Reduction of Gun Violence Act through Regulation of …oregonvotes.org/irr/2020/060cmts.pdf ·...

SOS I rrlistnotifier * SOS

From: Sent: To: Subject:

[email protected] Tuesday, January 14, 2020 4:36 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS 2020-60

I have received a notice of the draft ballot title of the 2020 Initiative Petition #60. The notice refers me to the I RR database for the AG approved title which currently reads:

Reduction of Gun Violence Act through Regulation of Semiatomatic Firearms and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazines

Since the initiative is all about a particular category of "Semiautomatic Firearms", please consider identifying that category in the title. Here's my suggestion:

Reduction of Gun Violence through Regulation of Assault Style Firearms and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazines

This respects the 15 word limit and brings the focus to assault style rather than implying the initiative intends to address the broader category of all semiautomatic firearms.

Sincerely Yours, James B. McMahon

1

Aris.I iOpt A

The ballot title for IP60 should be bans semi auto firearms raises age to buy and bans standard magazines!

I~ Thank you Michael Ramsdal

I

RECEIVED. JAN i 5, 2020 8:00am

Elections Divisio.n

RECEIVED JAN 16, 2020 8:00am

Elections Division

Jan 15 2020 To whom it may concern,

Regarding Oregon Ballot measure IP60. The State has created the following draft ballot title "Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazinitcapacity limits".

Based on my understanding reading the complete text of the bill, the bill would;

1. Impose 7 new required training courses at the extreme expense of the firearm purchaser 2. 5 Day waiting period 3. Pass a background check but is written in a way that it could never be approved 4. Raises the minimum age to 21 to purchase semiautomatic firearms 5. Bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds which is 99% of all firearm magazines

Regardless of the implications and burdens put onto law abiding gun owners, remember the people who murder and rob do not buy their guns at gun stores and submit to a background check so this won't

affect crime, the reasons the draft ballot title does not accurately express the content of the IP are as follows.

1. "Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only" is too vague and redundant. In the state of Oregon ALL firearms are already required to be transferred through a licensed firearms dealer. To the average person including myself this language is confusing because it is already a thing.

2. "adds purchase restrictions" ls also too vague, the IP text suggests restrictions, increased time, and much greater cost to the process of legally purchasing a firearm. The title should also say something about the change to the minimum age of purchasing firearms.

3. "magazine capacity limits" This portion of the title is also somewhat misleading, it doesn't say "ban" or "bans". Limits suggest that you are limited to a certain amount of something but the IP makes it so you can get O (zero) of something (magazines). It should say "Bans magazines over 10 rounds for all firearms"

4. Nowhere in the draft title does it mention training courses, I belive that training courses are a separate category from "purchase restrictions'1 and should also be mentioned.

SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS


Justin <[email protected] > Thursday, January 16, 2020 11 :48 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS No on IP60

Stop punishing law abiding gun owners with completely absurd gun laws that will have absolutely zero effect on criminals. Sent from my iPhone

1

Dear Secretary of State,

This letter is in regard to IP60 title "Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits". I am writing to object to the title based on the fact that currently all firearms sold or transferred in the state of Oregon are already

required to be transferred through a licensed dealer. The title is confusing to readers and gives the

impression there isn't already a law mandating transfers,

Thank you for your consideration,

Ian Garner

2895 SW 49th St.

Redmond, OR 97756

//'

/

., .. ~-~..,

/ /

,{ ?' / t1·· \ /J1/; ()


From: Sent:

Steve Zettle <[email protected]>

Friday, January 17, 2020 2:43 PM

To: SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS

Subject: magazine limits

As a long time hunter in this state, I believe there is no need to have a magazine capable of more than 10 rounds. If all people were good people, this would be a moot point. But they are not and never will be. Personally, I would create a licensing process where you have to be registered and you have to prove mental wellness to get a license. You would have to show your license when you buy ammunition or a gun. I know it would be a hassle, but let's weed out the loons from us normal law abiding and mentally stable folks. Thanks

for your time. sz

Steve Zettle - Owner/Operator Bend Heating - Radiant Division "Providing the finest quality Hydronic Heat Systems for our customers investment" 541-382-1231 office 541-948-2295 mobile http://bendheating.com/hvac-products/radiant-floor-heating

1

COMMENTS ON Initiative Petition 2020-060 Draft Ballot Title

Stephen N. Trout Director, Elections Division Office of the Secretary of State 255 Capitol St. NE, Suite 501 Salem, OR 97310

RECEIVED JAN 17, 2020 3:52pm

Elections Division

Re: Proposed Initiative Petition - Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits

DOJ File #BT-60-20; Elections Division #2020-060

Dear Mr. Trout:

The proposed ballot title is misleading and needs to be re-written because the title references multiple

initiatives. All firearms purchases are already required to go through a licensed firearms dealer. The title

makes it sound like this is something that is not currently in place and would be misleading to someone

that knows nothing about the current state and federal firearms laws. The "Yes" vote is also misleading

in the same respect as I stated previously where all sales already go through a dealer. The "No" vote is

also grossly incorrect, as sales/transfers by individuals other than gun dealers is not allowed in the state

of Oregon. If you take a look at the current laws that are already in place, the state voted in 2015 to no

longer allow private party sales. Other problems with the "No" vote would lead someone to believe that

an 18 year can purchase a handgun based upon the summary text. Current federal laws prohibit anyone

under the age of 21 from buying a handgun. The title needs to specifically address one issue and not the

multitude of issues that the summary covers!

Regards,

Brian Jitloff



Hello,

Greg Gardin <[email protected]> Friday, January 17, 2020 5:10 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Initiatives 60, 61 and 62

I am an Oregonian, and a US Citizen by birth. I feel very strongly that the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution ought never to be infringed upon. There are already plenty of laws that are aimed at preventing criminals from gaining access to firearms. There is no law, however, that will compel a criminal to comply. And furthermore, firearms are not the problem, semi-automatic or otherwise. Sick people and those motivated by evil intent are the problem. And until we can get those people who are demented enough to want to inflict physical harm on the defenseless the help they need, we will not solve this problem. Especially not by writing gun control laws, because guns don't kill people.

Gun control laws, like these initiatives, only punish law-abiding citizens like myself who chose to defend my family and those around me with firearms. I wish we lived in a society that had no need for guns. Unfortunately, when the sick and evil people in our society have guns, it requires those of us who want to defend ourselves successfully from their violent actions to also have guns. And there is no reversing this paradigm now. So, it is our responsibility to become effective and safe gun owners in the process. These initiatives do nothing to make us safer and more effective gun owners. They only restrict us.

In any conflict, it is the side that has the greatest force multiplier that is vastly more likely to overcome. Do we not then want that force multiplier to be on the good guy's side? Furthermore, the vast majority of shootings in our nation are perpetrated against the defenseless in "Gun-Free Zones". Is this not proof enough that guns are the answer? In every case, when a sick or evil person chooses to shoot people, and there is an armed citizen present, the shooting is stopped before further loss of life happens. It is common sense.

Even if all guns could be removed from society, sick and evil people would turn to swords, knives, machetes, axes, chainsaws or bombs. People will always kill other people. The stupidest thing our government, who's first purpose for existing is to protect the citizenry, can do is to restrict our right to defend ourselves. Please don't interfere with our right to self defense. Instead, interfere with sick and evil peoples desires to kill others somehow. Removing certain types of firearms and firearm accessories simply doesn't do that.

Sincerely,

Greg Gardin MARANATHA! !

1


From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Christina Skellenger Friday, January 17, 2020 7:39 PM


Gun control comment - yes on banning guns and magazines

I am in full support of any and all gun control legislation that we can push through the ballots. I personally think all semi automatic weapons should be fully banned. I support the strictest possible gun control. My son is a kindergarten er and just today practiced "lockdown" at school. ... .it is terrifying what guns have done to our society.

Thank you, Christina Skellenger Langford

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

1



Tim Trento <[email protected]> Friday, January 17, 2020 11 :22 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS

lp60

The 2nd amendment is already very unambiguous in it's wording, and the state of Oregon Constitution says that the citizens shall be armed in a way that is not subservient, or lesser than, any police or military force in the state. Any changes to state firearms law are in direct conflict with both our state Constitution and the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights. The idea that a firearm owner that may have their arms stolen would be punished in a way harsher than the the would-be thief is abhorrent, and is absolutely unreasonable. After being the victim of a crime, they should be convicted of one? All responsible firearms owners keep their collection locked up, aside from any they may have on their person or immediately available for home defense. The fact that my home state, where I pay taxes and have lived most of my life, is attempting to chip away at my rights while offering protections to criminals is absurd. Please consider total dismissal of all three gun control initiative petitions presented by lift every voice. They are unreasonable and have been put forward by a group whose leaders are abusing their tax exempt status to fund gun control campaigns for their own gain, not public interest, as these rules, if voted on, will likely only be supported by the urban population, not the rural population who have the right to exist outside of the decision making power of the larger cities of Oregon. Tim Trento

1



Cyndi Karp <[email protected]> Saturday, January 18, 2020 6:31 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Support Initiative 60 Gun Control

I support Initiative 60 Gun Control. http://oregonvotes.org/i rr /2020/060dbt. pdf



Patricia Reilly <[email protected]> Saturday, January 18, 2020 8:40 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS In support of semiautomatic gun control

Please consider strongest wording for the upcoming gun control initiative.

Semiautomatic guns are not a deterrent to criminals but rather the predictable cause of crimes against innocent victims of massacres by mentally ill gun owners.

I support wording of initiative 60 that will send a clear and strong message: unregulated semiautomatic weapons have no place in the arsenals of Oregon's citizens.

Patricia Reilly 2656 NW Pettygrove Street Portland Oregon 97210

1



Hello,

Ray Conklin <[email protected]> Saturday, January 18, 2020 8:41 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Initiatives 60, 61,62

All of the initiatives seem reasonable, but there is no clarity on what "certain" semiautomatic weapons means. The devil is in the details.

I am a hunter and support the second amendment, but would have trouble supporting the initiatives unless I knew what the "certain" guns were. The "certain" guns should include military/assault types, but there is a strong possibility that other non-military types would be included unfairly.

Again, the devil's in the details.

