2018 Oregon Gun Ban and Confiscation Ballot Measure Propoal

J

Jazzninja

Inactive
An interfaith group from Portland Oregon has submitted a ballot initiative intended to outlaw in Oregon ownership of the majority of firearms currently in common use for legal purposes.

Under the deliberately misleading designation of "assault weapons", the petition seeks to criminalize ownership of any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine, in conjunction with a number of additional arbitrary cosmetic features. The petition further classifies a number of semi-automatic pistols bearing a number of arbitrary cosmetic features as "assault weapons". The full text of the proposed initiative can be read here:

http://egov.sos.state.or.us/elec/web_irr_search.record_detail?p_reference=20180043..LSCYYY

The initiative requires that any person in legal possession of said "assault weapons" prior to the effective date of the law must surrender their property to a law enforcement agency, or be charged with a Class B felony.
 
You’ll also have the option to get rid of them in other ways.
Been plastered everywhere near me for a couple of days
 
Yikes!

(1)(a) “Assault weapon” means any:
(A) Semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has at least
one of the following:
[(i) thru (iii) omitted]
(iv) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
[(v) omitted]
(vi) A flash suppressor, muzzle brake, muzzle compensator, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, muzzle brake, or muzzle compensator...
Click to expand...
Regarding (iv): Unless you can figure out how to eliminate the handguard, this definition encompasses the Mini-14, Mini-30, and M1 Carbine, not to mention many traditionally-styled military semi-autos such as the MAS-49 family! :(

Regarding (vi): This means that you effectively can't use a suppressor unless it's permanently attached! An effectively identical provision in section (D) would apply the same prohibition to semi-auto pistols, and since the proposed law does not differentiate between rimfire and centerfire, some rimfire pistols that were ONLY produced with threaded barrels (e.g. S&W x22/22xx series) are "assault weapons" be default. :(

Additionally, note the wording:
...has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine...
Click to expand...
(4) “Detachable magazine” means an ammunition feeding device that can be loaded or unloaded while detached from a firearm and readily inserted into a firearm.
(5) “Fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in or permanently attached to a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.
Click to expand...
What about the SKS? Does the mere existence of detachable magazine conversion kits give this rifle "the capacity to accept a detachable magazine"?

What about the FN-49 and CA-style "bullet button" semi-auto rifles with nominally fixed magazines that can be removed externally with a tool but without further disassembly?

Guess who presumably gets to answer these questions... bureaucrats at the Department of State Police! :eek:
 
Why is it that states can just have ballot measures to toss Constitutional liberties out the window? There is a reason why we have representative systems of government. Something like this could pass easily due to people not knowing the facts, or even if they do, they may be blatantly anti-gun and thus not care, because the big urban areas (Portland) greatly outnumber the rural areas, and thus Portland will vote "Yes!" for this and thus the whole state is affected.

My only hope is that maybe this could be challenged in court and make its way to the Supreme Court (no way the Ninth Circuit will strike this down). And I don't even fully trust the SCOTUS because Kennedy is a bit wishy-washy on guns from what I understand.
 
They figured out that if they put out ballot initiatives, they can get it passed. Usually won’t make it through a legislative process though.
 
Being an ex-Oregonian, this isn't because of that. I'm removing posts that are general rants about Oregon. Every state can have such.

Please stay on topic of the details of the proposed law and realistic evaluations of its chances of becoming law.

Some are spinning in circles. Would you oppose a ballot item that strengthened the RKBA? Darn those people for exercising their voice through a mechanism that is legal in their state!

Think a little deeper. The Constitution, the state constitutions, the laws are all constructs of social forces that have and will be changed over times. Court decisions are made not according to absolute principles (as some seem to think) but by judges who are also immersed in the social context of the period as well as past precedents and their education.
 
I hope that the people there will stay on top of this ! Need to get the people to gather to fight this NOW
 
Methinks the Oregon ballot measure would likely pass.

Look for citizens of additional states to propose referendums on "assault weapons" bans and background checks.

