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

[Koda94]

thought I would share what were facing here in Oregon. Citizens collected enough signatures to move forward towards getting a complete ban on all modern defensive type firearms. There does appear to be some kind of grandfather clause for current owners who don't want to surrender their guns, but I'm calling it a complete ban as I currently understand it because moving forward its total prohibition on all modern guns. I'm not the best at legalese but as I understand it the ban includes ALL semi-auto guns not just "assault" rifles... correct me if I'm wrong.

A good write up explaining it in simple terms can be found on the NRA's website here: https://www.nraila.org/articles/2018...e-ballot-box-1

Should this proposal become law, and a law-abiding citizen who possesses one of these newly restricted items wishes to remain law-abiding, he or she will be required to either surrender it within 120 days, or register it and commit to storing it according to Oregon’s “safe storage” requirements. Anyone who moves into Oregon with an affected item (magazine or firearm) would be required to dispose of it.

actual text of the law here: http://oregonvotes.org/irr/2018/043text.pdf


heres a local news article about it for more reference: http://katu.com/news/investigators/c...utomatic-sales

[riffraff]

Just wondering as I read this - as far as gun laws today, is Oregon currently one of the "free states" or are they already heavily regulated today?

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by riffraff

Just wondering as I read this - as far as gun laws today, is Oregon currently one of the "free states" or are they already heavily regulated today?

As far as gun laws, we are mostly a free state, by comparison...

The problem is Oregon has become a blue state since the late 80s and has remained solid blue with our politics being controlled by the 2 major population centers notably Portland. The last several years has been a constant onslaught battle of fighting gun laws and mostly losing. If they gather the 86000 signatures required by June, this Initiative 43 will be up for vote on the November ballot and Portland alone will easily sign that many IMO.

[Aguila Blanca]

So if this law passes, Oregonians with carry permits will have to carry single action revolvers?

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

So if this law passes, Oregonians with carry permits will have to carry single action revolvers?

although Ive been aware of the initiative thru friends discussion, I'm just beginning to sit down and read the actual text and as I now currently understand it, no... I believe any semi-auto pistol with less than 10 rds capacity will still be legal to carry or own. So I'll have to retract my OP about "all" modern guns as I'm not certain a magazine limit applies to the gun if the gun is still capable of accepting an original mag.
it appears this will prohibit "assault" style rifles, pistols, and magazines over 10rds.

[LogicMan]

From how the NRA-ILA description makes it sound, it would be a standard assault weapons ban as we have in the other ban states. Which unfortunately means that there won't be a shot in hell at getting it undone by a court, because the 9th Circuit will uphold it and the Supreme Court won't touch the issue right now. If it is a standard AWB, you will still be able to possess AR-15s, but they will have to have one of those stupid stocks and only a 10 round magazine.

Some anti-gun commentators have said that the SCOTUS won't touch the assault weapons issue because they think it reasonable, but I wonder myself if the reason they won't touch it is because the justices on both sides are afraid that the ruling might go the other way. For example, since Heller and McDonald were both 5-4 decisions, some of the conservatives on the Court are probably afraid it might end up 5-4 in favor of the AWB and some of the liberals probably fear it might end up 5-4 striking it down, and thus striking down all AWBs across the country.

[Koda94]

so a quick follow up after reading the text as it currently stands, it will prohibit "assault" style rifles, pistols, shotguns, and magazines over 10rds. Current owners will be allowed to keep them if they register them with the state. I don't see anything prohibiting carrying existing registered magazines that hold over 10rds.

I mentioned earlier that Oregon is "mostly" a free state regarding guns... what that means is the gun control laws being pushed on use so far have not actually prohibited us from owning or carrying most any modern firearm including magazines over 10 round capacity. Most of our gun control lately have been like safe storage laws (Portland), universal background checks and extreme risk protection orders.

so what this initiative means if passed as it stands is...
>a full prohibition of "assault" style rifles, shotguns and pistols (AR pistols)
>full prohibition of magazines over 10 rds
>full registration of existing (grandfathered) guns and magazines

[Don P]

I mentioned earlier that Oregon is "mostly" a free state regarding guns...

How can this be with restrictions that are stated below?

so what this initiative means if passed as it stands is...
>a full prohibition of "assault" style rifles, shotguns and pistols (AR pistols)
>full prohibition of magazines over 10 rds
>full registration of existing (grandfathered) guns and magazine

[Lohman446]

The initiative is going to be on the ballot or so it appears. At this point those in Oregon have to fight the battle in front of them and take what positives they can. The best outcome: it is soundly defeated.

Look there are a lot of people in Oregon who are heavily concerned with governmental over reach at multiple levels of government. It is time for those who think that gun control is a dichotomous party line issue to make "strange bedfellows" and stand united.

I hope the preceding statement did not cross too far into the political line - its hard to discuss ballot initiatives without touching on politics.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Koda94

so what this initiative means if passed as it stands is...
>a full prohibition of "assault" style rifles, shotguns and pistols (AR pistols)

It's not a full prohibition, as there's a grandfather clause.

However, the law is NOT just about ARs and AKs.