Ray Conklin

Beavercreek

1



cutter jack <[email protected]> Saturday, January 18, 2020 9:16 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Initiative 60

To whom it may concern: initiative 60, as written, is plainly intended to violate the Oregon and US constitutions. To wit: infringement on the Natural, Human, and Civil right to keep and bear arms.

The activists proposing these infringements are fools and cowards and would be of no use in a fight, despite their muling about danger and the children.

The reader might do well to question how we are to defend ourselves without arms.

1



Duncan Keith <[email protected]> Saturday, January 18, 2020 6:37 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment regarding Initiative's 60 through 62

The language used in these regulations are far too broad and serves only to cover a blanket of what is the vast array of current firearms that are semiautomatic. People believe that the term "semiautomatic assault firearm" encompasses weapons like the AR-15, AK-47, and other weapons that simply look like those specific rifles. What is not made clear, but is certainly evident is that it seeks to make purchasing nearly any weapon that is manufactured to this day a more challenging task than it need be. If these Initiatives were to move forward to be enacted as law it would only hurt the people this law targets the most. Generally but not limited to, that means people like me, a 20 year old gay man. Restricting the ability to purchase and own a firearm if someone chose to serves only to thin the line between being able to own any semblance of a gun and out right banning every kind of firearm there is. Not only that however, it puts me in a very vulnerable situation if I was ever faced with a person threatening my life. If I could have been trusted by state and federal law before these initiatives to responsibly own any kind of semiautomatic weapon while I was 18 or 20 {Except for handguns). What has changed about me since then that now I am no longer trusted to own said firearms? The restriction on magazine capacity is also highly dubious as well. Stopping law abiding citizens to own magazines that hold more than ten rounds will just put them at a greater danger to a criminal who does not care to follow the law that uses high capacity magazines to try and kill somebody with. This would only punish those who wish to equip themselves to the most effective way possible to defend themselves, their family, their loved ones, and their belongings. I hope that other Oregonians will see through the fallacy of these initiatives and raise their voices like mine against them.

1



dishwater jacobson <[email protected]> Sunday, January 19, 2020 5:59 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Firearm related bans

The idea to limit or restrict a citizens right to defend themselves by any means they see fit is a clear sign of a tyrannical uprising. Our Federal government defines a militia as any able body between 17 and 49 with the Militia Act of 1904. To raise the age of a person responsible enough to own a semiautomatic weapon violates this Act as well as puts the Selective Services to shame when the governing body could said person under the age of 21 and drop them into a war zone with fully automatic weapons. Any form of restriction violates Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution which states: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]"

Over the last decade we have seen a rise in shootings in Gun Free Zones. Obviously the only people who would be affected by Gun Regulations would be the law abiding citizens, as criminals are already breaking the LAWS, so what will one more law do? How many laws do we need in place before the criminal finally stops.

It is statistically guaranteed that if there were responsibly armed people in any mass shooting the death tolls drop and the gunman is deterred. Prime example is the recent Texas church shooting which left 1-2 dead, because of an armed citizen disabling the threat before it could rise to 1 O+. If you want to deter school shootings, treat our children like we treat our president and provide armed school security.

An armed society is a polite society.

1



To whom it may concern;

Kafir Linda Clark <[email protected]> Sunday, January 19, 2020 6:49 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Changes to semi-automatic weapons laws

Our Constitution doesn't say what kind of weapons a citizen can carry to protect against enemies both foreign and National, but that is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Our public arms should be commensurate with the army of our Government.

NO to any changes in our present laws regarding semi-automatic weapons.

Sincerely, Linda Clark 76486 Walnut St Oakridge Oregon Box 1111 541-735-1248 [email protected]

1



Denise Woods <[email protected]> Sunday, January 19, 2020 8:05 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Initiative 60 Comments

Please consider splitting handguns and rifles. Handguns should allow no more than a 7 round clip. Rifles should allow no more than the 5 round clip allowed by hunting regulations.

The issue really isn't with the semi-automatic nature of the weapon, it is with how many rounds can be fired without reloading. If one is defending their home or hunting, 5 rounds should be plenty. I see no reason for more, and it makes sense to line up the number with what is already mandated by another State agency.

I take no other exceptions to the proposed regulations.

Please feel free to contact me if you have questions/comments.

Denise Woods Cornelius, OR 971-280-0254



Sidney Morris <[email protected]> Sunday, January 19, 2020 8:23 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS No gun control

All of these proposed gun bills will do is keep good law abiding citizens the chance to access their gun when they need it the most. The only thing this country needs to make safer is to have mandatory firearm safety taught in schools. No matter cautious you are kids may come in contact at some point in their life with a firearm and they need to know what to do. Please stop trying to chisel away our rights.

1


From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

Loma Wharton < [email protected]> Sunday, January 19, 2020 9:13 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; David Jacques; [email protected] Ore. Semiautomatic gun-control initiatives

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/01/initiatives-to-restrict-sales-of-semiautomatic

weapons.html?fbclid=lwAR28CTelUn2upiG1SHhNAiHSzhVY07V87 jPtwwxHdl0QfXmVZ glwm

ml60

Lift Every Voice Oregon, has no authority to force their beliefs on me by Initiative Petition.

I promise, any damages to done to me, Loma M. Wharton, as a result of these initiatives

proposed by Life Every Voice Oregon being voted in, Lift Every Voice Oregon and its Board

Members one by one will HELD LIABLE BY ME FOR THOSE DAMAGES AND I WILL FILE AGAINST

EVERY INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER OF LIFT EVERY VOICE OREGON for those damages in small

claims court.

You have been put on notice by me this date January 19, 2020.

Loma M. Wharton

[email protected]

I SUGGEST EVERYONE READING THIS DO THE SAME ............. SEND CERTIFIED MAIL IF YOU

CHOOSE ... STOP THIS ENCROACHMENT ON YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY INDIVIDUALS

THAT HAVE NO AUTHOIRTYTO DAMAGE YOU AS A RESULT OF THEIR BELIEFS ...... Loma Wharton "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error."

American Communications Association v Dodds, 339 US 382, 442 (1950}

1



John Nicolau <[email protected]>

Sunday, January 19, 2020 9:51 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Guns

Gun control measures and those currently proposed in Oregon will people will put people's lives at risk and are unconstitutional. The law of the land is the Constitution and just because several people get elected does not mean they can change that. On top of this innumerable statistics show gun control does not save lives and actually endangered lives. A criminal and somebody on a death wish will walk into anywhere they like regardless of your ridiculous signs and use his or her weapon. Stop playing politics because it's not going to last for you and those that are trying to take rights away from people. You do it once and you see who Rises up as is currently happening. Firearms are first line of defense in many cases and legal gun owners are in large a very law-abiding group. Concealed gun owners are the most law-abiding groups in the nation. The station was built and defended with firearms I will continue to do so as long as the United States exists. If you don't like that then you people with gun control should actually come up with that even a third grader can point out does no benefit.

JohnM.D.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

1



Roberta Mccann <[email protected]> Sunday, January 19, 2020 10:17 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Gun control

# 60 sounds good to me ..... the more control the better Roberta McCann

1



[email protected] Sunday, January 19, 2020 11 :41 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment on Proposed Gun Regulations for Oregon

Having read Fedro Zarkhin's piece in The Oregonian, "Oregon semiautomatic gun-control initiatives are up for public comment", I would like to submit my comments as follows:

The proposed Initiative Petition 2020-060 suggests reasonable regulations aimed at curtailing exposure of the public to the dangers of accidental or intentional shootings, especially mass shootings like the many deadly occurrences that have occurred in past years. Having owned and used guns lawfully, I know how dangerous firearms can be and I am in favor of the initiative.

Requiring sales to be done through licensed gun dealers ensures that sellers are knowledgeable about our laws and enforce them at the point of sale, ensuring that guns are not sold without appropriate background checks, and illegal firearms are not put into circulation. I would even be in favor of including a requirement that firearms subject to regulation are not permitted to be gifted to another person except through a licensed gun dealer, but the current proposal is a necessary start.

Mandatory training of gun owners in safe and appropriate use of firearms is critical to public safety, just as it is for automobiles, for example. Every responsible gun owner I have known has taken such training voluntarily or been trained by responsible gun-owning relatives, and every gun range I have been to enforces safety rules for shooters there. This is not contrary to 2nd Amendment rights. This is common sense in an advanced, civilized society.

Guns should not be sold to children and age 21 is a reasonable threshold age for firearms purchases, noting that some of the school mass shootings were done by children younger than 21.

While I don't feel as strongly about restricting the capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 or less, because magazine capacity in itself will not prevent mass shootings - a murderer with 2 handguns each having a 10 round capacity can kill more than 20 people before reloading. The other gun regulation proposals are more effective means of keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Nevertheless, I support the magazine capacity restrictions as an additional crisis measure of mitigating the public exposure to gun violence we face today.

1



Karen Gregas < [email protected] > Sunday, January 19, 2020 12:52 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Gun-control Initiative 60

Please consider putting Initiative 60 on the ballot. It provides reasonable and basic requirements for responsible gun ownership, while providing options for arming law enforcement.

Sent from my iPhone

1



RG Wright <[email protected]> Sunday, January 19, 2020 2:01 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS IP 60, 61, 62

Reference: Initiatives 60, 61 and 62

It is obvious who ever wrote these ballot title knows NOTHING about firearms! Per ORS 250.035 (2)-(5) "Must accurately state the subject matter of the initiative and may not be politically charged and be emotionally laden description which is in violation of Supreme Court's case law on Initiative Ballot Titles." The current ballot titles misleads the public, it misrepresents the overall content of the initiative contents, it is deceiving, its a false narrative, and it flat out lies to the public!

The ballot title should read; POSSESSION OF A RIFLE, HANDGUN, SHOTGUN WHICH HOLDS MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS CONSTITUTES A FELONY! (That way it warns the public not to vote on this ignorant proposal!)

As for restricting anyone under 21 buying a semi auto weapon. That is putting a law abiding citizen in harms way. What about a spouse of a military veteran at home with children ... restricting her to not having any rights to self defense? Yes, she can buy a revolver with 6 rounds ... but as we are taught (I was trained under a instructor who was FBI certified firearms instructor, former Vietnam Vet, former law enforcement) The more ammo to stop the treat, the better!

