Oregon Supreme Court orders changes to ballot title for initiative to ban 'assault weapons'

Teppodama

A Dude, playing a Dude, disquised as another Dude
@Silver
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
11,766
Reaction score
5,304
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/06/oregon_supreme_court_issues_de.html

The Oregon Supreme Court ordered changes Wednesday to the ballot title of an initiative that would ban the sale of many semiautomatic guns and high-capacity ammunition magazines in the state.

It's a setback for the Portland-area clergy behind Initiative Petition 43, who have just over a week to gather the 88,184 signatures necessary to get it on the November ballot. The signature deadline is July 6, and they cannot begin gathering signatures until the ballot title is finalized.

In an opinion issued Wednesday morning, the court said Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum must revise the summary of the initiative that would be put before voters in November.

Several gun rights and hunting groups appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court to modify the ballot title, saying the use of such terms as "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" is misleading.

The ballot title now reads: "Prohibits 'Assault Weapons' (Defined), 'Large Capacity Magazines' (Defined), Unless Registered With State Police. Criminal Penalties."

The court agreed with the gun rights and hunting groups that "assault weapons" is an imprecise term that could be interpreted in different ways and that the attorney general's reference to the definition within the full text of Initiative Petition 43 was not adequate to explain the effect.

Chief Justice Thomas Balmer wrote: "We conclude that the (ballot title) caption could accurately state that the proposed measure would criminalize the possession and transfer of many semiautomatic weapons, as well as magazines holding over 10 rounds."

The ban would apply to certain semiautomatic rifles and pistols capable of accommodating 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.

Initiative Petition 43 would allow existing owners of such weapons to keep them if they passed a criminal background check and registered with the Oregon State Police in order to keep the firearms.

The court said the attorney general's office must also make clear that the exception would apply only to weapons people owned at the time the initiative would take effect.

One of the initiative's chief petitioners, Rabbi Michael Cahana of Congregation Beth Israel, declined to comment Wednesday on the outlook for the initiative. Supporters of the initiative, who call their campaign "Lift Every Voice," are planning a press conference on Thursday morning.

Optimal outcome...the come back with a re-worded and defined initiative and the justices just tell them to pound sand and send them on their way. Well, one can hope. Every 2A victory is a battle in the war.
 
When the Oregon SC tells you to to do it right, you know they fucked up.

Also, you know damn well this law would be fought tooth and nail until SCOTUS got it.
 
So we can officially say that legally, Liberals have no fucking clue what the definition of assault rifle actually is? And that they intentionally use that misleading phrase to make it sound scarier to other ill informed citizens?

That is what the Oregon Supreme court just declared
 
Last edited:
Oregon and Washington seem like tough places to achieve CA-level gun legislation. Lots of country types in those states although Portland and Seattle are slowly doing to the rest of their states what SF and LA did to interior CA.
 
The ban would apply to certain semiautomatic rifles and pistols capable of accommodating 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.

Are these idiots actually equating a collapsible stock with a grenade launcher attachment?

Initiative Petition 43 would allow existing owners of such weapons to keep them if they passed a criminal background check and registered with the Oregon State Police in order to keep the firearms.

So you pass a background check to buy the rifle or lower . . . then if this passes you'd have to pass another one and register with the State Police to keep the property you already own?

Nope . . . no further infringement there . . . the stupidity is astounding.
 
So we can officially say that legally, Liberals have no fucking clue what the definition of assault rifle actually is? And that they intentionally use that misleading phrase to make it sound scarier to other ill informed citizens?

When someone uses the term "assault rifle" either they don't know much about they are talking about or they are assuming you don't know much about what they are talking about.
 
I don't get it. How can a state ban something that is protected in the constitution?
 
When it comes to guns i'm an idiot, but Oregonians make me feel well versed on the subject.
 
I thought an assault rifle has select fire.....
 
"military-style features"

<Ellaria01>
 
Think the Ninth Circuit just got a case of the old blue balls.
 
I don't get it. How can a state ban something that is protected in the constitution?

They just do it and hope that people are too chickenshit to challenge it. It's kind of like someone pushing you and saying "what you gonna do about it, punk?"
 
I don't get it. How can a state ban something that is protected in the constitution?

Unfortunately it's not the Constitution that offers the protection so much as it is the courts. And for whatever reason SCOTUS is content with ignoring most every call for clarity and affirmation regarding the 2nd Amendment. They did say it was illegal to ban commonly held classes of weapons but lower courts don't consider the most popular rifle in America common enough.
 
That and also use an intermediate cartridge. It becomes a battle rifle if it is above and intermediate cartridge.
I know that. I was in the reserves for 15 years. A 7.62 NATO with select fire was considered a battle rifle. An AR-15 semi auto at 5.56 NATO is not an assault rifle.
 
I know that. I was in the reserves for 15 years. A 7.62 NATO with select fire was considered a battle rifle. An AR-15 semi auto at 5.56 NATO is not an assault rifle.

You are correct. I was just stating that things other than an assault rifle can have a selector.

Even some crew served belt fed guns have selectors.
 
Unfortunately it's not the Constitution that offers the protection so much as it is the courts. And for whatever reason SCOTUS is content with ignoring most every call for clarity and affirmation regarding the 2nd Amendment. They did say it was illegal to ban commonly held classes of weapons but lower courts don't consider the most popular rifle in America common enough.


Is the SCOTUS not offering clarity on what the 2nd means, what individual states can do, or both?
 
They just do it and hope that people are too chickenshit to challenge it. It's kind of like someone pushing you and saying "what you gonna do about it, punk?"


So its similar to southern states legislating anit-abortion rules, hoping the people are cool with it and the courts uphold it?
 
So its similar to southern states legislating anit-abortion rules, hoping the people are cool with it and the courts uphold it?

Pretty much actually. Generally speaking (there are exceptions) you can’t challenge a law until you’ve violated it.
 
Back
Top