As I discussed in the other thread on this topic, as I read the proposed law:

• Due to threaded barrels being on the Evil Features List, ANY semi-automatic firearm that has a detachable magazine and is capable of accepting a standard threaded suppressor will become an "assault weapon," notably including rimfire pistols that were manufactured no other way (e.g. S&W 422/622/2206/2213 series);
• Handguards are on the Evil Features List for detachable-magazine rifles, thus encompassing the Mini-14, Mini-30, M1 Carbine, and numerous other military rifles such as the Dragunov and MAS-49 families;
• The bill contains broad language that could allow future bureaucratic administrators to outlaw military-style rifles with nominally fixed magazines that can be removed externally using tools (e.g. CA "bullet button" rifles, the FN 49), or that are capable of accepting detachable magazines with simple modifications (e.g. the SKS);
• Additionally [not discussed in the other thread], the definition of "detachable magazine" is broad enough to encompass belt-fed firearms, particularly those that use links.

[Lohman446]

Handguards are on the Evil Features List for detachable-magazine rifles, thus encompassing the Mini-14, Mini-30, M1 Carbine, and numerous other military rifles such as the Dragunov and MAS-49 families;

We have to find a way to reword this or not make it part of the objection. We are not arguing that these rifles should be allowed because they are not military style rifles. We are arguing that they should be allowed because the right of the people includes military rifles.

If we argue "well this includes other military rifles other than the AR15" those supporting such a ban are likely to respond that is the point.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

We are not arguing that these rifles should be allowed because they are not military style rifles. We are arguing that they should be allowed because the right of the people includes military rifles.

I agree with you and I was NOT trying to imply otherwise.

The purpose of my post was merely to point out that this ISN'T just another attempt to reimpose the AWB, or even a slightly more stringent version thereof.

This bill is MUCH worse.

[Koda94]

It is a full prohibition moving forward.

Grandfathered items cannot be sold.... And will be prohibited next time...

[Lohman446]

Grandfathered items cannot be sold.... And will be prohibited next time...

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.

[rpenmanparker]

IMO what is being described in Oregon is the fault of the 2A hard liners. The never capitulators. The slipper slopers. Reasonable compromises exist for those who are not too stubborn to pursue them.

[Lohman446]

IMO what is being described in Oregon is the fault of the 2A hard liners. The never capitulators. The slipper slopers. Reasonable compromises exist for those who are not too stubborn to pursue them.

Ehh - my hope is that this fails. Not barely but that it fails overwhelmingly. I may, from a great distance, misread Oregon politics but I think that is at least a possibility. It could really send a message to politicians who champion gun control that their "base" is not solidly behind them.

Remember a good share of voters do not care about a particular politicians stance on gun control. They have other issues that are more central to them.

[rickyrick]

Oregon wants to be the spearhead of __________ laws, they are in competition to catch up and surpass the other ________ states in passing these types of laws. If it’s a __________ idea and it gets on the ballot, it will pass. Constitutionality not even considered.

[44 AMP]

IMO what is being described in Oregon is the fault of the 2A hard liners..... Reasonable compromises exist for those who are not too stubborn to pursue them.

So, in your opinion the reason some people are proposing extreme gun bans is because of "2A hard liners"? I just don't see any sense in that. Can you explain how the people who oppose gun control are responsible for the proposed gun control in Oregon???

What, in your opinion is a "reasonable" compromise??

Because I'm fairly certain at this point, that your idea of reasonable is different from mine. So, lets have your idea of what reasonable is, and I'll give you mine, and THEN, we can have a discussion.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

IMO what is being described in Oregon is the fault of the 2A hard liners. The never capitulators. The slipper slopers. Reasonable compromises exist for those who are not too stubborn to pursue them.

Excuse me? You want us to compromise our constitutional right? How do you compromise with someone who has nothing to give up in return?

There hasnt been a single year go by in Oregon that hasnt included a gun control initiative that state 2A "hardliners" fight, all without any outside funding or help from the NRA.

[rickyrick]

As I posted in another thread, they want a big bite this time. The bigger bite they want, the bigger compromise someone gives them. That’s what’s so dangerous about this time.

[Lohman446]

There is no compromise on a ballot initiative (again correct me if I am wrong). Its dichotomous. It is either voted in or not. There may be problems with this one that end up being struck down for other reasons but a ballot initiative is not an opening to compromise.

[rickyrick]

You’re right, I was commenting on the generic demands the anti gun folks are raising this go around.
I suspect if it gets to the ballot, it will pass.
Even if the voters don’t care about guns, they’ll vote against as a partisan issue, the real reason is payback for 2016 pure and simple. Oregon is awash in guns, but I5 corridor makes the rules.

[carguychris]

Can someone familiar with OR law explain to me:

• If passed, will the ballot measure be contested at a particular election, or is it too early in the process to know?
• Can the state legislature override a ballot initiative?

The reason for my first question is that TX constitutional amendments must be voted on by the populace, but are often placed on "off-season" ballots where few or no major statewide or national officeholders are up for election. This is often done deliberately so that groups backing or opposing a single-issue measure will have an easier time motivating their supporters to show up, thus giving them more control over the outcome, without having to mount a massive and expensive PR campaign aimed at the general voting public.

[rpenmanparker]

The other party does have something to give up. He has the power to take away your constitutional right which he can negotiate away. If you would stop putting him down and respect his power, you could come to a better place for all.

[rpenmanparker]

Originally Posted by Koda94

Excuse me? You want us to compromise our constitutional right? How do you compromise with someone who has nothing to give up in return?

There hasnt been a single year go by in Oregon that hasnt included a gun control initiative that state 2A "hardliners" fight, all without any outside funding or help from the NRA.

And look where it has gotten you.