Oregon So what are the options if Initiative Petition 43 goes through?

[3MTA3]

The difference between slavery and gun ownership is that pesky word "criminal":

https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXPOST

1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.

Freeing the slaves was a civil action, not a criminal one. Here, they want to take legal gun owners and turn them into felons. That's incredibly problematic.

The Oregon constitution uses even stronger terms:

Oregon Constitution

"Article 1 Section 21. Ex-post facto laws; laws impairing contracts; laws depending on authorization in order to take effect; laws submitted to electors.

No ex-post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall ever be passed, nor shall any law be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution; provided, that laws locating the Capitol of the State, locating County Seats, and submitting town, and corporate acts, and other local, and Special laws may take effect, or not, upon a vote of the electors interested."

Note, there aren't any exceptions there for continued ownership, etc. etc.

Further, Oregon law regarding petitions is pretty finicky. I've seen petitions struck down after they passed because they were multi-part. The courts ruled that if they had only done part (a) but not part (b) they would have been fine, but doing both was out and they needed to re-submit.

You could make an argument on those lines too in that you can petition to ban weapons or you can petition to criminalize current owners, but you can't do both on the same petition.

But it all boils down to the people writing petition 43 not having the slightest clue what they're doing and passing this will only cost us money in un-necessary litigation.

I for one would be quite pleased to be wrong in my assessment. I43 does not make you a criminal for owning one of the weapons they are banning. It makes you a criminal if you fail to register it or acquire a new one. That's a second point where ex post facto does not apply. The number of times, however, that registration has not led to confiscation is ...none.

I do agree that the authors of I43 are ignorant to the point of being useful idiots for a movement to turn Oregon into a Tyranny that first must disarm us before removing our remaining civil liberties. It will almost be satisfying when their first amendment rights such as the right to assemble and to attend the church of their choice becomes a state granted privilege and is no longer a right.

 

[1Asterisk]

Here's the thing... this is NOT a 2nd Amendment issue. This is a violation of Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.

I would vehemently disagree. This is very much an infringement, restriction, and encroachment of the individual citizens right to keep and bare firearms that have been for years, and still are in common use.

Unfortunately ex post facto does not apply here. To be ex post facto it would make the purchase or ownership prior to the law being enacted a crime. The law can allow for continued possession to be a crime, otherwise it would have been legal to retain slaves after the Emancipation.

I would also disagree. IP43 makes our Constitutional right to keep and bare [certain] arms without infringement, criminal, unless you register it, which has never been required previously by either federal or state government. That [mandatory registration] by definition is an infringement IMO.

 

[3MTA3]

I'm not saying I43 isn't bad - it's a misguided attack on our natural rights. I am saying it doesn't qualify as an ex post facto violation.

 

[jordanlund]

Oh, it is problematic from a 2nd amendment perspective too, but because the 2nd is such a hot button issue with many people, I think it's worth pointing out the other potential legal problems. I know 3MTA3 disagrees and that's cool. They could be right, all I know about the law is old Perry Mason reruns.

I'm planning on putting my money where my mouth is and ponying up the $500 to run an argument in opposition in the Voters Pamphlet assuming they get enough signatures. I really hope there's enough people who see the problems here so that it doesn't get the signatures.

 

[guido1161]

That's an excellent and worthy investment, I'll be doing the same. So here it is 4:26 pm on the 24th and no ballot title yet for IP 43 that I find. What happens if the AG doesn't submit the ballot title today?

 

[jordanlund]

@guido1161 From what I understand, the initiative is already certified and they don't need a ballot title right away although the draft version is supposed to be ready today.

The training for signature gatherers starts on 4/30 and they have until July 6th to collect 88,184 signatures. Ceasefire Oregon has on their site that they are expecting legal challenges and wont start gathering signatures until those are cleared which could be June.

 

[guido1161]

@guido1161 From what I understand, the initiative is already certified and they don't need a ballot title right away although the draft version is supposed to be ready today.

