Oregon Resources to Stop Initiative Petition 43

[Lonnie217]

They didn't "lump" IP44 into IP43. They are two separate measures. This conversation is about responding to 43 in title only

The "other provisions" part of the summary is challenged elsewhere. What they are specifically asking for is to challenge the TITLE ONLY.

The quote from the state is as follows; "written comments concerning the legal sufficiency of the draft ballot title." with emphasis on sufficiency and title.

the question the state wants is" is the title sufficient ? if not, why?

 

[Cavedweller]

They didn't "lump" IP44 into IP43. They are two separate measures. This conversation is about responding to 43 in title only

The "other provisions" part of the summary is challenged elsewhere. What they are specifically asking for is to challenge the TITLE ONLY.

This is why we have to be careful in

Again, see the manual.
The draft title includes:
The caption - what you are thinking of as the title (15 words)
The effect of yes vote statement
The effect of no vote statement
The summary

 

[Cavedweller]

They didn't "lump" IP44 into IP43. They are two separate measures. This conversation is about responding to 43 in title only

I didn't say anything about IP44. !P 43 has its own storage and theft provisions. They are somewhat different from those of IP 44. Not to be rude, by try reading them, OK?

 

[Lonnie217]

We are looking at more than 1 subject:
bans "assault weapons"
bans "high cap mags"
requires secure storage, trigger locks
requires 48 hour notification in event of theft
criminalizes possession of conversion parts/kits
establishes registry

The whole slew of things lumped under "other provisions" in the summary.

Which points out another draft title deficiency - the "other provisions" will not be enumerated on the ballot, so the average voter will have no idea what they are.

the above was YOUR QUOTE. There is nothing in title43 about trigger locks or theft notification , that is 44

 

[Cavedweller]

There is nothing in title43 about trigger locks or theft notification , that is 44

Re trigger locks, my bad. Not in there. As far as theft notification, look again.

(4) A person seeking to register an assault weapon or large capacity magazine must submit evidence satisfactory to the Department to establish that:

(a) The owner has securely stored the assault weapon or large capacity magazine pursuant to existing law and, in addition, as provided in any rules and regulations adopted by the Department specifically relating to assault weapons and large capacity magazines;

(b) The owner possesses any lawful assault weapon or large capacity magazine only: (A) On property owned or immediately controlled by the registered owner;
(B) On property owned by another with the owner's express permission in a manner

consistent with subsection (4)(a) in this section;
(C) On the premises of a firearms dealer or gunsmith licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 for the

purpose of lawful repair;
(D) While engaged in the legal use of the assault weapon or large capacity magazine, at a

public or private shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed and built for the purpose of target shooting;

(E) At a firearms competition or exhibition, display or educational project about firearms sponsored, conducted by approved or under the auspices of a law enforcement agency or a national or state-recognized entity that fosters proficiency in firearms use or promotes firearms education; or

(F) While transporting the weapon in a vehicle as permitted in ORS 166.250 to one of the locations authorized under this statute.

4

(5) A registered owner of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine may not sell or transfer the assault weapon or large capacity magazine except to a firearms dealer or to a gunsmith licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 for repair, lawful sale or transfer or for the purpose of disposal as provided in SECTION 3 of this 2018 Act.

(6) A registered owner of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine may not purchase additional assault weapons or large capacity magazines.

(7) A registered owner of a registered assault weapon or large capacity magazine must report the loss or theft of such weapon or magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency within 48 hours of the discovery of the loss or theft.

 

[Defense Minister]

I received the following email from the SOS yesterday with the invitation to offer suggestions on rulemaking for the initiative and referendum process and my reply is found below the email. Something to keep in mind and take advantage of here is that we currently have a right-leaning SOS, so please jump on board as this is our opportunity to potentially make things easier on us for the next time. Unfortunately, there will be a next time...