As for the magazine ban, it makes no sense ... a trained individual can change out a magazine in less than 2-3 seconds. Again, this is a ploy to disarm, and make Americans less safe!

This ballot title hides the fact that this Initiative goes after semi-auto rifles, semi-auto pistols and semi-auto shotguns. Most of which are most commonly owned! Then it turns 'LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' into FELONS! Is this America, or are we looking at a SOCIALIST COMMUNIST AGENDA!

As a USAF veteran at 62 years of age and a law abiding gun owner I see several flaws in these proposals.

• In Oregon there are an estimated 60,000 to 70,000 registered gun owners. (That number is probably closer to a million or more) Do these religious clerics who came up with this idea really think that law abiding Americans are just going to stand for gun confiscation and registering their firearms?

• Economic Chaos ... what affects will this have for sporting goods stores that sell pistols, shotguns, rifles, ammo, accessories. What will the financial burden be for these businesses? Will they move out of Oregon? What about gun owners, maybe an elderly couple has only one pistol, a 9mm which holds more than 10 rounds ... its for their protection and self defense ... What if they don't want to register it, is the State going to confiscate it, label them as felons and prosecute? What financial burden does this cause them?

• Register, destroy or move the firearms out of state? Does the State of Oregon has the resources and money to enforce this? I don't think so ... With the majority of county sheriffs who are against these initiatives in the first place! Deschutes, Polk, Klamath and other county sheriffs have already voiced their opinion of NOT ENFORCING this proposal!

1

• In the 20th Century more than 56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated by governments using GUN CONTROL ... Thank about that!

• With over 100,000 gun owners in Oregon, you can bet several thousand are thinking about legal class action law suits to fight this, among other legal avenues to defeat it!

In closing, something to look at... MASS SCHOOL SHOOTINGS SINCE COLUMBINE, shooter's average ages, teenagers and 20 year olds ... TERRORIST ATTACKS ... average age of shooter ... 20's and 30 year olds ... What does it say about this generation ... Evil, mentally ill, no respect for human life, too much time in social media, violent video games ... A gun is a tool, the carnage was human caused, not gun caused! I just spent this past weekend at a GUN SHOW in Klamath Falls ... not one gun was fired! These deranged killers could have used an auto, which they have, a pressure cooker, which they have, aircraft, which they have, could have used a knife or sword, which they have ... Look at the knife attacks in England! But the media and anti gun left and ignorant politicians have gone off into a 'frenzy' thinking an AR 15 is an assault rifle ... IT IS NOT! As with the civilian AK 47 and other weapons in this category, they are semi auto sporting rifles! Used for hunting, self defense and competitive sport shooting! America has a MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM with our younger generation and not a GUN PROBLEM!

Regards, RG Wright/USAF Ret.

P.O. Box2 Sprague River, Or. 97639 971-23 7-7828

http://stores.ebay.com/LONE-WOLFS-LODGE-TRADING-POST http ://lonewolfslodgetradingpost. webstoreplace. com/ www.amazon.com/shops/LONEWOLFSLODGETRADINGPOSTSTORE

2



Garrett Soper <[email protected]> Sunday, January 19, 2020 2:37 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS initiative 60, 61, 62

Why are these useless laws trying to be passed that will not prevent a criminal from doing harm to people with firearms. This will however limit law abiding citizens protection and inhibit US from exercising our Second Amendment. I oppose any effort to limit people's rights to protect their families, to punish the victims of theft while doing nothing to deter criminals or violate the very clear and unambiguous language of the Second Amendment.

How about cracking down on drugs, drunk driving, helping the homeless, and tackle mental health in our society. All which harm more people then semi-automatic weapons.

Sincerely

Garrett Soper

1

Ballot Title Objection IP 2020-060

The Reduction of Gun Violence Act through Regulation of Semiautomatic

Assault Firearms & Large Capacity Magazines

Oregon Secretary of State's Office

255 Capitol St. NE, Suite 501

Salem, Oregon 97310

FAX: 503-373-7414

Email: [email protected]

This is my formal objection to the Draft Ballot Title for IP 2020-060.

As drafted the Ballot Title-Caption states, "Certain firearms sold/transferred

through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits".

I object to this proposed ballot title for several reasons as follows:

1. The proposed Measure has many potential effects upon Oregon citizens. The

proposed ballot title does NOT clearly State all the major effects of this proposed

measure and it is impossible to do so within the statutory limit of 15 words.

ORS 250.035 "Form of ballot titles for State and Local Measures" states,

"(2)(a) The ballot title of any state measure to be initiated or referred shall

consist of 15 words that REASONABLY IDENTIFIES THE SUBJECT

MATTER OF THE STATE MEASURE." The "subject matter" Is "the actual

major effect of a measure or, if the measure has more than one major effect, all

such effects (to the limit of the available words}."

Notation: Laveyv. Kroger, sso Or 559, SE;g, 258 P3d 1194 (:?0;1.1). To Identify the "actual major effect" of a measure, the Attorney General must

consider the "changes that the proposed measure would enact in the context of existing law." Rasmussen v. Kroger, 350 Or 281,285, 2$$ P3d 1031 (2011).

The proposed Ballot Measure would change Oregon Law and add additional provisions as follows:

1. Titles this "Act" as, "Reduction of Gun Violence Act". Sec.2

2. Creates a new legal definition for "Semiautomatic assault firearm".Sec.3(9)

3. Sec.3(9)(a) lists over 200 specific firearms by model effected by this act

and (c.)firearms duplicated or copied.

4. Sec.3(9)(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(e)(b) Rifles/(g)(A)(B)(C)(D) semiautomatic pistols/

(h)(A)(B)(i)(j) semiautomatic shotguns. Rifles, pistols and shotguns effected

by this act based upon specific features or characteristics.

5. Sec. 4 (3)(b) as well as other Sections throughout this act limit the age to

21 years old for the purchase of a semiautomatic assault firearms.

6. Sec.4(2)(e) REQUIRES a training course (with specifics)((e)(A,B,C,D,EF)(f)

and; "the department" may create a form "which may include other

information REQUIRED for the purchase of any semiautomatic assault

firearm". Course required to purchase such firearms. AND; the act creates

specific qualifications and limitations on who may teach qualified training

courses.

7. Creates further mandates for Gun Dealers and people who transfer

semiautomatic assault firearms. Numerous Sections & sub-sections.

8. Sec. S(&)(A)(and others) extends the waiting period for purchase to 5 days

AND; provides for indefinite time for denial of purchase (background check)

of a semiautomatic firearm for various specific and non-specific clerical

reasons.

9. Sets reasonable fees, not determined or specifics. Sec.4(10)(d).

10. Sec.4(10)(e)&(11) Creates a de-facto Gun Registration at the Dealer level

and at "the department" levels.

11. Sec.4(11) Creates new crimes for improper transferring, selling, receiving

and purchasing of semiautomatic assault firearms.

12. Sec. 6(d) creates a "large-capacity magazine" ban., 10 round limit.

(d)(C)(2) prohibits manufacture of large capacity magazines, new restrictions

therefore effect businesses and manufacturers. Mandates destruction of

high capacity magazines by businesses. Creates a new crime to not comply

with 10 round magazine limitations. (4)(a)(b). Class A misdemeanor.

This proposed Law has numerous effects upon the Citizens of Oregon that are

clearly not stated and quite frankly impossible to state in the proposed ballot

title. These are NOT covered in the proposed ballot title.

2. The Oregon Constitution Article IV, Sec.l(d) states; "(d) An initiative petition

shall include the full text of the proposed law or amendment to the Constitution.

A proposed law or amendment to the Constitution shall embrace one subject

only and matters properly connected therewith."

This proposed statutory change, known as IP2020-060 clearly covers more than

one subject matter! The Oregon Department of Justice-Appellate

Division's(Stephen Trout, Dir. Letter of Jan. 14,2020) own Ballot title(caption),

Result of "yes" vote, Result of "no" vote and "Summary", by admission and fact

indicate that more than one subject matter is involved here and the many effects,

restrictions and changes to Oregon laws.

This proposed Law clearly has more than one subject matter and is in violation of

the Oregon State Constitution.

IN ADDITION:

This proposed ("The Reduction of Gun Violence Act through Regulation of

Semiautomatic Assault Firearms & Large Capacity Magazines") act in general

violates;

• The United States Constitution 1789(rev.1992, Second Amendment; "A well

regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of

the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

• Oregon Constitution Article 1 Section 27: Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

• U.S. Code> Title 18 > Part I> Chapter 44 > § 926 (a)(3} "No such rule or

regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms

Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained

under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be

recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by

the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that

any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms

transactions or dispositions be established."

• Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 branch} 137 (1803}, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury remains the single most important decision in American constitutional law.ill The Court's landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual "law", not just a statement of political principles and ideals, and helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.

• Further, sections within this proposed Act-lP2020-060 violate provisions in the Heller vs. District of Columbia Supreme Court decision of 2008. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

To Summarize; This Initiative Petition 2020-060 in it's entirety and the proposed

Ballot Title are NOT clear to the Voter. It is ambiguous and over reaching, seeks

to limit and restrict even the most common semiautomatic firearms and

magazines sold and owned by LAW ABIDING OREGON CITIZENS but it FAILS to

tackle the CRIMINALS who commit gun crimes or to deal with mental health

issues that clearly are involved with suicides and mass shooting incidents. This

proposed law will have NO effect on suicides, crimes when guns are used or on

mass shooting incidents.

One example: My wife and I both own a Walther semi-automatic .22 caliber

handgun (pistol). These guns hold a 10 round magazine of .22 caliber (a target

shooting varmint round), however, this pistol comes with a threaded barrel from

the factory for attachment of various accessories. Under this "act"; this pistol

would be considered a "semiautomatic assault firearm". It is far from being an

"assault" weapon or "assault firearm". These are buzz words used by anti-gun

groups to gain sympathy and support for their cause. Misleading to say the least,

dishonest for sure. Voters MUST know what they are voting for or against.

The inaccuracy of this proposed ballot title, the ballot result of vote and the

summary as written will mislead the voter and possibly cause them to vote based

upon inflamed emotions rather than logic and truth.

I respectfully request that the current proposed ballot title be invalidated and

that this entire proposed IP 2020-060 be invalidated on Constitutional grounds.

