the racial disparity. For one, everything I've researched shows this to be accurate. Two, exactly for what dancinghippos and AshWilliams said - if you rant like a Fuddly Poor, their natural bias will tune you out.

Good morning,

I am submitting this feedback for publication to the record regarding the projected impacts to various racial communities within Oregon state, focused solely on BIPOC/communities of color and diverse ethnicity. I will highlight the title of each section, high level description of section, whether there is an impact to marginalized communities and provide narrative to expand understanding of impact. There is no intent to highlight areas of this initiative that are at significant risk due to the findings and clarifications of NY v. Bruen, nor to challenge the Secretary of State's assessment of the Constitutionality overall of this initiative.

The below is solely focused on impact to our marginalized communities. Thank you in advance.

Section 1: Permit to purchase process.

Description: A new process requiring all citizens to submit for fingerprints, photographs, standard FBI background check, in-person demonstration of firearm handling, and establishment of a state database maintained by state law enforcement of all card holders.

Impact to marginalized communities: Significant/Negative

Narrative: Two key impacts which increase the burden on BIPOC communities over Euro/Caucasian communities in Oregon: cost and safety.

Cost – the number of approved training facilities is expected to be low and likely co-located with existing ranges in Oregon, almost exclusively located in rural or suburban communities. The cost and ability to travel to these locations will create travel hardships for BIPOC members who may be dependent on public transit or impacted by high costs of fuel. Further, while there is a cap on the cost of the license itself, there is no cap on training as these are provided as private services. Comparatively, a concealed pistol license course may run over $100; trainers will need to implement new processes and services (fingerprints, photos, background check) which will raise the costs higher. A $50 license requiring $200-300 in licensing training costs will have significant financial impact to marginalized community members over traditional Euro/Caucasian communities.

Safety – In the United States, with Oregon as no exception, trust between marginalized communities and law enforcement has never been lower. Since George Floyd, the microscope has become hyper focused on disparity in policing comparing Caucasian and BIPOC communities. The potential physical and absolute psychological impact of forcing members of diverse communities to now register themselves with law enforcement will be seen as a net negative for those communities and discourage responsible/legal ownership. The psychological impact will further prevent members in these communities from being able to protect themselves. The dichotomy of reduced police presence in urban areas (see: Portland staffing challenges and response times) further elevates the risk/danger in these communities.


Section 2: Permit-to-purchase due process appeal

Description: An explanation of the legal rights and steps an individual may take if they are denied a permit/have a permit seized from them.

Impact to marginalized communities: Significant/Negative

Narrative: The process for appeal does not specify any differences for communities of color vs. not; the reason this triggers a Significant/Negative assessment is due to the following attributes of the appeal process:

Subjectiveness – "Reasonable grounds" is frequently referenced as a possible bar for denial/revocation. In addition to the aforementioned lack of trust between the marginalized communities and law enforcement, it is prudent to observe Oregon's storied history of racial discrimination. When "reasonable grounds" includes observation of a petitioner's mental and psychological state – without requiring empirical data supporting a concern – without clearly articulated quantitative requirements, the ability to discriminate unfairly against BIPOC communities remains high. More work needs to be done on how this is properly assessed.

Cost – if a person is denied a license, fairly or unfairly, the burden of cost and proof falls to the person choosing to appeal. Court costs, legal fees, and access to attorneys willing to engage in this process are unknown but a reasonable person can expect them to be significant given known court costs for common items like appeals, divorces, and the like. While the costs themselves will likely be the same for all communities, this will create statistically a much higher burden on marginalized communities.

Section 3: Costs and permits for dealers

Description: The process for dealers to become certified in Oregon to remain in business

Impact to marginalized communities: Minimal/Neutral

Narrative: The only actual impact of these requirements may see a decline in available firearm dealers and trainers. This may move from neutral to negative if the net effect is a decline in dealers serving communities of color and forcing community members to travel outside said communities to find access to tools of defense.

Section 4: Permits for private transfers

Description: Adds the requirement of having a firearm license card (Section 1) for any transfers done in state.

Impact to marginalized communities: Significant/Negative

Narrative: Oregon state already requires all transfers except in the case for family inheritance to be done through a licensed FFL. All the reasons this negatively impacts communities of color in Section 1 applies. Further, this erases the ability for family members to exercise firearm inheritance as recognized and protected in case law at the Federal level. This is an additional burden and tax forced on BIPOC community members.

Section 5: Permits for transfers at gun shows

Description: Formalizing that all gun shows should be following Oregon-mandated practice for firearm transfers.
Impact to marginalized communities: Minimal/Neutral

Narrative: Oregon law requires FFL transfers for all but family inheritance today, which covers gun shows within the state. This does not add additional burden to communities of color.

