Posted on 05/24/2018 9:35:20 AM PDT by Simon Green
Oregon's attorney general on Wednesday released a certified ballot title for an initiative to ban the sale of high-capacity magazines and a broad range of semiautomatic pistols, rifles and shotguns.
The initiative also would require most existing owners of these weapons to pass criminal background checks and register with the state in order to keep them. Failure to do so would be a Class B felony.
The new ballot title for Initiative Petition 43 reads: "Prohibits 'Assault Weapons' (Defined), 'Large Capacity Magazines' (Defined), Unless Registered With State Police. Criminal Penalties."
The measure's opponents could still appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court to force changes to the title. Portland-area clergy are leading the effort to gather the 88,184 signatures needed by July 6 to get it on the November ballot.
The ballot initiative would ban the manufacture and sale of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and firearms classified as assault weapons in Oregon starting in 2019. It would define assault weapons as certain semiautomatic rifles and pistols that can accommodate detachable magazines and have other military-style features, such as a collapsible stock or grenade launcher, plus some semiautomatic shotguns. Military and law enforcement employees who are required to carry firearms would be exempt, as would retailers and manufacturers who supply those agencies. Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum's office released a draft ballot title in April.
The agency made revisions to the ballot title caption, tweaked explanations of the effect of a "yes" or "no" vote, and updated a summary of the initiative. The Secretary of State's office said the draft ballot title attracted what appeared to be a record number of public comments.
State elections workers received 1,095 comments by the May 8 deadline, according to Debra Royal, chief of staff to Secretary of State Dennis Richardson. The office does not track the number of comments received on previous initiative petitions, but Royal said a longtime state elections worker told her the state typically receives 10 to 15 comments on the draft ballot title for any given initiative.
"We have reviewed each and every comment," wrote Denise G. Fjordbeck, a lawyer at the Department of Justice, in a letter to the Secretary of State's office on Wednesday. "While many of the comments simply stated support or opposition to the proposed measure, many hundreds suggested specific language for use in the ballot title."
Most commenters took issue with the inclusion of such terms as "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" in the title, the attorney general's office found. Commenters complained that "assault weapon" was "an inflammatory, imprecise, or ambiguous term," Fjordbeck wrote. Both terms come from the original text submitted by the initiative petitioners.
As for "large capacity magazines," Fjordbeck wrote, "it is important to communicate the breadth and scope of this proposal, including its impact on magazines as part of the actual major effect." However, in both cases she determined that it was impossible to more fully define or describe the terms in the 15-word limit for initiative captions.
The chief petitioners for the initiative objected to the draft ballot title's statement that the measure would criminalize the possession of certain firearms. They said it would ban future sales of certain guns and regulate possession for those who already own them. Those people would be required to register the weapons and pass a background check. Others noted that registration would be a significant change in the law.
"Although we agree that the draft ballot title overemphasized the significance of criminal penalties, the proposed measure does impose serious criminal consequences for noncompliance, and those penalties are also an actual major effect of the measure," Fjordbeck wrote.
The attorney general's office removed a reference in the caption to banning the transfer of the firearms and high-capacity magazines. The only reference to the ban on sales and transfers is now in the summary of the initiative's effects, which states "acquisition mostly prohibited after effective date, January 1, 2019."
Sad. What’s even more depressing is that bad law is seldom repealed.
exactly some liberal judge will step in and claim the law can’t legally be repealed
Isn’t “assault weapon” a Diane Feinstein made up term. There’s no such thing.
(all these f-faced political lying thief gun-grabber-wannabes surround themselves with armed guards........................... at taxpayer expense, too)
My fists are assault weapons ... and my breath ...
The majority of owners of these weapons/magazines will register them gladly, just like in CA, NY, MA, NJ, & MD. The compliance rate will approach 90%. Society is now anti-gun.
NOT!!!!!
Back ground checks with simultaneous waiting period of up to a week for all types of handguns has been in effect in oregon for decades.
Long guns are also now background checked as well as waiting period.
Why can’t we just round up and hang these Azzhats fowedr treason
Seldom repealed, frequently violated.
“compliance rate will approach 90%”
As if they have any measure of the total in the first place...
I have 10 they have no record of, even if they reviewed all of the 4473s in the world.
well....until that terrible boating accident....
Waiting periods are usually less than 15 minutes in my experience. Has the law changed recently?
SCOTUS has to drive a stake through this kind of stuff. When will RBG fall over?
Glad I moved from Oregon years ago.
I used to like Oregon. Until filthy kalifornians ruined it. I used to like Colorado, until filthy kalifornians... I used to like Washington State.....
Long guns have been background checked for 20 years under federal law.
I don't have an answer. Waiting for the courts to act is futile. Heller was years ago and completely ignored, even in DC. Rulings like that are phyric victories.
For the courts, everyone needs to stop appointing non gun owning justices. Make that a litmus test. Do you own guns? Have you shot them in past year? Do you have a CCW permit (presuming residence in a state with one). Bet if gun owning judges were appointed, we might eventually turn the courts around.
IRRC, in CT the police were forced to admit that only 5-10% actually followed the law and registered anything.
I think the OP was being sarcastic on 90% compliance. IN places like CT, the compliance race was reported to be 5-10% IIRC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.