Oregon Initiative 43 passes first step; complete ban on all modern guns...

[zukiphile]

I suspect a lot of the love/hate for the ballot initiative depends upon whether you think your elected representative generally has your interest in mind when they propose/vote on laws.

Certainly. Also, if you think your pet issue is a winner but is being frustrated by the legislative process generally, the ballot looks like a brilliant alternative. At a federal level, see our frustration with the progress of the SHARE act.

Sometimes Ballots pass because the ballot language sounds like a great idea to normal people, but the ballot language never got a lot of scrutiny from the sort of people who would later seek to overturn it in court. That can be one advantage of the legislative process that a ballot initiative doesn't always get.

I think the loser(s) of whatever bill passes will frequently challenge that law in court regardless of how much scrutiny they gave the bill before it became a law.

The problem I've seen with a few ballot initiatives I've seen challenged is that they contain fairly gross errors that get them invalidated when challenged.

The legislative process typically involves people with some, experience, memory and skill that should avoid simple errors. If you recall the original Gun Free Zones Act in Congress, it just made a naked assertion of federal power without any constitutional basis. It was struck, but the people who pushed it learned to include in subsequent bills some language that would get them beyond that challenge. They probably won't make exactly that error again.

Effectively legislation typically has more editors before it meets a vote. The end product can still be awful, like the GFZ Act, but we expect the easy things to be fixed.

 

[44 AMP]

Well, I went through the link and read the text of the bill. They don't want much, do they???

As I read it, the bull..er.., bill, would put virtually every semi-automatic in Oregon in the "assault weapon" category. Even the FIXED tube magazine .22s are put into that category. Every single one...if its a semi auto it has features covered in the bill that, under their interpretation put it in the assault weapon class if they bill becomes law.

The define a magazine as any device that can be loaded outside the gun, and inserted into it.

SO, bye bye to the M1 Garand, as well. it's now an assault weapon, because the enbloc clip meets their definition of a detachable magazine, and the handguard meets their definition of a "barrel shroud"

and any semi auto, no matter what the stock design, that places the trigger finger under any part of the action of the firearm, is an assault weapon.
(know any designs that don't put the trigger finger below the action??)

and while people currently owning "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" will have 120 days to get rid of them or register them (and yes, register each and every single magazine) people who own such items, and move into Oregon after the effective date of the law do NOT have the option to register then. Their only options are sell to a dealer, remover from the state, surrender to the police, or render them permanently inoperable.

Also all assault weapons must be stored under their "safe storage law" AND loss or theft must be reported to the police within 48 hours of discovery, or YOU, are committing a crime.

There's more, but as I see it, the language of the bill can be stretched to cover every semi auto I can think of, in one way, or another.

And, did I mention that, in order to register guns and magazines you want to keep, you have to go through a paperwork system that has yet to be created, and pass a background check, which they will charge you for, in order to keep your own property!

and oh yeah, any and all PARTS that can make an assault weapon are banned, the same as the assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines as they define them.

Police, military personnel, and anyone else who requires possession of the banned items as part of their official duties, are, of course, exempted.

This is a serious risk, people. A bill like this in the legislature stands a good chance of going nowhere. A ballot initiative, no matter what it is, if it gets enough signatures, it goes on the ballot. And Oregon is one of several states where the urban area around major cities has the numbers to make law for the entire state.

Those people will be heavily targeted by the initiative's supporters, (perhaps funded by out of state interests as well) and they will be told lies, about what the bill is, what it does, and why its needed. If the ad campaign is successful, and the lies are believed, then everyone who owns a semi auto in Oregon, gets well and truly screwed.

Reason, logic, eloquence, and Constitutional rights don't go very far with the majority of people when the other side is telling them (24/7) that "this is the only thing that will keep our children from being murdered in school!!!"

 

[Lohman446]

That protected class framework doesn't get you far in a state arms ban, since the ban will impair everyone's ability to exercise the right.

While I get what you are saying let's take the $200 tax stamp for instance. Does this impact, as a whole, one of the protected classes more than others? Is it more onerous for one group, taking as a whole, than another.

 

[zukiphile]

That protected class framework doesn't get you far in a state arms ban, since the ban will impair everyone's ability to exercise the right.