State Initiatives and Referendums
Next month we will begin formal rulemaking to adopt permanent rules relating to the state initiative and referendum process. We intend to put forward the current temporary rule with the State I&R manual dated January 10. We invite additional changes you wish to have considered for inclusion into this manual that will be in effect for the 2020 petition cycle. If you have any suggestions please get them to us not later than Friday, May 4 and we will consider whether to include them in this version. Please send suggestions to: [email protected]

My response was as follows:

In regards to rulemaking changes to the state initiative and referendum process, please consider adopting a rule requiring the state to provide a template/form for registered voters to use in petitioning the Oregon Supreme Court to review a Certified Ballot Title. Oregon Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 11.30, is difficult for the average voter to navigate, and Oregonians shouldn't have to hire an attorney and assume the associated expense simply to have a voice in their government. A template/form provided by the State would allow more registered voters the ability to be heard at that stage of the initiative and referendum process, and a link to the additional form should be inserted on page 21 of the State Initiative and Referendum Manual along with the current link to Form SEL 324 - Notice of Ballot Title Challenge.

Thank you for your consideration,

 

[Pete F]

I received the following email from the SOS yesterday with the invitation to offer suggestions on rulemaking for the initiative and referendum process and my reply is found below the email. Something to keep in mind and take advantage of here is that we currently have a right-leaning SOS, so please jump on board as this is our opportunity to potentially make things easier on us for the next time. Unfortunately, there will be a next time...

State Initiatives and Referendums
Next month we will begin formal rulemaking to adopt permanent rules relating to the state initiative and referendum process. We intend to put forward the current temporary rule with the State I&R manual dated January 10. We invite additional changes you wish to have considered for inclusion into this manual that will be in effect for the 2020 petition cycle. If you have any suggestions please get them to us not later than Friday, May 4 and we will consider whether to include them in this version. Please send suggestions to: [email protected]

My response was as follows:

In regards to rulemaking changes to the state initiative and referendum process, please consider adopting a rule requiring the state to provide a template/form for registered voters to use in petitioning the Oregon Supreme Court to review a Certified Ballot Title. Oregon Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 11.30, is difficult for the average voter to navigate, and Oregonians shouldn't have to hire an attorney and assume the associated expense simply to have a voice in their government. A template/form provided by the State would allow more registered voters the ability to be heard at that stage of the initiative and referendum process, and a link to the additional form should be inserted on page 21 of the State Initiative and Referendum Manual along with the current link to Form SEL 324 - Notice of Ballot Title Challenge.

Thank you for your consideration,

It is too bad that we couldn't have Initiatives and Referendums that affect the whole State be certified by every county or they wouldn't make it to the ballot. A certain number or percentage of voters from each county. I am tired of being dictated to by the metropolitan areas.

I got my invitation from the SOS today and will try to come up with helpful suggestions.

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

It is too bad that we couldn't have Initiatives and Referendums that affect the whole State be certified by every county or they wouldn't make it to the ballot. A certain number or percentage of voters from each county. I am tired of being dictated to by the metropolitan areas.

I got my invitation from the SOS today and will try to come up with helpful suggestions.

Would be nice, but the counties can sue the state ...if the counties had the nads...

 

[Lonnie217]

Here are a few facts on the big bad "assault weapon" called the AR15, referenced as the gun of choice for school shootings..not so liberal media.