Respectfully,

(signature sheet attached in email link-attachment)

Craig Ziegenhagel, Oregon Resident/Former LEO/GGWG-Oregon

Albany, Oregon



tracy painter < [email protected] > Sunday, January 19, 2020 6:55 PM

SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Ballot measure 60, 61 and 62

As this is yet another way for Government to steal our rights. These measures shouldn't have made even this far for consideration. It is not worthy of changing the language. Throw them in the garbage where they belong! No, No and No on these measures. Stop stealing citizens rights to protect themselves, get off your lazy arses and get rid of the real problem! The criminals!

Do you really believe disarming citizens is going stop mass killings, murders and crime?

Cripes! Locally we just had a guy committed armed robbery with a screwdriver! SCREWDRIVER Let that sink in for a minute. Tracy Painter Native of USA and native Oregonian

1


From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Ward Barker <[email protected]> Monday, January 20, 2020 5:28 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Objection to Initiatives 60, 61 and 62. signature.asc

I strenuously object to every word of Initiative 60, Initiative 61 and Initiative 62. All three are nothing more than thinly veiled attempts at disarming law-abiding Oregonians and/or limiting their rights to obtain, own, keep and maintain any choice of firearms, and the majority of Oregons do nothing wrong with their firearms, yet fantastic sums of money are spent/wasted each year trying to control the law-abiding citizen and their "right to keep and bear arms". Each of these initiatives renders firearms harder and more expensive to obtain, which adversely affects the poorer segment of society, and more difficult to use in a time of need. The Constitution and Bill of Rights outlines how government is supposed to function, and the Second Amendment tells government (among other things) that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--affected, hindered, impinged upon--yet each one of these initiatives does exactly and intentionally that, whether by controlling and putting limits on what can be bought and sold or who can purchase them and under what conditions.

The time, money and efforts spent at disarming, regulating and criminalizing the law-abiding citizens of Oregon would be better spent pursuing real criminals.

Ward Barker

Cottage Grove, OR

1


From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Jeff <[email protected] > Monday, January 20, 2020 9:16 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS [email protected] Initiative Petition 2020-060 - title objection

Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division Initiative Petition 2020-060

Proposed Title - Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits

I object to the title that has been proposed. The title is misleading as the vast majority of firearms are semiautomatic and standard capacity magazines frequently exceed 10. This title implies that only a few firearms will be impacted. Proposed legislation such as this continues to push a burden on the vast majority of law-abiding firearm owners across this state and is an erosion of 2nd amendment rights.

I object to this proposal and the title. The title needs to be rewritten to provide the true impact to law abiding citizens of this state. Those that don't abide by our laws won't be impacted and won't care what you do. How about we focus on the true problems impacting this state such as mental illness and homelessness?

Thank you,

Jeff Dennison 15659 SW Hawk Ct. Sherwood Oregon 97140

1



Olaf Aalop <[email protected]> Monday, January 20, 2020 10:15 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Proposed gun legislation 1-20-2020

The founding fathers do not support this latest attempt to chip away at our 2nd amendment. And neither do I. These farcical globalist agendas must stop. Each time the far left attempt to dilute the rights of "we the people". They make their disdain for our constitution and all the rights guaranteed by these documents moot, in total violation of the oaths of office they swore to uphold. So either stop swearing an oath to uphold our constitution and be out with who these people really swear loyalty to. Who do these far left political figures swear their loyalty too? Asking for a friend.



Erick Lloyd Wayne <[email protected]> Monday, January 20, 2020 11 :44 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Public Comments on Propose Gun Control Bill

My name is Erick Sturgill, I was born in Oregon and have lived my whole life in this beautiful state. Gun control bills such as these do not address the plain fact that people willing to commit violent atrocities do not follow the law. If these proposed bills were to pass into law, and the only outcome was guaranteed preventions of mass shootings, then maybe the bill supporters would have an argument for infringing on our rights. The problem however is that is not the only outcome. The reality is that bills like this make previously law abiding citizens criminals. Looking into the actual logistics of it proves it ineffective as well. Magazine limitations only limit what is sold in stores not what is already on the streets.

I will vow to fight legislation like this every time it is proposed. If bills like this were to finally pass however, I will be forced to vote with my feet, and move myself and my family from this once great state, because to do otherwise would subject myself to incrimination at the hands of an unconstitutional government.

I pray we find the right path.

Sincerely,

Erick Sturgill

1



Craig Williams <[email protected]> Monday, January 20, 2020 4:44 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Initiative 60 Comment from Waldport, OR resident

Dear Secretary of State Administrator,

In the 1990s, I was an exhibitor at a pawn shop trade show when I struck up a conversation with an attendee. There were gun manufacturers exhibiting at this show and the subject of guns came up. The man asked if I owned a gun. I told him that I had a shotgun that I used for shooting skeet. He puffed up his chest and said that he owned more than 200 guns. When I asked him why he needed 200 guns, he replied, "I don't need them. I want them!"

Well, my Oregon neighbors might want to own semiautomatic weapons, but that's not a reason why they should have them. Even the most tortured interpretation of the Second Amendment doesn't support private citizen ownership of semiautomatic weapons.

In October 2015 at Umpqua Community College, lives were lost in a mass shooting that involved semiautomatic weapons. Based on this and almost daily reports of mass shootings in our country, I'd prefer to stop the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic weapons and I strongly favor a semiautomatic gun buyback program. However, failing this, I support the compromises detailed in Initiative 60.

Background checks, safety training, a five-day waiting period and setting 21 as the minimum age to own these weapons are rational, reasonable and defensible measures. And there's just no reason why any weapon not held by our military should have magazines with more than 10 rounds.

Thank You.

Sincerely.

D. Craig Williams

D. Craig Williams Projoin Network, LLC P.O. Box 2599, Waldport, OR 97394 (541) 602-1803 [email protected]

1

SOS I rrl istnotifier * SOS


Lee Holmes <[email protected]> Monday, January 20, 2020 6:04 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Initiative petitions 60, 61, and 62

I object to these petitions on grounds that laws shall not be created for arbitrary means and arbitrary restrictions. Further, these infringements are a kin to a pole tax. You don't have to like it, but our 2nd amendment rights are the law of the land that all races, color, creed, political affiliations, or gender identities can use and enjoy, it exists for everyone. These infringements will prove to be cost prohibitive for low income households.

Get Outlook for Android

1



Patricia <[email protected]> Monday, January 20, 2020 6:33 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Gun Control Initiative

I strongly support Initiative 60. Initiatives 61 & 62 are not strong enough to remove the threat of Semi-Automatic weapons being used to kill multiple people, or keep them out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill persons. Patricia Schwindt

Sent from my iPhon



chad kernutt <[email protected]> Monday, January 20, 2020 7:51 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS REP BoshartDavis; SEN Geiser My issues with the Gun Control initiatives

Dear secretary of state and attorney general, I have several issues with initiatives 60, 61, and 62. For starters, the majority of the weapons owned by Oregonians both pistols and rifles alike are semi-auto (one trigger pull=one round fired). Now I'm going to tackle the problems with these 5 proposals from this very uneducated group of people proposing them.

Why wouldn't private citizens be able to sell all of their semi-auto weapons and what makes the state think they have the right to force people to take safety training classes before they can own a firearm? Under our current laws everyone already has to pass a criminal background check before they purchase a firearm.

Requiring people to wait 5 days after going through a criminal background check is going to create a lot of victims of domestic violence. People in bad neighborhoods, people who experience threats of violence, people have have just been robbed/burglarized/vandalized, and women who are experiencing an abusive relationship often go out and puchase a gun for immediate self-defense. Alot can happen in a week and this will lead to alot of people getting hurt and killed.

I don't believe the government has the right to tell tax paying adults over the age of 18 that they cant own a weapon or drink alcohol or use tobacco period. A 17 year old can enlist in the military to go fight and die for his country but he's not good enough to own a gun for protection or drink alcohol or smoke and chew tobacco, it's absolutely shameful t t

These magazine bans are foolish and show how uneducated the majority of democrats are with weapons. Half of all the handguns in America have standard capacity magazines that are 10 Rounds or more. All armalite rifles better known as AR's (not automatic rifle and not assault rifle as liberals commonly mistakenly attribute it to) have a standard capacity magazine with a capacity of 10 or more rounds. The standard magazine for the AR-10 chambered in .308 carries 10 rounds, the standard capacity magazine for the AR-15 chambered in .223 carries 30 rounds, and the standard capacity for an AK-47 is 30 rounds. At that point you might as well try to pull a ban on the weapons themselves which I know will be next from the democratic party. And when they say say except for military and law enforcement does that mean veteran law enforcement and veteran military Oregonians will be allowed to own and purchase the magazines to or just active law enforcement and military? Why not all Oregonians who have a career in public safety?

As a member of the law enforcement community, an Army combat veteran, an American citizen, a husband and father of 3, and a free man, I find all of these proposals to be repulsive over reaching efforts from gun-control groups hell bent on stripping other citizens of constitutional rights. I know this is just the beginning of many more unconstitutional anti 2nd Amendment measures/bills to come, mark my words they will never stop, they will just keep moving the goal posts. I hope my words don't fall on deaf years. Below are the gun control proposals that I am countering. Thank you.

--Allow only gun dealers to sell certain semiautomatic weapons. The gun dealer would have to confirm that the person buying the gun has gone through a safety training course and has passed a criminal background check.

1

-- Require a five-day waiting period from the day a background check is requested.

-- Make 21 the minimum age to buy a semiautomatic weapon.

-- Prohibit manufacturing and selling magazines with more than 10 rounds, except for law enforcement and armed forces.

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy, powered by Cricket Wireless

2



Jay Wylie <[email protected]> Monday, January 20, 2020 10:02 PM SEN Courtney; REP Clem SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS I oppose any additional gun control legislation in the State of Oregon

To my Elected Officials (President Peter Courtney and Representative Brian Clem):

Based on my interpretation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."), I believe that the right to keep and bear arms in the United States is a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, and by the constitutions of most U.S. states, including Oregon (Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]). As such, I oppose any additional gun control legislation in the state of Oregon.

