NOW look who's complaining about the government being out of touch! (Signatures
were invalidated because the paper was glossy instead of dull, as clearly stated in the laws. The gloss screws up the optical scanner.)
The last paragraph brings up an interesting question. Would you be against background checks at gun shows if no records were kept, as originally envisioned? That means at the State as well as Federal level.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/news/oregonian/00/05/lc_61guns19.frame
Gun check supporters sue Oregon
A ruling to disqualify thousands of signatures prompts the action
Friday, May 19, 2000
By Mark Larabee of The Oregonian staff
Sponsors of an initiative petition that would require criminal background checks on anyone who buys a firearm at a gun show filed a lawsuit against the state Thursday seeking to reverse an official ruling that signatures gathered on magazine-style paper would be disqualified.
The Stop Gun Violence campaign, which is seeking signatures for Initiative 99, the Gun Violence Prevention Act, filed the lawsuit against the secretary of state's office in Marion County Circuit Court, said Charles Hinkle, the group's attorney.
The state Elections Division, part of the secretary of state's office, ruled last week that petitions sent to 70,000 Portland voters urging them to sign in support of the initiative was on paper stock that was different from what originally was approved. Officials said the slick bond wouldn't have been allowed because it tends to cause the signatures to smear, making it difficult or impossible to verify whether they're registered voters.
Hinkle has called the ruling
"hypertechnical" and said it is unconstitutional because the state "cannot hinder or impede the people's right to engage in the initiative process."
In a letter Thursday to the Oregon Department of Justice, Hinkle questioned the state's decision, calling it the "sort of thing that makes a lot of citizens think that government is out of touch." He also said such decisions make it impossible to achieve any meaningful improvements in the initiative process.
The state's ruling came after a complaint by Oregon Gun Owners, a gun-rights group that is pushing a competing initiative, the Firearms Act of 2000, Initiative 110.
That measure also would require background checks at gun shows. But it would eliminate a $10 fee to run the check, eliminate the state's retention of a gun buyer's personal information, grant immunity from lawsuits for anyone who goes through a background check and whose gun is used by someone else in a crime or accident, and enhance penalties against criminals who use guns.
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
were invalidated because the paper was glossy instead of dull, as clearly stated in the laws. The gloss screws up the optical scanner.)
The last paragraph brings up an interesting question. Would you be against background checks at gun shows if no records were kept, as originally envisioned? That means at the State as well as Federal level.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/news/oregonian/00/05/lc_61guns19.frame
Gun check supporters sue Oregon
A ruling to disqualify thousands of signatures prompts the action
Friday, May 19, 2000
By Mark Larabee of The Oregonian staff
Sponsors of an initiative petition that would require criminal background checks on anyone who buys a firearm at a gun show filed a lawsuit against the state Thursday seeking to reverse an official ruling that signatures gathered on magazine-style paper would be disqualified.
The Stop Gun Violence campaign, which is seeking signatures for Initiative 99, the Gun Violence Prevention Act, filed the lawsuit against the secretary of state's office in Marion County Circuit Court, said Charles Hinkle, the group's attorney.
The state Elections Division, part of the secretary of state's office, ruled last week that petitions sent to 70,000 Portland voters urging them to sign in support of the initiative was on paper stock that was different from what originally was approved. Officials said the slick bond wouldn't have been allowed because it tends to cause the signatures to smear, making it difficult or impossible to verify whether they're registered voters.
Hinkle has called the ruling
"hypertechnical" and said it is unconstitutional because the state "cannot hinder or impede the people's right to engage in the initiative process."
In a letter Thursday to the Oregon Department of Justice, Hinkle questioned the state's decision, calling it the "sort of thing that makes a lot of citizens think that government is out of touch." He also said such decisions make it impossible to achieve any meaningful improvements in the initiative process.
The state's ruling came after a complaint by Oregon Gun Owners, a gun-rights group that is pushing a competing initiative, the Firearms Act of 2000, Initiative 110.
That measure also would require background checks at gun shows. But it would eliminate a $10 fee to run the check, eliminate the state's retention of a gun buyer's personal information, grant immunity from lawsuits for anyone who goes through a background check and whose gun is used by someone else in a crime or accident, and enhance penalties against criminals who use guns.
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