1. Great Mills High School attack (March 20, 2018) – Handgun
2. Parkland School attack (February 14, 2018) – AR-15
3. Marshall County High School attack (January 23, 2018) – Shotgun
4. Texas church attack (November 5, 2017) – AR-15
5. Las Vegas attack (October 1, 2017) – AR-15
6. the Alexandria attack (June 14, 2017) – Handgun
7. Orlando attack (June 12, 2016) – AR-15, handgun
8. the UCLA gunman (June 1, 2016) – Handgun
9. the San Bernardino attack (December 2, 2015) – AR-15, handgun
10. the Colorado Springs attack (October 31, 2015) – AR-15, handgun
11. the Umpqua Community College attack (October 1, 2015) – Handgun
12. Alison Parker's attack (August 26, 2015) – Handgun
13. the Lafayette movie theater attack (July 23, 2015) – Handgun
14. the Chattanooga attack (July 16, 2015) – AK-47, shotgun, handgun
15. the alleged Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal attack (Jun 17, 2015) – Handgun
16. the Las Vegas cop killers (June 9, 2015) – Handgun
17. the Santa Barbara attack (May 23, 2014) – Handgun
18. the Fort Hood attack (April 2, 2014) – Handgun
19. the Arapahoe High School attack (December 13, 2013) – Shotgun
20. the D.C. Navy Yard attack (September 16, 2013) – Shotgun
21. the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack (December 14, 2012) — AR-15
22. the Aurora movie theater attack (July 20, 2012) – AR-15
23. Gabby Giffords' attack (January 8, 2011) – Handgun
24. the Fort Hood attack (November 5, 2009) – Handgun
25. the Virginia Tech attack (April 16, 2007) – Handgun

Handgun used 17 times, AR-15 used eight times, shotgun used four times, an AK-47 used once. There figures to do not really bolster the claim AR-15s are the "weapon of choice" for mass public attackers.

Additionally, if we consider homicides in general rather that mass attacks, FBI crime stats for 2016 show over four times as many people were stabbed to death than were shot and killed with rifles of any kind. In other words, rifles not the weapon of choice for homicide in general.

Yet the liberal smoke coming out of their asses is so thick, no one can see the truth, even in plain sight.

 

[JavaDude]

Here are a few facts on the big bad "assault weapon" called the AR15, referenced as the gun of choice for school shootings..not so liberal media.

1. Great Mills High School attack (March 20, 2018) – Handgun
2. Parkland School attack (February 14, 2018) – AR-15
3. Marshall County High School attack (January 23, 2018) – Shotgun
4. Texas church attack (November 5, 2017) – AR-15
5. Las Vegas attack (October 1, 2017) – AR-15
6. the Alexandria attack (June 14, 2017) – Handgun
7. Orlando attack (June 12, 2016) – AR-15, handgun
8. the UCLA gunman (June 1, 2016) – Handgun
9. the San Bernardino attack (December 2, 2015) – AR-15, handgun
10. the Colorado Springs attack (October 31, 2015) – AR-15, handgun
11. the Umpqua Community College attack (October 1, 2015) – Handgun
12. Alison Parker's attack (August 26, 2015) – Handgun
13. the Lafayette movie theater attack (July 23, 2015) – Handgun
14. the Chattanooga attack (July 16, 2015) – AK-47, shotgun, handgun
15. the alleged Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal attack (Jun 17, 2015) – Handgun
16. the Las Vegas cop killers (June 9, 2015) – Handgun
17. the Santa Barbara attack (May 23, 2014) – Handgun
18. the Fort Hood attack (April 2, 2014) – Handgun
19. the Arapahoe High School attack (December 13, 2013) – Shotgun
20. the D.C. Navy Yard attack (September 16, 2013) – Shotgun
21. the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack (December 14, 2012) — AR-15
22. the Aurora movie theater attack (July 20, 2012) – AR-15
23. Gabby Giffords' attack (January 8, 2011) – Handgun
24. the Fort Hood attack (November 5, 2009) – Handgun
25. the Virginia Tech attack (April 16, 2007) – Handgun

Handgun used 17 times, AR-15 used eight times, shotgun used four times, an AK-47 used once. There figures to do not really bolster the claim AR-15s are the "weapon of choice" for mass public attackers.

Additionally, if we consider homicides in general rather that mass attacks, FBI crime stats for 2016 show over four times as many people were stabbed to death than were shot and killed with rifles of any kind. In other words, rifles not the weapon of choice for homicide in general.

Yet the liberal smoke coming out of their asses is so thick, no one can see the truth, even in plain sight.

It doesn't have to be true it just has to stick.