Specifically, I oppose Initiative 60 that would:

--Allow only gun dealers to sell certain semiautomatic weapons (described as semiautomatic assault firearms (SAFs)). The gun dealer would have to confirm that the person buying the gun has gone through a safety training course and has passed a criminal background check. [While training may be a good idea, it certainly infringes on ones' ability to keep and bear arms]. -- Require a five-day waiting period from the day a background check is requested. -- Make 21 the minimum age to buy a semiautomatic weapon. -- Prohibit manufacturing and selling magazines with more than 10 rounds, except for law enforcement and armed forces.

I oppose Initiative 61 that would do the same things as Initiative 60 except it drops the magazine provision.

I oppose Initiative 62 that would prohibit manufacturing and selling magazines with more than 10 rounds.

And finally, I also oppose HB 2505-SB 275: it declares and emergency where none exists and attempts to hold gun owners accountable for years for the misdeeds of others. While it is tragic that Cindy Ann Yuille and Steven Forsyth were murdered by a criminal, the firearm used by the perpetrator was stolen from another criminal- do we really suppose that either of the criminals would have secured/ stored/ or transferred the AR-15 in accordance with the proposed law?

Allow and support law enforcement to enforce the laws we already have, they are sufficient- no new gun laws. Hold criminals accountable.

Sincerely, Jay Wylie Salem, OR

1



Wendy Newton <[email protected]> Monday, January 20, 2020 10:06 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Elissa Newton Gun control regulation initiatives

I am a mother and grandmother and proud Oregonian strongly in favor of the gun control initiatives under consideration. The gun situation in this country is controlled by the NRA, not by the people, our children, or the Constitution. As legislators it is your DUTY to right these wrongs and bring sanity and safety into our gun laws and regulations.

Thank you, Dr. Wendy Newton Portland, Oregon

1



Peggy Harkins < [email protected]> Monday, January 20, 2020 11 :34 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Gun Control Initiatives

Perhaps it takes a different mindset that none of my friends or myself for that matter have to welcome assault weapons on our streets.

A couple of years ago I was walking to the gym in my neighborhood when I turned the corner just as police were pulling into a parking lot in pursuit of a person walking towards me. I can still see the scene in slow motion years later. The police managed to get the person on their knees revealing an automatic or semi-automatic gun strapped to his body as he was about 8 feet from me. He was a kid, it was 8 o'clock in the morning.

I do not live in a "dangerous" neighborhood. At the time there was a youth employment office near my gym and later I was told the kid came from there and the police were on his trail resulting from an incident there. The kid looked like he could have been no older than 16.

I was lucky that day, as were my fellow gym rats and anyone else doing their daily walk for coffee or to the bus stop or to their job. And that scene has played many, many times in my head over the years. I am still upset when I think of the incident and still saddened to see that our country and state has done little to nothing to rid our streets of guns. My deepest sadness is the memory of that troubled youths face, so young and holding the potential for so much destruction in his hands. We don't live in a war zone yet our lack of gun control laws tell us otherwise.

Please pass strong gun control legislation in 2020, there is no need for guns of war and mass destruction to be on our streets and accessible to anyone "Joe citizen" never mind such young one ..

Most sincerely,

Peggy Harkins Portland

Sent from my iPad

1



Nelsons <[email protected]> Tuesday, January 21, 2020 8:58 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Gun Control Initiatives

I am supportive of the proposed Initiative 60.

I would like to see more restrictive provisions than are provided by Initiative 60 but directionally, Initiative 60 is the way to go.

William C. Nelson Portland, Oregon

VI/LI/LVLV 1.::.::ivn, rf,i'\ :JV.:!bl:Jtlt:b'I LI\Nl:itNKl',MI-' ~0001/0001

Most importantly, disarming law.-abiding citizens is a recipe for making the streets less safe, just see Chicago as an example, not even considering it would be in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Bottom line - bad people do not follow rules and will continue to get their hands on weapons making the good people who are willing to take the responsibility associated with legal carry all the more important (as a reference see the recent TX church shooting where a brave citizen likely prevented a much worse tragedy). There is not gun violence, just violence with a gun/fist/club/etc. done by a human!

Also, do you realize per FBI data:_

• 4 times as many individuals are killed with knives than rifles of any kind • rifles are also statistically used in fewer homicides than blunt objects (e.g. clubs,

hammers, etc.) • rifles are also statistically used in fewer homicides than personal weapons such as

hands, fists or feet • the federal so-called assault weapon ban in 1997 did not deter or curb crime, which is

exactly why congress did not renew it • according to the DOJ 75% of criminals in state and federal prison who had possession of

a firearm during their offense acquired it through theft, the black market or through a criminal associate

Initiatives 60/61/62 -

• background checks just make innocent folks spend more money not prevent violence with a gun.

• magazine limits are a terrible idea as a.gain, NO criminal will follow

On average:

• there are 40,000 deaths by a gun yearly, of which 60%+ are suicide. One has to figure that those motivated to take their own life will find a way with or without a gun or a smaller magazine

• there are approximately 2.8 million deaths annually caused by obesity, although I have yet to see a politician recommending the ban of forks

With regards to other proposed future initiatives concerning locking up guns when not "in use", that's about as silly as leaving the lights on and doors unlocked before posting on line that you will be out of town for two weeks ..... l consider my weapon "in use" as it's strapped to my side as I hope to not need it, but know I am willing and able should the necessity arise.

~-~aybe those proposing la\'VS should focus on honoring the constitution and finding vvays foi lawabiding citizens to better protect themselves & others versus th.e opposite.

Just a few of my thoughts that I know are supported by a majority.

Signed by a very concerned law-abiding citizen,

Mike Langenkamp



Please NO more gun laws. Enforce what we have. Jail felons. Thanks, Greg & Lucy Kijek Voters POX

Greg Kijek <[email protected]> Tuesday, January 21, 2020 11 :43 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS No more gun laws

1



Suellen Rinker <[email protected]> Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:34 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS I support Initiative 60

I am a native Oregonian, with Children and Grandchildren.

I support any and all legislation that supports gun safety. I support legistors and politicians and community organizers who represent these views.

I also support initiative 61 and 62 to ensure an initiative gets on the ballot.

Suellen rinker District 19 619 SW Hume St. Portland Or

97219

1



State of Oregon,

Nate Vanderzanden < [email protected] > Tuesday, January 21, 2020 5:35 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Gun control

Please, no more gun laws. Laws do NOTHING TO CRIMINALS. they make law abiding citizens life's tougher. Seemingly writing laws based on theory. Solve hunger, homeless, Fix roads. Do your job to help and not control. Leave us Americans alone.

Nate Vanderzanden

1



Casey Wilber <[email protected]>

Tuesday, January 21, 2020 5:48 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Semi auto guns

The gun is not the issue. It's the person/people.why don't you do something that could actually make a difference in Oregon. How about drug tests for people on state assistance. How about state lawmakers being paid minimum wage, and being tossed out for taking bribes or kickbacks. Most of all how about impeachment of our worthless governor.

Thanks for your time. Sincerely, Charles Wilber Ontario, Oregon

1



[email protected] Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:12 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS No on gun initiatives 60,61,62

Say no to new Oregon gun initiatives 60,61,62. Instead fix the mental health problem that is the elephant in the closet behind gun crimes.

1


From: Sent:

Margaret Moore < [email protected]> Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:19 PM

To: SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Subject: NO on 60, 61, 62

Say NO to OR initiatives 60, 61, 62. Give the people a chance to vote and uphold democracy!

Margaret Abbott RODAN + FIELDS LII Executive Consultant 541-601-3165 http://mmoore16.myrandf.com award winning products http://mmoore16.myrandf.biz independent business ownership

1


From: Sent:

shapowrobertclark < [email protected] > Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:24 PM

To: SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Subject: Gun control comments

Hello,

I am a law abiding American/Oregonian, the worse thing I have done I was given a citation for no car insurance when I was a teenj;r, .;et these ~roposed laws for gun control will make myself a criminal. According to ii•mfidMRMMM .. SIYii iMt@&, I Last updated November 17, 2019. Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution states: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]"

Now shall have the right to bear arms, doesn't stop with time, this law was written to protect law abiding Oregonians.

Lastly and aforementioned any proposed bill which says different is void due to article 1 section 27 of the ore n constitution.

Oregonians will not comply to what Salem, Portland and Eugene want. Those are three cities in a state which views differ than the rest of the state.

P. S. Dont be so ignorant and naive regarding criminal acts and law abiding Oregonians.

Thanks for reading,

One law abiding Oregunian.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

1


From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

ZMan SV <[email protected]> Tuesday, January 21, 2020 7:48 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS [email protected] I P60 Ballot Title Challenge IP60 Challengejpg

Oregon Secretary of State October 16, 2019 Elections Division 255 Capitol St NE Ste 501 Salem OR 97310

Re; Initiative Petition 2020-060 Objection to Draft Ballot Title

Proposed Draft Ballot Title: "Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits"

I object to the drafted ballot title for the following reason:

The title specifies "Certain semiautomatic firearms" while the descriptions in the text clearly encompass ALL semiautomatic rifles as none exist that do not fit into:

"Any grip of the rifle, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the rifle in a manner resulting in any finger on the trigger hand, in addition to the trigger finger, being below any portion of the action of the rifle when firing;"

The title implies that there are some rifles that would qualify and some that don't by the use of the word "certain", when in fact it is all.

This is a clearly misleading title which directly misinforms the voters of the applicable scope of the measure.

Respectfu I ly,

Stan Vizina

Attached: signed challenge

1



Dear OR Secretary of State,

Cec Tsai <[email protected]> Tuesday, January 21, 2020 10:20 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS

Comments - I support Initiative 60

I have 2 children in Oregon public schools where lock down and lock out, something my generation didn't have to know, are as common as fire drills. This is a good thing, but I fear for their safety everyday. I support the strictest gun control there can be for the public safety of all our children and citizens. Among Initiatives 60, 61 and 62, I support Initiative 60, with the most regulation.