While I get what you are saying let's take the $200 tax stamp for instance. Does this impact, as a whole, one of the protected classes more than others? Is it more onerous for one group, taking as a whole, than another.

Almost any requirement is going to have a disparate impact on some group somewhere to some degree. If you successfully made the FFL's collection of one's racial designation the basis up on which the barrier of NFA fees and 4473s were stricken, when people stopped laughing they'd be lined up to shake your hand.

The idea of disparate impact as evidence of discrimination is both controversial and not enough to prove a discrimination claim. It's really only supposed to shift the burden back onto the entity accused of discrimination. A cartoonish illustration: If I sued the NBA for employment discrimination for not hiring me, a five foot tall japanese man, I think I could show there there are disproportionately few NBA players of japanese ancestry. However, that would not prove my claim. The burden would shift to the NBA to offer a non-(racially) discriminatory reason for hiring so few players of japanese ancestry.

Bonus points to you for looking at this from a different angle.

 

[carguychris]

As I read it, the bull..er.., bill, would put virtually every semi-automatic in Oregon in the "assault weapon" category. Even the FIXED tube magazine .22s are put into that category...

The define a magazine as any device that can be loaded outside the gun, and inserted into it.

SO, bye bye to the M1 Garand, as well. it's now an assault weapon, because the enbloc clip meets their definition of a detachable magazine, and the handguard meets their definition of a "barrel shroud"

You're right about the M1 Garand clip; I hadn't given that a whole lot of specific thought, despite what I wrote earlier about linked belts.

Also, the inclusion of semi-auto rifles with the "capacity to accept" a detachable magazine is dangerously ambiguous, as literally any magazine-fed firearm has the "capacity to accept" a detachable magazine if its possessor has the right mix of determination and mechanical skills. Recall that externally detachable tube mags DO exist. This factor effectively neuters the the prima facie exclusion of <11rd fixed-mag rifles with "evil" features; if the measure were to pass, it's only a matter of time before some aggressive administrator "discovers" this fact.

Speaking of which, didja realize that the external barrel sleeves on the Remington Model 8 and Model 81 Woodsmaster potentially qualify as barrel shrouds? They're not clearly excluded; the sleeve certainly "completely encircles the barrel," yet it's arguably not an excluded "slide that encloses the barrel," because it remains fixed on on firing—the barrel moves, not the sleeve. Given the mere existence of the Krieger Removable Cartridge Clip, viola, the Model 8 could be the world's oldest assault-style rifle, according to Prop 43!

The number of semi-auto production rifles that WON'T potentially fall under this ban is vanishingly small.

 

[44 AMP]

etachable magazine is dangerously ambiguous, as literally any magazine-fed firearm has the "capacity to accept" a detachable magazine if its possessor has the right mix of determination and mechanical skills.

One doesn't even need to go there, it doesn't matter what you can modify the gun to take, they've already got it covered.

If your gun can "accept a detachable magazine" it can accept any size magazine, over and above what ever the standard is. They're putting tube magazine semi auto .22s on their assault weapon list. Even though they specifically state the fixed tube .22 magazine itself doesn't make it an assault rifle (they specifically say the tube mag on a lever action is ok) the fact that the tube magazine holds more than 10 rounds DOES make the semi auto .22 an assault weapon. This isn't just say goodbye to the 10/22 (detachable box) this is also say goodbye to the Marlin model 60, the Win 190s and dozens of other .22s that have been the mainstay of youth training and use for generations.

If this becomes law, I don't think its beyond possibility that at some future date, some regulator will determine that semi auto pistols are all assault weapons as well, because they all put the trigger finger under the action, AND have a grip that can be held with the non shooting hand. (the same grip the shooting hand holds) Since that meets the letter of the law, bingo, all your semi auto handguns are now assault weapons, even if they don't have any of the other features listed in the law...

No shotguns with revolving cylinders, those are assault weapons...how much of a leap is it to "no handguns with revolving cylinders"??? not as much as you might think...

if this isn't an attempt at tyranny by the masses, what is???

 

[Koda94]

speaking about detachable magazines...

Oregon Firearms Federation (the states gun rights lobby) posted an email exchange on its Facebook page between a local gun owner and Ceasefire Oregon (the states gun control lobby) over the wording of the Initiative 43 including quite the exchange discussing what constitutes a detachable magazine.