Section 6: Prohibitions/exceptions to 'large capacity' magazines

Description: Restricting the sale of magazines over 10 rounds in Oregon, giving exception to active duty military and law enforcement.

Impact to marginalized communities: Moderate/Negative

Narrative: Referencing the chasm of trust between law enforcement and marginalized communities in our state, this portion in effect allowed increased capacity for harm by law enforcement while reducing capacity of defense for citizens of the BIPOC community. Optically, when the state recognizes that law enforcement has significant work to do in order to earn trust but giving them a tilted field and putting BIPOC members at a numerical disadvantage, it sends a strong message that those community members are not on the same level of trust as law enforcement. This is Moderate over Significant because the purchasing applies to all ethnicities.

Summary: Many provisions of this initiative create a larger disparity between communities of color and Caucasian communities, as well as communities of color and law enforcement, particularly where the most trust needs to be rebuilt. The psychological and financial impact to these communities cannot be overstated, and this initiative will create significant hardships on the overwhelmingly law-abiding citizens of these communities.

 

[SonicBlue03]

And my final mail, the one not focused on racial, but overall feedback on the bill.

To whom it may concern,

After observing the committee assembling the ballot measure text on 26-Jul-2022, I am submitting the following comments for the public record as an objection to the verbiage and the ballot itself, for consideration as the committee reviews these objections. This is a supplemental to my submissions for public record on 19-Jul-2022 and 26-Jul-2022.

I will break my objections down into three categories: Racial disparity, State preparedness, and national legal considerations.



Racial Disparity: I submitted a lengthy evaluation in response to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission's inquiry as to racial impact which was submitted for the record and available to this committee. I will summarize with additional context. Historically, inserting higher barriers to access of self-defense tools have historically been rooted in racist practices against African Americans. This discrimination takes root in two primary forms: ethnic and financial. Oregon's continued blight is that communities of color significantly skew lower on income and financial support; the myth that the costs rooted in the license charge are only related to that charge. Training (access to physically/affordability) are unknown and unregulated costs, for which there are capacity and certification challenges (see State Preparedness later.)

Further, we need to acknowledge Oregon's history of disparate treatment of people of color regarding law enforcement/policing. In a post-George Floyd era, this initiative puts more control of citizen data into the hands of law enforcement. With magazine restrictions impacting people owning/carrying common-use magazines of the time, this also puts law enforcement well beyond equal footing with those communities. The message being sent by this initiative and the supporting committee seems to say that the loud and passionate concerns expressed by our marginalized communities is less important than restricting them from equal access to defensive tools under the law.

I respectfully disagree with this mindset, and object to any set of restrictions that further drives a wedge in marginalized communities from having the same access and ability to self-protect as majority communities.



State Preparedness: The current state within Oregon is this: consistently over the past two years, firearm purchases within the state have maintained a backlog to be processed by Oregon State Patrol measures in the thousands. Contrary to the implication of the committee that firearms can be transferred after three days if no response from OSP is received, actual practice across Oregon by FFLs is to hold until a response is received. This frequently exceeds three and seven days, sometimes well beyond. To imply that this is a critical risk/gap to close is a myth. This is an important topic because it highlights a significant resource challenge for OSP to manage. This also underscores the key questions not answered by this IP/measure are how will OSP and other LEO organizations (also, as everyone is aware, significantly understaffed to do basic public safety activities and not demonstrating their ability to staff up) will be able to provide staffing and support to meet the requirements of the initiative. The most specific example around this staffing concern is ensuring proper support of FFL and citizen applications; this initiative provides no assurances of timelines or access, and what the escalation of complaint process is if timely support of citizens isn't being provided.

Further, access to ranges for citizens to demonstrate competency (a requirement written into the description of the initiative) is a significant barrier. Currently most available are privately held, and sparse in terms of access/availability. Many of these are also not easily accessible to the marginalized communities (see Racial Disparity above, specifically access and costs.) For private ranges, this will drive costs up as they will need to staff up and manage their operations (additional insurance, facility investment, etc.) What commitments is the state able to make and deliver on to provide facilities and access for citizens, especially communities of color? Without a commitment and timelines to deliver service, the question of undue burden becomes very (legally) important.



National Legal Considerations: When this initiative was originated, individual states were being sued for their restrictive equipment laws and firearm carry and in a holding pattern for consideration by SCOTUS. Cases pertinent to this initiative are:

Bianchi v. Frosh – a firearm and magazine ban in Maryland, which was originally upheld that the specifically defined weapons and magazines could be restricted.