Thank you, Cecilia Tsai

1



Tod Simpkins <[email protected]> Wednesday, January 22, 2020 6: 19 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Gun control Initiatives

These initiatives state nothing to prevent criminals from having guns to commit crimes. Government needs to track mental ill people to control there weapons use to commit crimes. Our 2nd amendment Would be affected if these initiatives were passed and that is NOT legal! Sent from my iPhone

1



Kurtis Williams <[email protected]> Wednesday, January 22, 2020 8:02 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Initiative 60, 61 and 62

In the time it has taken me to write this, I could have had my door smashed in, tracked down and killed while I tried to retrieve my family's method of protection from an Oregon legislature approved "safe space." With the ever growing number of vagrants and drug users in the state look for valuables to steal and sell for their next hit, human lives be damned, this is not a crazy scenario.

Or, I could have had my door smashed in and been able to readily defend my family.

These initiatives are a detriment to law abiding citizens and enable law breakers. Storing guns safely away from children and mentally fragile teens in crucial but forcing them to be kept locked away when life and death is determined in seconds is inhumane.

Kurtis Williams Hillsboro, Oregon

1

T'1is letter is H1 re3eitrJs to tlie Jr(it-f.'f brAllof title a.P IP 6r/J. The JrtAtt /,r,tl/ot title ;.swran1 -For this measure tec<J.use ·,t Joesn't intorm the voters fhtAf h<H'lcomfli<Ance ;5 <A Cldlss A mlsJe.meanor. Tl,is t;f/e Joes not H1torm voters thotf <M1 electronic recorJ will te cre<il teJ as <,t result o-f a reivest .Por <A crHnina/ 6ack9rcunJ deck whici includes ;Jentit'.'_1ihB ihforwu11tioh tit£out tJie purclitAse,.. an~ +lie .firearm. Also, the title Joes not in(i,rm voters tha+ Jurih_9 all times a.P +r-~vel1 ti\

JO\r,ge- c li\f li1C; t,_lJ ammuni+ian l'YltAj a=iYle ma~ Mt be loaJeJ in a -{' i Y"e?t1rm.

Cert<Ai}1 semiavtomatic .Piret1irms sold/troths.PerreJ tlirou3~ !JUYI k<Alers onb; tAJ.Js pvrcl,a.se res+ric: tic>hs <J1nJ electronic r-ecorJ, m;1s~aine ca.p<Aci+j Ii ntifs tAnJ fr-,ivel re!Jul<,tf1ons1 Clfl\ss A misdemeanor .Par noncomplitAhce.

Sincere!~,

~-~~ Jesse L Whitesitt

Ms. Beverly Clarno Oregon Secretary of State 255 Capitol St NE Ste 501,

Salem OR 97310

January 23, 2020

r-7~~ 2~ ~!o~!P~ ~ Elections Division

Re: Challenge to Initiative Petition Title - Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits

DOJ FIie #BT-60-20; Elections Division #2020-060

Dear Ms. Clarno

The title of Initiative 60 is bound to mislead Oregon voters for several reasons:

1) The proposed ballot title misleads the voters by implying or suggestion that the main

purpose of this new bill is to require all firearms transfers require processing through a gun

dealer, whereas this Is not new and already is a requirement in current Oregon gun law. This

wording will prompt a disingenuous voter to votes "yes" without further analyzing the actual

severely injuring impllcatlons of this new bill.

2) This misleading title falls to convey the new, unusual and exceedingly onerous training

certification requirement for transfers of essentially every single "semiautomatic firearm" in

common use.

3) Initiative 60 title Is misleading because it makes no mention of included regulation restricting

of "standard capacity magazines"1 incorrectly described as "high capacity magazines" in the text

of the bill. These "standard capacity magazines" are the type commonly used with modern

sporting rifles, and are therefore necessary device to fulfill the original intent of the second

amendment as defined in the Bill of Rights.

Wherefore, I pray the Secretary of State to reject the current title and instead replace the ballot

title as set forth, "Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits", or any other language the Secretary

deems impartial, simple, and understandable.

~~/4January,2020.

LuisHVarg~ 2209 NE 14th Ave Hillsboro, OR 97124



Mike Courtney <[email protected]> Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:07 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS FW: Anti Gun initiatives

"Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' ". Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse Tung -1966. Originally from Problems of War and Strategy Nov. 6, 1938.

In other words, those who have the guns control the people.

I oppose any and all efforts to remove our Constitutionally guaranteed right to defend my self, my family, and my country. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is fundamental to this right.

While I want to believe that the proponents of the anti-gun initiatives may have good in their hearts, I believe that they are misguided. These initiatives will, only, remove guns from law abiding citizens. This is apparent, as you look at the injury and death resulting from attack on innocent people. Those attacks, whether with guns, knives, or other weapons, are not perpetrated by law abiding people. They are only perpetrated by law breakers, those who will not abide by gun free zones, or locked up weapons.

Removing weapons, of any kind, from law abiding citizens will only leave them defenseless. The issue is not weapons, bad people will, always find a way. The issue is mental health.

Forcing citizens to keep their weapons locked up, or disabled, will make them unavailable, in the time of need.

Making felons of otherwise law abiding citizens will do nothing to promote the safety of citizens.

The type of firearm is irrelevant. Magazine capacity is irrelevant. Limiting capacity will only limit defense of the innocent.

Before you even consider any of these initiatives, please ask yourself what prior events would have been prevented by the terms/restrictions contained in them.

Please vote against any proposed legislation that would cause innocent people to be left defenseless.

Mike Courtney 2437 E. 18th St. The Dalles OR 97058-3985

Tel 541.980.7038

1

Michael B. van Grunsven 3615 Morris Street Newberg, OR 97132 (503) 807-9666

23 January 2020

The Honorable Ellen F. Rosenblum Oregon Attorney General 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096

RE: Comments on the draft ballot title for IP 2020-060

Dear Madam Attorney General:

This is my formal objection to the wording of the draft ballot title IP 2020-060.

)

The draft title states "Certain firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits."

The draft Yes statement is written as "Result of "Yes" Vote:"Yes" vote provides that only gun dealers may sell/transfer certain semiautomatic firearms; requires waiting period, minimum age 21; prohibits magazines larger than 10 rounds."

I objection to this draft title and Yes statement on the following basis:

1) ORS 250.035 "Form of ballot titles for State and Local Measures" states, "(2)(a) The ballot title of any state measure to be initiated or referred shall consist of 15 words that REASONABLY IDENTIFIES THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE STATE MEASURE." Additionally ORS 250.035(2)(b) states "A simple and understandable statement of not more than 25 words that describes the result if the state measure Is approved.'' The proposed ballot title and Yes statement do not adequately cover all the consequences passing this bill would entail, and in fact it would be impossible to do so In just 15 or 25 words respectively.

The proposed ballot measure, as written, would change Oregon law and add the following additional provisions which are not represented in the draft ballot title or statement:

1. Section 3(9) creates a new legal definition foi "Semiautomatic assault firearm". 2. Section 4(8)(a)(A) (and others) extend the waiting time for purchases. 3. Section 4(10)(e) & (11) create a de-facto gun registration by requiring dealers and "The

department" to retain records of transfer requests. "The department" is not defined. 4. Sections 4(13), (14) & (15) create new crimes for "Improperly transferring a semiautomatic

assault firearm" and "Improperly purchasing a semiautomatic assault firearm."

The above provisions would have far reaching effects on Oregonians but are not reasonably identified in the draft ballot title and Yes statement as required by ORS 250.035. The inaccuracy of this proposed ballot title, the ballot result of vote and the summary as written will mislead the voter and possibly cause them to vote based upon inflamed emotions rather than logic and truth.

2) The Oregon Constitution, Article IV, Section l(d} states "A proposed law or amendment to the Constitution shall embrace one subject only and matters properly connected therewith." The very ballot title of IP 2020-060 states that it covers more than one subject, e.g. the Sale/Transfer and restrictions on purchasing the defined firearms is one subject; and the limits on magazine capacity is a second subject and not related at all to the first subject because it would additionally ban magazines for use in firearms that are not considered "semiautomatic assault firearms." As such, the proposed ballot Is in violation of the Oregon State Constitution.

For the above reasons I formally object to the proposed ballot title for IP 2020-060 and request that the current draft ballot title be rejected and further, that the entire proposed initiative petition be invalidated on grounds that it would violate the Oregon Constitution.

Michael B. van Grunsven Newberg, Oregon



[email protected] Thursday, January 23, 2020 6:25 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS 60,61,62

If you are not smart enough to know that people that commit mass shootings have mental problem you are not smart enough to know that they will kill people in another way, you are infringing on my 2nd amendment rights, why don't you stop drug overdoses that kill 3 times the amount of people, why don't you stop drunk drivers that a lot more people than guns do, all you want to do is take guns away from the legal citizens a little at a time like Hitler did, we know what you are doing, you are not solving the problem, check the FBI statics on deaths in the U.S., now how about solving the real problem.

1



David Aguilar <[email protected]> Thursday, January 23, 2020 9:29 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Opposing Proposed Initiatives

I am voicing my opposition to Initiatives 60, 61, and 62. I stand against these intiatives as they infringe on our Constitutional rights as they are written. It is unjust that those who live in the densely populated areas like Salem amd Portland try to decide how everybody else must live outside of the city limits. We are a different state than California and many people are tired of those who are attempting to turn our home into our neighboring state. By restricting law abiding citizen's right like these initiatives are attempting to do, all that does is create a greater divide between the people of this state.

I DO NOT support the Initiative 60, Initiative 61, or Initiative 62.

1



Hello,

Brett Major <[email protected]> Friday, January 24, 2020 6:58 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS gun control

I believe that there should be more actions on the mentally ill people before any actions need to be done with people who own and carry firearms.

The 2nd amendment is our right and should not be messed with ! ! ! !

Last time I checked this is still AM ERICA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

Brett Major Electrical Manager Enviro-Pak Phone:+503-655-7044 Fax : +503-655-6368 Mobile : +503-860-4337 [email protected]

1


From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

MarkJohnson 199 < [email protected]> Friday, January 24, 2020 10:41 AM [email protected] SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS; Sen Baertschiger; Bill Meyer; Sheriff Dave Daniels; [email protected] Welcome to Virgina : Ore. Semiautomatic gun-control initiatives

Virginia 1-13 I We are the Body of the People

See you in church .......