The training for signature gatherers starts on 4/30 and they have until July 6th to collect 88,184 signatures. Ceasefire Oregon has on their site that they are expecting legal challenges and wont start gathering signatures until those are cleared which could be June.

Just got an email alert from the Secretary of State, the draft ballot title has been submitted.

 

[3MTA3]

And here it is courtesy of OFF: Ballot Title For Measure 43 Released. - Oregon Firearms Federation

DRAFT BALLOT TITLE Criminalizes possession or transfer of "assault weapons" (defined) or "large capacity magazines" (defined), with exceptions

Criminalizes = you are a criminal. Not the jackwad that shot up a school or carried out a terror attack. You, the law abiding tax payer.

Full instructions on how to comment in the OFF link

 

[jp1985]

Holy f**k that is a very very scary measure. They really out did themselfs this time with every little thing they could possibly do to further take away our gun rights and make us felons if not followed.

 

[jordanlund]

@jp1985 Hey - Liberal Democrat gun owner here... ask me anything.

The way I'm planning on pitching it to my friends and family is to go with the ex post facto angle listed earlier in the thread.

I know, I know, 3MTA3 disagrees, and that's cool, but I can't imagine anyone, left right or center, being down for giving someone a felony for something that is currently perfectly legal.

 

[1Asterisk]

I'm not saying I43 isn't bad - it's a misguided attack on our natural rights. I am saying it doesn't qualify as an ex post facto violation.

I understand. I just have a different opinion.
"Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action".
Let's break it down-
I own a particular firearm that is commonly owned by millions of people.
I own it legally and my possession of it is not in violation of any law in effect at that time.
Legislation comes along that says I can no longer possess that firearm and have to destroy it, remove it from the state, or register it with a government entity. If I don't do one of those things, my continued possession of that [formerly lawful] firearm, is now criminalized. I've committed a crime under the new legislation and can be arrested, charged, fined and/or incarcerated.
IP43 [makes] the possession of my previously lawfully owned firearm [an action done before the passing of the law, which was innocent when done] a felony [criminal and punishes such action].

 

[3MTA3]

@jp1985 Hey - Liberal Democrat gun owner here... ask me anything.

The way I'm planning on pitching it to my friends and family is to go with the ex post facto angle listed earlier in the thread.

I know, I know, 3MTA3 disagrees, and that's cool, but I can't imagine anyone, left right or center, being down for giving someone a felony for something that is currently perfectly legal.

Who are your State Representative and Senator? I suggest going to their town halls and also posing your question there. I think you will find that there are a lot of people who don't mind making others a criminal. Many, likely most, of your fellow citizens have been brainwashed into believing that a ban would make them safer.

Since their perceived rights would not be infringed, just some other guy - a gun nut at that, they won't lose anything. The politicians themselves have been given their marching orders and campaign donations and don't give bubblegum one about you or your rights. You will get a song and dance to coerce you to vote for them and that's about it.

Expect to hear the word "children" a thousand times. You will hear everything except facts like a child is five times more likely to be struck by lightening than to be involved in a school shooting. You won't hear that more people are killed each year by hammers and baseball bats than by so called "assault rifles". You won't hear that more people are killed by medical negligence than anything else or that the recently released CDC information shows that firearms are used defensively between one and two million times each year.

 

[jordanlund]

Who are your State Representative and Senator?

That's a great question and because we recently moved I had to look it up:

Legislator Lookup

Rob Wagner (D) - Senate District 19
Julie Parrish (R) - House District 37

Wagner, obviously, is the one I'll have to convince. Unfortunately I've found these folks generally have their minds made up already.

I went down this road with Leland Yee in California when he was sponsoring anti-video game legislation. I explained to him that precedence was against him, laws were being struck down all across the country and all he's going to end up doing is rack up large court costs defending the indefensible. He didn't listen. His law was struck down just like I told him it would.