Its worth the laugh for the quick read...

https://www.facebook.com/oregonfirearms/posts/10160133057810463

 

[rickyrick]

Wow, glocks aren’t capable of accepting a detachable magazine???..... I mean????

?
?
Man, they really have no idea what they are talking about.

I wish the mods would let us use profanity just this one time.

 

[riffraff]

This is terrible and ridiculous.

They are pushing it even further than the 2018 federal AWB. You'd think if those people had a brain they'd just copy the same wording (which was done by a bunch of lawmakers already).

I agree with absolutely none of it, but to their credit on the federal level someone was at least familiar enough to remove models like the ruger 10 22 - may have been all rimfire in general was removed I forget - whatever the case nobody is setting out to mass murder armed with a .22.

 

[NWPilgrim]

As 44 AMP pointed out, a legislative bill like this would have little hope of being passed in Oregon. But a ballot initiative is almost guaranteed to pass no matter, or maybe because of, how idiotic it is. Tyranny of the masses in living color!

----

Even though the legislature is probably 2/3 Democrat, it has been a better firewall against rights encroachment than the general public and courts.

Remember, the Constitution and especially Bill of Rights were written to protect the individuals and States from an overbearing central government and "tyranny of masses" (majority rule). The 2A should be a pre-emption against States or the Federal government passing any laws that "infringe" on keeping or bearing arms (particularly those suitable for a militia). But the USSC has trampled on that concept over and over. Also recall that most gun laws have originated from the idea to suppress an unpopular minority.

As an Oregonian this is the most concerned I have been with any new State gun laws since McCain came here to help "close the gun show loop hole." I doubt there will be much compliance on this bill and hopefully many legal challenges that get it overturned. If passed, I will likely be moving to Idaho where I have extended family still enjoying some freedom.

 

[LogicMan]

Maybe this law will make it to the Supreme Court, get taken up, and struck down 5-4. Even if certain aspects of a conventional assault weapons ban were upheld, if the Supreme Court said that semiautomatics that take detachable magazines cannot be considered assault weapons, that would be a big win. I could see the lawyers and the Court messing it up though and just saying semiautomatics as opposed to semiautomatics that take a detachable magazine. I could see Kennedy maybe not striking down a full AWB but saying that semiautos with detachable magazines cannot be outlawed.

Maybe the terminology of "any rifle that can accept a detachable magazine" will be a sort of arbitrary thing where whether such guns are illegal depends on where you are in the state. For example, here in NY, you cannot possess a full-featured AR-15 unless it has a fixed magazine. Of course, what constitutes a "fixed" magazine hasn't really been explained. Basically, it's whether it can be removed quickly or not, but how is "quickly" defined? So there are some ARs people have been buying where the magazine is "fixed" but when you open up the gun (say to top-load the magazine), you can pull a pin and make the magazine removable.

The gist on the gun is, "Do not take this anywhere near the big cities..." but out here in the rural areas, it is more safe. It can be a hit-or-miss with the local cops, some are fine with it, others may not be. Maybe the same thing will happen with Oregon, where conventional semiautomatics with detachable magazines will be okay in the rural areas, but not near Portland say.

 

[publius42]

The grandfathering and restricting sale AND TRANSFER, if it upholds legal challenge, is really a genius move on the part of those seeking it.

It doesn't directly deprive anyone of property so that prevents one challenge. Because there is no "mass turn in" there is not the political issues associated with demanding it.

If I have something on the list what becomes of it when I die? My children are prohibited from taking possession because that would be a transfer.

It really is a genius move because it accomplishes the goal while eliminated some of the challenges.

It's the standard move and should surprise no one.

There were a few legally-owned handguns in Washington DC when Dick Heller's case was heard. The surviving people who had bought them before the registry was closed.

One by one, as the owners died, their guns were handed over. A disarmed grieving family is a polite grieving family.

The same thing is going on today in Connecticut, to name one example. They have a closed registry. Every day, people with registered guns die. And every day, those guns are quietly handed over to the state if the families don't wish to go through selling them out of state.

This explains why only about 15-20% of those with covered "assault weapons" registered them in that state. Most know that registering a gun is signing up to have it confiscated upon your death and simply don't register it.