Freedom's Cry - YouTube

Mark Johnson 199

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

------- Original Message -------On Friday, January 24, 2020 9:35 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:

1


From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Victor Reppeto <[email protected]> Saturday, January 25, 2020 7:22 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS comments regarding initiative petition 60 060dbt.pdf

comments against the certification of initiative petition 60

This initiative attempts to violate the 2nd amendment of united states constitution. Not only that but it attempts to do so at time when the state of Oregon has admitted culpability for failing to meet their obligation to provide legal representation for those who are charged with a crime. This tyranny needs to be addressed first, not as an afterthought to relieving us of m ore constitutional rights. Thousands of people are convicted of crimes through a corrupt system of cash bail and plea deals. Families are torn asunder. I will not comply and in any case you cannot enforce this law with the advent of 3d printed weapons. The money you are spending only serves to widen the divide between the haves and the have nots. You might as well flush that money down the toilet. If you want to spend money on something important go buy a piece of property for the homeless to camp on and stop violating there right to be free from cruelty.

Peace, Victor Reppeto 503-383-9517 615 Commercial St. NE, ste 100 Salem, Or 97301

Communication is the problem and the solution

1



Matt Henry <[email protected]> Sunday, January 26, 2020 11 :39 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Gun measures

The 2nd amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, so these Bill's shouldn't even be up for consideration. They do nothing to stop criminals, only make law abiding citizens criminals if they don't comply.

The exclusion of law enforcement to a 10 round capacity shows the hypocrisy that police are allowed to defend themselves with more than 10 rounds, but common citizens have to defend their lives and their families lives with less.

The recent church shooting in which the shooter was stopped by parishioners who were armed, shows that guns in the right hands are the only deterrent to a bad guy with a gun scenario. Passing more laws to restrict lawful gun owners won't stop the bad guys with the guns, but will make it harder for good people with guns to protect others.

Gun free zones, gun laws, and restrictions on gun ownership does nothing to deter criminals from committing crimes, it only makes criminals out of law abiding citizens who do not wish to become a victim.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need guns, but in a perfect world we wouldn't need prisons, politicians, or religious leaders as the world would be perfect.

1

N 60 Comments and concerns about the suggested ballot title

JANUARY 20, 2020 JEFF CONANT


Elections Division

Hello and thank you for taking the time to read my commentary regarding the title of the initiative petition 60 for the State of Oregon. The title in question currently reads as follows:

"Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits"

When a petition is circulated in the public to gain support for a potential change of law or regulation, it is very important that the title of the petition be very specific and succinct. Any ambiguity or vagueness is likely to cause confusion, or even more dangerous, false certainties. For instance, vague words such as "restrictions" may lead a person to false conclusions about what exactly those restrictions are.

Unfortunately, the sponsors of IP60 have tried to cram so many specific regulations into one bill that it borders on impossible to summarize in a legal ballot title. At best, one could call the sponsors of this petition overly ambitious. Not only are they trying to cram a lot of regulatory changes into one bill, those changes are very controversial and therefore need to be very accurately described in the title to avoid misleading the public. As a whole, the subjects contained within IP60 are so numerous that the initiative should be automatically invalidated similar to how IP54 was invalidated by containing multiple subjects. IP60 is using a piggyback approach to gain public acceptance because it presents a rather innocuous title yet doesn't indicate the most egregious and negative changes to gunownership. These negative changes are conveniently buried in text most people would be unlikely to finish reading.

Let's examine the title as it is written in its parts. It starts with "Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only ... " As we can see, most of the title's length is designated to this portion. The problem with this portion is that it carries the assumption that firearms are not already required in the State of Oregon to be sold or transferred through a gun dealer (FFL). It would have the public misled to believe that this petition is attempting to close gaps on private sales when in fact, private sales are already illegal. Current law is that all firearms with very few exceptions must be transferred by an FFL dealer and an OSP background check is to be conducted in accordance with the 2015 "Oregon Firearms Safety Act" (ORS 166.435). A Federal form 4473 must be completed, one for each firearm being transferred and fingerprints are collected. Since the law already exists, this would render this portion of the title inoperative or ineffective. If there is any change, its result would be inconclusive and unquantifiable. Perhaps, people signing will want to know how this process would be changed. Non-gun owners or gun owners who are not informed may not realize that there is currently no other way in Oregon to buy a gun other than through an FFL (legally). They might sign this petition advocating for change, yet it effectively would do nothing.

The next portion of the title is "adds purchase restrictions." I won't say much about this part other than to emphasize that most of the content of this initiative is aimed at restricting purchases. For such a large effective change, it didn't get nearly the real estate in the title it should have. Rather, that space was given to the "Certain semiautomatic firearms

sold/transferred through gun dealers only ... " which has less weight in this initiative. The title is misleading in that it underplays the significance of restrictions in this initiative and how they will affect the broad majority of gun owners.

The last part of the title is "magazine capacity limits." Once again, this is vague. The text of the initiative clearly states a limit of 10 rounds in a magazine, yet this is omitted in the title/caption of IP60. It goes without saying that many, if not most, semi-automatic firearms have standard capacity mags that go above 10 rounds. Most gun owners would be affected by this capacity change. The wording needs to be crystal clear about just how low the capacity would become under this initiative.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the public needs to know exactly what it is they are OR are not signing for. If that cannot be reasonably done within the limitations of the caption requirements, then it is fair to say that the scope of the initiative is too wide and there are too many subjects covered to allow it to pass.

Thank you for reading my objections to the ballot title given to IP60. In conclusion, the title only hints at a small bit of what changes will be made and does not indicate the severity of the punishments for breaking such laws.

Jeff Conant 503-869-0458 [email protected]

Oregon Secretary of State

Elections Division

255 Capitol St NE Ste 501

Salem OR 97310

Oregon SOS

IP60 Ballot Title Challenge


Elections Division

January 27, 2020

1. The Ballot Title as written does not comply with the Oregon Constitution.

2. The Ballot Title as written covers more than one topic and does not clearly state the effects the law will have on Oregon Citizens.

3. Further, sections within this proposed Act~IP2020~060 violate provisions in the Heller vs. District of Columbia Supreme Court decision of 2008.

For these reasons, I object to the proposed Ballot Title .

. Atk~~· Michael S. Elliott

Central Point, OR



Greetings,

jim strong <[email protected]> Monday, January 27, 2020 3:52 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Initiative 60 Draft Ballot Title Commentary

It is my opinion that the Draft Ballot Title for Initiative 60 does not conform with applicable state law. The title is compound in construct & subject matter, and confusing as a result of being poorly worded.

The draft title causes confusion by combining a purchasing/transferring regulation with two distinct operating characteristics of certain firearms. Such confusion and complex wording would certainly cause confusion in the voter's mind.

Thanks in advance for your consideration,

Jim Strong 58068 Maple Circle Rd Christmas Valley, OR 97641

1

January 20, 2020

Secretary of State

Gun-control Initiatives

I favor Initiative #60

Susan V Frohnmayer 10900 SW 76th Pl #24

Tigard, OR 97223

We must curb gun violence by whatever means available. I believe semi automatic guns should not be allowed in our society. However, we need to start somewhere and #60 is the most comprehensive. ·

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

iu:::!?~vwr=r~-

To: The Oregon Secretary of State

Re: Initiatives 60, 61, 62 and Legislative Concept 38

Date: January 24, 2020

We believe that Initiative 60 as proposed, violates the protected rights guaranteed all law abiding US citizens through our Second Amendment. Listed below are our reasons:

1) If a family member wanted to give or sell a firearm to a son, daughter, father, mother, grandfather, grandson etc., in this Initiative he/she would have to go through a licensed gun dealer to do so. This does not make any sense. It not only causes unnecessary expense, but also is burdensome and creates more bureaucracy.

2) Why is it necessary to specify the time frame of a 5 day waiting period for a background check?

3) Gun safety training programs are available, but unless one is applying for a concealed handgun license, this requirement would be difficult to enforce.

4) Many citizens have semiautomatic weapons for protection. The term "certain semiautomatic weapons" is extremely vague and subjective. What does that really mean?

5) An individual can join the military at 18 and learn how to use a semiautomatic or fully automatic weapon in the defense of their country. It does not follow that someone has to be 21 in order to buy a semiautomatic weapon.

6) Are we becoming a police state? Prohibiting the manufacturing and selling of magazines with more than 10

rounds of ammunition, except to law enforcement or the armed forces, is a dangerous precedent. The average law abiding citizen would be penalized and can easily be turned into a felon without any regard for the Second Amendment and the right to self protection that it guarantees.

Initiative 61 drops the magazine provision, but still violates the Second Amendment as stated above.

Initiative 62 although limited in scope, still violates the Second Amendment and appears to interfere with private enterprise.

Legislative Concept 38, which requires guns to be locked up when not in use, is in many instances unrealistic due to specific circumstances. Citizens are guaranteed through our Second Amendment to have the right to bear arms and protect themselves and others.

We 'are concerned these Initiatives and Legislative Concept 38 are based on ignorance, fear and pure emotional response to specific events without any regard for our guaranteed rights under the Second Amendment. As proposed they would put unnecessary burdens on law abiding gun owners and create additional enforcement responsibilities on law enforcement.

/J,J ~~ {). /4&:J-vr'fi/ Michael C. Galloway /'

~ If /j~vifJ Carol A. Galloway

11574 SW Tallwood Dr Tigard, OR 97223



Caption is fine.

Peter

Peter Wright <[email protected]> Tuesday, January 28, 2020 12:13 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Caption of Initiative 60

"The Republicans have concluded that there's a real problem when it comes to money distribution in this country-the poor have too much and the rich don't have enough." Mark Shields

1



Text of initiative 60 is fine.

Peter

Peter Wright <[email protected]> Tuesday, January 28, 2020 12:19 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS text of initiative 60

"The Republicans have concluded that there's a real problem when it comes to money distribution in this country- the poor have too much and the rich don't have enough." Mark Shields

1

Ballot Title Objection IP 2020-060

RECEIVED JAN 28, 2020 1 :28pm

Elections Division

The Reduction of Gun Violence Act through Regulation of Semiautomatic Assault Firearms & Large Capacity Magazines

Oregon Secretary of State1 s Office FAX: 503-373-7414 255 Capitol St. NEJ Suite 501 Email: [email protected] Salem, Oregon 97310

This is my formal objection to the Draft Ballot Title for IP 2020-060.

I object to the ballot title on the grounds that in the limited fifteen words it has no chance of conveying just how much training is required and the costs involved or even the amount of firearms to be banned as well as the limit on magazine size. There is way too much going on in this proposed measure to be a single measure.