Then this happened: O_O

Ex-Calif. State Sen. Leland Yee, gun control champion, heading to prison for weapons trafficking

 

[Goosebrown]

That's a great question and because we recently moved I had to look it up:

Legislator Lookup

Rob Wagner (D) - Senate District 19
Julie Parrish (R) - House District 37

Wagner, obviously, is the one I'll have to convince. Unfortunately I've found these folks generally have their minds made up already.

I went down this road with Leland Yee in California when he was sponsoring anti-video game legislation. I explained to him that precedence was against him, laws were being struck down all across the country and all he's going to end up doing is rack up large court costs defending the indefensible. He didn't listen. His law was struck down just like I told him it would.

Then this happened: O_O

Ex-Calif. State Sen. Leland Yee, gun control champion, heading to prison for weapons trafficking

Ha ha! (In millhouse's voice)

 

[3MTA3]

That's a great question and because we recently moved I had to look it up:

Legislator Lookup

Rob Wagner (D) - Senate District 19
Julie Parrish (R) - House District 37

Wagner, obviously, is the one I'll have to convince. Unfortunately I've found these folks generally have their minds made up already.

I went down this road with Leland Yee in California when he was sponsoring anti-video game legislation. I explained to him that precedence was against him, laws were being struck down all across the country and all he's going to end up doing is rack up large court costs defending the indefensible. He didn't listen. His law was struck down just like I told him it would.

Then this happened: O_O

Ex-Calif. State Sen. Leland Yee, gun control champion, heading to prison for weapons trafficking

You need to work on Julie Parrish as well. She is one one of three Republican TraiTurds who vote for gun control and promised to entertain "common sense" gun laws in an interview on OPB.

 

[jordanlund]

No joke! The big anti-gun guy, so fixed on banning imaginary guns in video games busted for working with the f-ing Triad? Seriously? Is he the villain in a Rush Hour movie?

 

[jordanlund]

Oh, man, don't even get me started on "Common Sense Gun Laws".

"Why should anyone on the no-fly list be allowed to buy a gun?"

Well gee, let's start with the fact that the no-fly list is maintained haphazardly, has no oversight, has people erroneously listed, is so vague it prevents children with similar names from flying and has absolutely no process to appeal.

But beside all that... what shooting would doing this have prevented? Oh, right, NONE of them. The closest would have been San Bernadino, but even they were cleared for the No-Fly list.

"Common Sense Gun Law" is coded language for "Gun laws that are completely ineffectual, but we'll pass them so it looks like we're doing something..."

 

[JRuby]

We wont need to do anything when the progressive citizens become easy targets by those that have no respect for the law. When gun crimes start going up even when the guns are supposed to be restricted. The problem as I see it is that those that are forcing this issue will have security and the majority of individuals will be defenseless against our leaders / criminals. The end result is that there will be a revolt by the good citizens after they realize what our leaders are doing but it will be several years in the future. It will be a bloody situation as once someone has acquired power it is hard for them to lose it. I see the modern day equivalent of the French revolution. Many good citizens will be made into criminals in defense of all rights not just the second amendment. It is a shame that many are blind to the reason they have the right to protest and speak their minds is because of our rights. Once we start removing the rights especially the second amendment the rest will be diminished over and over again.

 

[Aero Denezol]

....They still need to get the 80,000 signatures before this goes on the ballot, right?

 

[etrain16]

....They still need to get the 80,000 signatures before this goes on the ballot, right?

88,000 validated signatures. It's estimated they will need to collect in the neighborhood of 130,000 total signatures to make sure they have enough valid signatures for the SOS review.

But, they can't start collecting signatures until a final ballot title is issued. At this point, it's just the draft title and it's going to be challenged. Those challenges will cause delays. What's good about that is the delays hurt their side because the final deadline for signatures is a fixed date - they can't get any extra time. So the more the ballot title gets bogged down, the less time they have to collect those signatures.