Voter referendums are good vehicles for proposed legislation that state legislatures refuse to consider. Here in Oklahoma we outlawed cockfighting with a public referendum after the state legislature repeatedly refused to consider the measure.
 
There is a very real, and very serious risk to us from this ballot measure. And it is, in part because of the population distribution of the state.

WA has an incredibly poorly written background check law, now. SO badly written that the police agencies of the state have refused to enforce it, absent further clarification, which, so far (and its been a few years now) has not been forthcoming from the govt.

WE, the people, through our elected representatives, defeated this measure in the legislature repeatedly, over 3 election cycles. And, rightly so.

They put it on the ballot as an initiative. An ad campaign full of lies (and possibly funded by out of state money) told people the background check law was needed to keep domestic abusers from getting guns. No where was any mention of the fact that domestic abusers are already prohibited from getting guns, and have been for many years.

The truth didn't matter. Enough people in the 5 counties of the Sea-Tac area voted to pass it. They were the ONLY counties in the state that passed it. However, the numbers were enough to make it state law.

This is what you face in Oregon. Get enough of the people in the I-5 corridor to believe gun control advocates lies, and they will make law for everyone else in the state. Getting such a draconian overreaching ban passed through the legislature, where rational argument at least stands a chance has, and would almost certainly fail. Getting the general mass of people duped and voting for it is both easier and more likely.

The people will be voting on the title, and what the advocates tell them the bill will do, NOT on what it actually says, or would do.

Our democratic system does not ensure the best possible outcome. It allows for it, but it also allows for the worst possible outcome as well. The "will of the people" may rule, but it doesn't mean that will is right, only that numbers rule. Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner is democracy, too...
 
What irks me is the fact that I’ve followed all the rules. Submitted to multiple BGCs.
Paid the fees to carry in a few states.
I don’t carry where they don’t want me to.
I keep the guns safe and secure.
I don’t own assault rifles or machine guns.
I don’t get inebriated.

How am I responsible for someone else’s actions? Grrr ok rant over.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Being an ex-Oregonian, this isn't because of that. I'm removing posts that are general rants about Oregon. Every state can have such.

Please stay on topic of the details of the proposed law and realistic evaluations of its chances of becoming law.

Some are spinning in circles. Would you oppose a ballot item that strengthened the RKBA? Darn those people for exercising their voice through a mechanism that is legal in their state!
Click to expand...

But it isn't really the people "exercising their voice," it is more the anti-gun special interests exercising their voice by presenting a ballot initiative on what is a complex issue and lying and distorting the facts to the people and relying on general ignorance. It is relying on the ignorant mob. In addition, there is a difference between people exercising their voice in general on something versus "exercising" it with regards to undoing a right.

Think a little deeper. The Constitution, the state constitutions, the laws are all constructs of social forces that have and will be changed over times. Court decisions are made not according to absolute principles (as some seem to think) but by judges who are also immersed in the social context of the period as well as past precedents and their education.
Click to expand...

Ideological judges perhaps. IMO, a proper judge will ignore social context and just rule according to what the Constitution says. We have gotten some incredibly inane rulings on gun control laws because of very clearly ideological judges.
 
44 Amp said:
Our democratic system does not ensure the best possible outcome. It allows for it, but it also allows for the worst possible outcome as well. The "will of the people" may rule, but it doesn't mean that will is right, only that numbers rule. Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner is democracy, too...
Click to expand...

This is why I don't understand why such ballot initiatives are legal. We are not supposed to be a democracy, we are supposed to be a republic. What good is the Constitution if an urban population in a state can just toss it out the window?
 
rickyrick said:
What irks me is the fact that I’ve followed all the rules. Submitted to multiple BGCs.
Paid the fees to carry in a few states.
I don’t carry where they don’t want me to.
I keep the guns safe and secure.
I don’t own assault rifles or machine guns.
I don’t get inebriated.

How am I responsible for someone else’s actions? Grrr ok rant over.
Click to expand...
Easy Rickyrick: When emotion takes over, people look for easy solutions to the last problem. Not the current one. Or not the politically incorrect but realistic future problem.

Since you own evil guns, you're obviously part of the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top