 

[Lonnie217]

Looking at Title 43.... ORS 166.250 calls unlawful possession of a firearm a class A misdemeanor. I wonder why we need to rewrite the laws to make it a Class B FELONY?

Also, in the summary section it states possession "after a criminal background check".. okay, so why if we have already done that dozens and dozens of times (for us gun hoarders) do we now need to start over and ask to keep what we already legally own? Isn't that like asking if you can get in your car and drive to the market, when you already have a drivers license?

What about the sentence ... standing on its own.... "applies to inherited items." what are we talking about?

What are other provisions.. is the kitchen sink included here. Basically it allows the courts to make the law by their own interpretation. Which is not how it works. The courts and police don't make the laws.

Lastly, in the YES VOTE section... again, what right does the state police have to disapprove something they approved of? Is the State Police the regulating authority here?

 

[Cavedweller]

The deeper you go into IP 43, the more onerous it becomes:

"(4) A person seeking to register an assault weapon or large capacity magazine must submit evidence satisfactory to the Department to establish that:

(a) The owner has securely stored the assault weapon or large capacity magazine pursuant to existing law and, in addition, as provided in any rules and regulations adopted by the Department specifically relating to assault weapons and large capacity magazines;"

What sort of evidence? What kind of rules and regs? Anything they want? Who will draft these rules and regs? What sort of review/approval process will there be? This is an anti-gun bureaucrat's wet dream!

 

[JavaDude]

It looks very similar to what the UK has in place.

http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/shooting/start-shooting/get-firearms-certficate-39303

 

[Lonnie217]

another question I have... when the "result of the yes vote" section says... "ownership approval by the State Police. "

My view is this is a civil rights violation. There is no due process or adjudication in a court room. The police are now the law makers, judge and jury... we can't have that, its unconstitutional.

 

[RaceFan]

This communication comments on the legal sufficiency of the draft ballot title of Initiative Petition 2018-043.

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 250.035, Form of ballot titles for state and local measures, promulgates ballot title requirements. As a State initiative, the following applies (copied from Chapter 250 ):

ORS 250.035(2)(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;

ORS 250.035(2)(d) A concise and impartial statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state measure and its major effect.

Comment #1: Initiative Petition 2018-043 as presented to the citizens of Oregon for public comment via letter from Megan Bradley, Legal Secretary, to Stephen Trout, Director, Elections Division, dated April 18, 2018 fails to meet ORS 250.035(2)(a) by omitting the requirement to state "Amends Constitution" in the ballot title.

Comment #2: The Summary provided with Initiative Petition 2018-043 fails to meet the impartiality standard required under ORS 250.035(2)(d). The terms "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" are arbitrary and prejudiced terms conflated by national events and political activity. Impartially mandates a factual representation. Accordingly, the Summary must replace "assault weapons" with "semi-automatic weapons"; and "large capacity magazines" with "magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition" to be valid. These factual definitions allow the citizens of Oregon to make an informed decision without pejorative terms.

For these reasons, the ballot title for Initiative Petition 2018-043 should be rejected.

 

[NW Backpacker]

This communication comments on the legal sufficiency of the draft ballot title of Initiative Petition 2018-043.

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 250.035, Form of ballot titles for state and local measures, promulgates ballot title requirements. As a State initiative, the following applies (copied from Chapter 250 ):

ORS 250.035(2)(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;

ORS 250.035(2)(d) A concise and impartial statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state measure and its major effect.

Comment #1: Initiative Petition 2018-043 as presented to the citizens of Oregon for public comment via letter from Megan Bradley, Legal Secretary, to Stephen Trout, Director, Elections Division, dated April 18, 2018 fails to meet ORS 250.035(2)(a) by omitting the requirement to state "Amends Constitution" in the ballot title.