 

[HiBC]

A problem with the ballot initiative process in many states is that the signatures may all be gathered from population dense urban precincts.
Only the big city interests get represented.
Those who live in other parts of the state do not get representation.
Colorado passed a law requiring that a percentage of the initiative signatures come from a representation of the rest of the state.Of course,some judge intervened.

Some of the posts imply we are,or should be,under a government of Democracy. That is government by lynch mob,or a government of 12 wolves and one sheep planning a menu.

Our Founders gave us a Constitutional Republic,where the unalienable rights of a single individual are protected against the tyranny of the majority.

Of course,I am concerned,this could go badly.

 

[Spats McGee]

Well, I went through the link and read the text of the bill. They don't want much, do they???

As I read it, the bull..er.., bill, would put virtually every semi-automatic in Oregon in the "assault weapon" category. . . . .

I finally got around to reading this bill. Heavens to Mergatroid! It doesn't take much to imagine that this covers every semiautomatic. Rifle and pistol.

 

[s3779m]

Supposing there was not one single law regulating gun ownership and use anywhere in the USA. Starting from zero. No siege atmosphere. Would you approve of universal background checks? Every single transaction no matter where it occurred? Including extensive reviews of the buyer’s mental health? And waiting periods long enough to get all the checks and reviews done properly? Registration of every firearm in a federal database? Would you approve of the requirement to have guns locked away when unattended?

In the absence of attacks on assault rifle ownership and the like, is anything I have proposed above not reasonable? Does any of it represent an attempt to take away our guns?

There was a time when there were no restrictions, and I am sure every time there was a restriction proposed someone labeled it as reasonable. So we have gone from your example on a proposal on background checks to Oregon's proposal to ban most guns. Trouble there is someone considers that total ban to be reasonable too. Not to mention since that first "reasonable" restriction was put into place there have been 20,000 gun laws passed that are all "reasonable". Well, at what point do we stop blaming the gun? Even with 20,00 laws passed we are still looking for more laws to pass? Why? Simple answer, there are those who will stop at nothing less than banning guns. Too many politicians have come out and stated as much and are on record. Is that reasonable also? Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder so is what is reasonable, and I am not ready to give in to the liberal view on that subject. Trouble with all of these "reasonable' gun laws, they DO NOTHING to get the guns out of the criminals hands.

https://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_laws_are_there

 

[44 AMP]

If I have something on the list what becomes of it when I die? My children are prohibited from taking possession because that would be a transfer.

Some of the gun ban proposals around the country do include an "original owner only" lifetime use. Specific to Oregon's Prop 43, it does not. That is about the only thing it does allow, it allows for your children to inherit your "assault weapon(s) and large capacity magazines..

BUT, they are under the same requirements as you are, meaning that they have 120 days (after inheriting the items) to either remove them from the state, surrender them to the state, destroy them (render them permanently inoperable) sell them to a dealer licensed to deal in "assault weapons", OR register them with the state, under their name.

So, in regard to inheritance, and ONLY in regard to inheritance, Prop 43 isn't the worst bill out there.

Now, lets look, for a moment, at what the possible results of the ownership restrictions could be, on your property...

First option, remove the prohibited items from the state of Oregon. Solves Oregon's "problem" with them. Doesn't solve yours. Assuming you have someplace you can send them, out of state (and if you can't physically carry them there, yourself, you'll have to pay an FFL dealer to get them shipped to another FFL dealer, and then go there and pick them up. This could entail quite a bit of expense, especially if you have quite a few guns.

Second option, surrender them to the state, without any compensation.
All value in your property is lost. Not such a big deal if all you own is a $60 Marlin Glenfield .22, but considerably more if you own a $500-1000 AR rifle, and a few dozen banned magazines...

Third option, sell them to a licensed dealer.
This is where it gets really sneaky and tricksy. On the surface, it appears that yes, sure, you can sell them to a dealer, and get some (most??) of your money back out of them, right?

Wrong!

its not even remotely that simple. First off, the dealer is under no obligation to buy your now banned items, at all.

Second, if they do buy, they are under no obligation to offer even remotely fair market value, because the law has just hugely distorted the market. Remember that now, under Prop 43, the dealer can't sell them to regular citizens, either. He can only sell them to other dealers, the state (LEO, etc) or sell them to someone out of state, through another dealer.