Duncan v. Bonta – a ban of magazines of 10 rounds or more in California. After originally being found unconstitutional by the three-judge panel of the 9th​ Circuit, an En Banc decision (7-4) reversed that decision, claiming the two-step approach to testing constitutionality used by the Courts allowed the restriction.

Young v. Hawaii – A case where restrictions on accessing permitting (in this case for carry) was argued as arbitrary and lacking a clear measurable test for approval/denial. The major focus is around subjectiveness to approving/denying. This case has the most parallels to the NY v. Bruen ruling, which I'll get to.

NY v. Bruen – the case regarding subjective permitting in New York state. This is the case that, since June, changes the discussion. I have included the link to the SCOTUS ruling by hyperlinking it to the title.

Outside determining that the state of New York was creating significant barriers to an identified constitutional right, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a core component of the Heller decision (2008) and clarified some support of Heller which they believed was being misinterpreted by the lower courts. Particularly around weapons and accessories "in common use" and providing historical context as weapons systems and ammunition storage have evolved over time. Where lower court rulings such as Bianchi and Duncan were utilizing an intermediate scrutiny approach to restrict weapons and magazines that have availability numbers that are prolific, the Supreme Court clarified that strict scrutiny must be applied.


As of 30-Jun-2022, the Supreme Court has vacated the rulings in Bianchi, Duncan, and Young, remanding those cases back to the lower courts and expecting that the cases be re-evaluated using strict scrutiny along with the historical guidance in Bruen, reinforcing the opinion of Heller.

The short is this: the restrictions built into this initiative which restrict and ban common use firearms and their feeding devices is highly unlikely to hold after those vacated/remanded cases are re-evaluated using the tests mandated by SCOTUS. As this committee is made up primarily of attorneys, as is SecState (Oregon), you know the message that SCOTUS has sent, and what will happen if the lower courts continue to ignore the guidance. The speed in which it happens is unknown, but the constitutional protection of extremely common use items (magazines in excess of 10 rounds, semi-automatic rifles with cosmetic features, shotguns with capacity, etc.) is inevitable.

Citizen rights are oft politicized but should not be. For all the reasons above I strongly object to this initiative/measure. It is racially biased, the state is not ready to handle the load, and the majority – if not all – of this initiative/measure are highly likely to be overturned based on constitutionality.

As a native Oregonian, I've watched our state go from a welcoming moderate/liberal state that finds way to work to take care of one another to a state that is actively aspiring to mimic California/Washington state. That's embarrassing to me, as those states aren't states we should aspire to be.

We should continue to aspire to be Oregonians.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Oregonians to Vote on Gun Control Measure Opponent Calls ‘Strictest’ in the Nation

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

Oregonians to Vote on Gun Control Measure Opponent Calls ‘Strictest’ in the Nation

www.theepochtimes.com

Non-paywall/registration version:

archive.ph

 

[Pete F]

I am unsure about carrying >10 round magazines outside the house or property. It very vague on where you can't carry other than specific areas like your car (even though that is part of your property). The article says "
Lawfully owned magazines that exceed 10 rounds may not be used for self-defense outside the home. Under the measure, possession would be restricted to the owner's property, at a gunsmith, on a private shooting range, or during a firearms competition.
"The minute you leave the house, that 15-round magazine is now illegal, and you could be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor for each magazine in your possession because you're not in your home or at a gun range," Williamson explained. "And you could be charged multiple times for the same magazines since magazines do not contain identifying markings."

Where are they getting the self defense outside the home from? It is not specifically listed in Measure 114.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I am unsure about carrying >10 round magazines outside the house or property. It very vague on where you can't carry other than specific areas like your car (even though that is part of your property). The article says "
Lawfully owned magazines that exceed 10 rounds may not be used for self-defense outside the home. Under the measure, possession would be restricted to the owner's property, at a gunsmith, on a private shooting range, or during a firearms competition.
"The minute you leave the house, that 15-round magazine is now illegal, and you could be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor for each magazine in your possession because you're not in your home or at a gun range," Williamson explained. "And you could be charged multiple times for the same magazines since magazines do not contain identifying markings."

Where are they getting the self defense outside the home from? It is not specifically listed in Measure 114.

This flys directly in the face of SCOTUS's two recent rulings, both Heller the and now Bruen which secured the absolute right to carry both inside the home and in public, though the capacity limits would still be a question, I know the Cali 9th ruling will make that a non issue soon enough! The big question is when will the State be forced to comply with the SCOTUS rulings and strike this all down? The A.G. should be upholding the law, despite her obvious stance, and we need to start the process of removing her arse!