Comment #2: The Summary provided with Initiative Petition 2018-043 fails to meet the impartiality standard required under ORS 250.035(2)(d). The terms "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" are arbitrary and prejudiced terms conflated by national events and political activity. Impartially mandates a factual representation. Accordingly, the Summary must replace "assault weapons" with "semi-automatic weapons"; and "large capacity magazines" with "magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition" to be valid. These factual definitions allow the citizens of Oregon to make an informed decision without pejorative terms.

For these reasons, the ballot title for Initiative Petition 2018-043 should be rejected.

Comment 2 is excellent. Comment 1 was my thought at first also, but I think IP43 does not modify the constitution - it is just a change to state law.

 

[1Asterisk]

What sort of evidence? What kind of rules and regs? Anything they want? Who will draft these rules and regs? What sort of review/approval process will there be? This is an anti-gun bureaucrat's wet dream!

In the case of IP43 the agency will be the Oregon State Police. They will draft the "rules & regulations" [know as Oregon Administrative Rules, or OAR's] just as all other agencies do. The OAR's carry the weight of law in that violations of those 'rules' can be enforceable offenses. Violations of OAR's are considered, for the most part, 'unclassified violations', ie; not a felony nor a misdemeanor. The Oregon Revised Satutes [ORS] indicate they are civil violations, subject to civil penalty, as opposed to criminal offenses/criminal penalty.

In other words, a 'bill' is written by the legislature, or, in this case, the initiative is written by citizens who advocate for it, but after a bill or initiative actually becomes the law, all the little 'details' are written by the agency administering it. I don't know for sure if there is any public input regarding OAR's - I think there is, but I don't know for sure. I'm not a lawyer. I believe any 'rules' written have to be reviewed by legislative counsel and the Sec. of State before implementation.

Oregon Secretary of State: Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) "Administrative Rules are created by most agencies and some boards and commissions to implement and interpret their statutory authority (ORS 183.310(9)). Agencies may adopt, amend, repeal or renumber rules, permanently or temporarily (for up to 180 days)".

ORS 183.360 - Publication of rules and orders - 2017 Oregon Revised Statutes

 

[JavaDude]

This communication comments on the legal sufficiency of the draft ballot title of Initiative Petition 2018-043.

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 250.035, Form of ballot titles for state and local measures, promulgates ballot title requirements. As a State initiative, the following applies (copied from Chapter 250 ):

ORS 250.035(2)(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;

ORS 250.035(2)(d) A concise and impartial statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state measure and its major effect.

Comment #1: Initiative Petition 2018-043 as presented to the citizens of Oregon for public comment via letter from Megan Bradley, Legal Secretary, to Stephen Trout, Director, Elections Division, dated April 18, 2018 fails to meet ORS 250.035(2)(a) by omitting the requirement to state "Amends Constitution" in the ballot title.

Comment #2: The Summary provided with Initiative Petition 2018-043 fails to meet the impartiality standard required under ORS 250.035(2)(d). The terms "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" are arbitrary and prejudiced terms conflated by national events and political activity. Impartially mandates a factual representation. Accordingly, the Summary must replace "assault weapons" with "semi-automatic weapons"; and "large capacity magazines" with "magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition" to be valid. These factual definitions allow the citizens of Oregon to make an informed decision without pejorative terms.

For these reasons, the ballot title for Initiative Petition 2018-043 should be rejected.

I was wondering about this as I happened to notice the language in IP-44 does not mention any classifications such as whether the violations would be a felony or misdemeanor.

 

[Maximum1]

Formally submitted my draft ballot title to the Elections Division yesterday.

There are less than seven days before deadline to file your objections. The more objections the more we run out the clock on IP43 because every one of them but be legally reviewed by the Attorney General's Office which then delays the next step in the qualification process!

 

[arakboss]

Formally submitted my draft ballot title to the Elections Division yesterday.

There are less than seven days before deadline to file your objections. The more objections the more we run out the clock on IP43 because every one of them but be legally reviewed by the Attorney General's Office which then delays the next step in the qualification process!

I sent mine by email today. Are you going to write a procedural constitutional challenge too?