SO, the dealer, who has just lost a huge percentage of his business (and the profit it brings) due to Prop 43 ending the sale of semi autos, ALSO has to deal with the huge glut of (now worthless in Oregon) guns, people are trying to sell to him, just to get something for them.

And that's just what they'll get. Something. Maybe $25 for your $1,000 AR kit (gun & mags). Not fair? sure it is. Its a free market (other than in Oregon). Assuming, of course that the dealer even bothers to offer anything, or accept your business at all.

Dealer might offer you $25, what are you going to do? Be outraged, and take your items elsewhere? THERE IS NO ELSEWHERE inside Oregon. You're stuck. (and that's the point of the law)

Dealer might simply refuse your offer, after all, if he's already got 6 dozen various "assault weapons" he's bought, and has to make money off of them, somehow (out of state sale being about the only option left) he might not want to buy another (yours) even for the price of a cup of coffee.
And then, you are still stuck with the situation.

Another thing is the (I'm sure its) unintended consequences of having a number of dealers closing their doors, because Prop 43 just cut off all profit from semi auto sales, in one fell swoop. SO, not only is Prop 43 going to reduce the number of legal guns in Oregon, its going to reduce the number of legal gun dealers as well.

Here's another thing to consider, how about the value of all the ammo you might have, stockpiled for that "bad day"?? If you don't own a manually operated repeater (or single shot) in the calibers of your "assault weapons", that ammo isn't worth much to you anymore, either.

So, lets assume you don't have anywhere out of state to send them, and you can't get spit for them from a dealer (and remember you've only got a 120 day window before you're a felon!!! ), you don't want to just surrender them to be destroyed, on general principles, so what's left?

Registering them with the state (if you're allowed to...) which you will have to pay for. And meeting whatever idiotic storage requirements they deem appropriate (or again, you're a criminal) at what ever cost burden that requires. (and that cost burden could be considerable, depending on the state's requirements. It might require an $800 safe to meet the state's demands, a $250 one might not be enough. And then there's this, an expensive safe, to store items that have virtually NO commercial value thanks to Prop 43.

And yet another fun thought, now that all these items guns AND magazines are registered with the state, how long a window do you think you'll have to be able to keep them and use them????

You might have as long as it takes for the next mass shooter, anywhere in the country, to commit the next mass murder. WHEN (not if), when this happens, and more kids are killed, they are virtually certain to come after the registered items and demand their surrender. All it will take is another law, or another ballot measure becoming law.

And, since they're all registered, they'll have a list of who owns what, and where.

SO, if Prop 43 passes, not only are all our semis virtually worthless, its pretty likely that those who obey the law and register the one's we're allowed to keep, won't be allowed to keep them for the rest of their natural lives. Nothing makes wolves more eager to eat you than feeding them does. sure, you'll get a brief respite while they digest the meal you just gave them, but after that, they'll be back, both hungry end emboldened, because they got fed there before.

And, if you don't have anything left to feed them, they won't be....happy...
and neither will you.

 

[Don Fischer]

Pretty bad problem no one speaks of. They take away semi auto's, they are not taking way your right to bear arms,,,yet! My S&W Shield should still work, max 8 rounds. But if what I'd heard it's not alright to have more rounds, My High Standard HD Military 22 semi is toast. So is my P89. The huge problem in Oregon is that Portland and Eugene run the whole state! T win an electionin Oregon those two are all you need to win.

 

[turkeestalker]

44 AMP, that's an insightfully realistic outline, thanks.

It all seems like reasonable common sense to me and I vote we compromise in all of our best interests, or else.

 

[L2R]

I once, briefly, worked for a car sales manager who would walk in on my customer and tell them the monthly payment would be $700 when it was actually $400 / month.
Most of the time he could keep them talking as they wanted to tell him off. He would defend his position, keep them talking and sometimes he could get them to sign up for 550/month payment. After letting the 700/month soak in for a few minutes, 550 didn't sound so bad.

I think this is a similar example. Keep asking for all of it and after a while, giving up a big chuck sounds a lot better.

 

[dajowi]

The initiative has to have the signatures of over 88,000 Oregonians by July 6 to even get on the ballot for a vote. They have a ways to go but if they get their 88,000 signatures the governor will sign the bill.