Sincerely

Will.iam c. Brown 901 A Street Fossil, Oregon 97830


~-------' Elections Division January 28, 2020

""··-a0n Secretarv of State

Re: IP60 ballot title

Please consider these comments on the draft ballot title for this measure:

Title:

21, training, waiting and dealer for semiautomatic fl rearm transfers, bans new magazines over ten

rounds

This captures all of the impacts of the measure. The draft title does not mention age, training

requirements or waiting periods for instance, only encompasses the new requirements under

"purchase restrictions."

Result of "yes" vote:

"Yes" vote enacts new requirements for semiautomatic firearm transfers including age 21, wait, completed background check, training meeting CHL and dealer, bans new 10+ magazines

This again captures all of the impacts. The current "Yes vote" summary does not mention

training or completed background check.

Result of "No" vote:

No comments.

Summary:

The summary should include that the training required must cover "semiautomatic assault firearm

safety" which does not exist; no accredited instructor would teach safety any differently for one type of

firearm vs another, as all firearms are capable of causing fatal iniurv. Likewise, the training must cover

secure storage "specifically related to semiautomatic assault firearms" and there is again no difference

in secure storage for one type of firearm vs another and no instructor would teach as if there were a distinction. The reader/voter should be aware that the bill contains reauirements which would be

difficult to impossible to reach.

Tigard, Oregon

[email protected]


-m~ Elections Division ·-·~'"·"'°';',"~;',""'"

01/28/2020

To whom It may concern,

Concerning Oregon IP60 title "Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits",

The title of IP60 Is wrong due to not explaining the actual text of the proposal to the citizens of Oregon. The title does not mention anything about required training, waiting periods or age limits. The title is misleading as It does not fully Illustrate the expanse of the proposal and does not explain "certain semiautomatic firearms".

Rnectfully,

~~ Medford, OR 541. 778.2887 [email protected]

Comments on Initiatives 60, 61, and 62.


Elections Division

The petitioners point out that there have been some heinous school shootings by teenagers. However, they ignore the fact that teenagers have had access to firearms for hundreds of years, that a number of high schools had shooting teams when I was a youth and had no violence, that "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines" were readily available to the public without registration or waiting period when I was a youth, and still the country hardly had any school shootings or similar crimes by youths until 25+ years later. The guns didn't change between the late 50s and the late 80s, but something else happened to make school shootings "fashionable" for a few score of lunatics.. Petitioners are unfortunately aiming in the wrong direction with their ban on the sale or transfer of semi-auto firearms to those under 21.

The petitioners make a dubious statement "Whereas restrictions on high-capacity magazines in over ten (10) states have been found to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries in shooting incidents .... " Petitioners don't cite evidence behind such a statement which they purport to be an absolute fact and can mislead voters because the truth is by no means clearcut. Specifically many or most of the states that have enacted restrictions on magazine capacity have significantly higher rates of homicide compared with states that don't have such restrictions, and homicides rates can vary from year to year and decade to decade when the state laws haven't changed, so a decrease in homicides after new restrictions could be just a normal variation towards the average rate rather than a direct result of the legislation.

Similarly, petitioners claim that the attacker having to pause to reload gives his intended victims a chance to escape or apprehend him. There have been a handful of anecdotal instances in which this has happened, but that is certainly not the rule, and a number of mass murderers have used weapons with "small capacity" magazines that required many reloads during their rampage. In addition, there are a number of anecdotal cases in which law abiding citizens used firearms with "high capacity" magazines to protaect themselves from multiple armed attackers. If several home invaders break in, I certainly want to have as many rounds of ammunition in my firearm as they have in all of theirs.

Thank you.

Peter K.



Brian Meyer <brianzg1 [email protected]> Tuesday, January 28, 2020 8:58 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Initiative 60

I am opposed to this nonsense. this is not a crime reduction measure. it's an out and out gun ban which is unconstitutional! it confiscates legally owned property without compensation. it doesn't punish criminals that use firearms in the least. Start punishing the criminals, not me. Brian Meyer 835 S 1st Ave. Cornelius, OR 97113

1



Thomas Gorman < [email protected]>

Tuesday, January 28, 2020 10:57 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS [email protected] TITLE OF IP 60 -- Does not accurately describe the Subject of Initiative, and does not acknowledge Discrimination of Legal age (18-20) Citizens

Ballot Title does not accurately describe the Petition Subject (Reduction of Gun Violence Act Through Regulation of Semiautomatic Firearms and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazines). A more definitive Title is "Regulation of Semiautomatic Firearms and Large-Capacity magazines".

Title should indicate that Oregon Citizens of legal age (18-20 years old) will be discriminated against. Instead of a vague 11

••• adds purchase restrictions .. " a more accurate, simple, addition could be, 11 ... purchase restrictions

include raising age to 21)".

Sincerely,

Thomas P. Gorman PO Box 1813 Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601 (541)-850-8027

1



Karen Southworth <[email protected]> Wednesday, January 29, 2020 4:23 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Opposition 2020-060 Initiative Petition

The ballot initiative uses the term "assault rifle", which the Oregon supreme court found is a political term during last years challenge. The ballot title does not disclose the nature of the bill. i.e. "certain semi-auto firearms" does not adequately describe the firearms to the general public, nor reflects the ballot act name of "Regulation of Semiautomatic Assault Firearms and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazines.")

Ballot title implies that the proposal would cover only firearms sold by a gun dealer. The proposal would cover ALL transfers.

Title does not describe the storage and transportation requirements in section 5; d of the ballot.

"magazine capacity limits" does not cover the scope and breath of ammunition storage devices described in the ballot section 3, 4. Title does not describe new unique regulations and restrictions for manufacturers (Section 6). Does not describe restrictions on storage and transportation requirements of magazines. (section 6(c)) (impacts concealed carry holders)

"adds purchase restrictions" is too generic, broad and does not encompass the expansive new requirements and could be interpreted many ways, thus confusing or misleading the public. Title does not adequately describe the new age discrimination restrictions. (section 4, 3b)(Section 5) Title does not adequately describe new waiting period restrictions.(section 4, 8A) Title does not adequately describe changes in dealer handling of the background check process. (section 4) Title does not adequately describe the new training requirements (pass handgun concealed carry license course to purchase a rifle, etc ... ), (section 4, 3e) Title does not adequately describe the creation of new State procedures for licensing firearms owners, or additional costs to the state (section 4) Title does not adequately describe the changes and expansion of the background check system as performed by the State of Oregon. (Section 4, part 5 and 6)

Title does not disclose that restrictions also apply to a transfer NOT thru a gun dealer (Section 4, 14(a))(Section 5) (i.e. lending or temporary transfer, such as hunting or rifle range)

Sincerely, Karen Southworth 301 S 4th St St Helens, Or. 97051 503-490-5027

1


......_ ____ _. Elections Division

IP 2020-60 ballot title comments:

Ballot title: Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase

restrictions, magazine capacity limits

IP 60 fails the one subject rule. It covers the following subjects that are, for the most part, not listed in

the ballot title: new definition for "semiautomatic assault rifle", purchase restrictions, transfer

restrictions, transportation restrictions, firearm safety training, child firearm safety training, secure

storage training, suicide prevention training, state and federal firearms law training, ammunition safety

training, undefined requirements by state police for purchase or transfer, 5 day waiting period

requirement for purchase or transfer, requires state police to maintain registry of firearms, creates new

crimes for violations and failure to comply, prohibits sale or transfer to persons under age 21, new

definition for "large capacity magazine", vague requirements for locked firearm storage, new

manufacturer's marking requirement for large capacity magazines, prohibits purchase, possession, or

transfer of new large capacity magazines by the general public, and more.

How was IP 60, with this extensive list of subjects, not rejected by the Oregon SOS or AG?

IP 60 ballot title is inadequate and deceptive. Three subjects are covered in the title, but the text of IP

60 has more than 10 separate subjects. The text of IP 60 restricts FULLY automatic firearms, but fully

automatic firearms are not mentioned in the ballot title. New 21 years of age purchase and transfer

restrictions are not mentioned in the ballot title. There is no mention of the new and extensive training

requirements in the ballot title. There is no mention of the new 5 day waiting period for purchase or

transfer in the ballot title. There is no mention of the requirement that the state police create and

maintain a firearm registry in the ballot title. The ballot title does not mention new manufacturer

marking requirements for large capacity magazines, nor does it mention that it prohibits purchase,

possession or transfer of new large capacity magazines to the public. Also, 30 round magazines are

standard on many modern (and older) firearms, they are not "large capacity" -this misuse of language

is intentionally deceptive.

IP 60 violates the US Constitution. Clearly IP 60 is a violation of the Second Amendment. The

apparent, yet very vague, requirement to lock up firearms called for in IP 60 Section 4(3)(e)(C) has been

declared unconstitutional in the Heller v. DC decision. I submit the Supreme Court of the United States

decision in "District of Columbia v. Heller" as part of my comments on IP 60. Please read and consider

the entire document carefully:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Restrictions on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition have been declared

unconstitutional in Duncan v. Becerra. I submit the Duncan v. Becerra decision as part of my IP 60 ballot

title comments. Please read and consider the entire document carefully:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-0rder-Granting-Plaintiffs

MSJ.pdf?fbclid=lwAR30el3nBh2DeA12fQ-TqLJPWXleE7ieEOj6P2hguw6ohYp3SXJB1hR ASo

Clearly, IP 2020-60 must be rejected. The ballot title cannot be "fixed" because IP 60 fails to meet state

requirements for the one subject rule and for constitutionality. That IP 60 was not rejected for

violations of both the one subject rule and the US Constitution is evidence of serious problems in the

Oregon state government. I urge an investigation to find out why IP 60 was not rejected as required by

Oregon law. We cannot allow such ill-conceived, unconstitutional ballot measures to appear before

voters.

Finally, the "preamble" to IP 60 is biased and false. The CDC says firearms are used for self-defense

perhaps 3 million times per year in the US. IP 60 puts citizens at risk. IP 60 Section 5 appears to deny a

minor under the age of 18 access to commonly owned semiautomatic firearms - this minor may be a 17

year old very responsible female who lives in a remote area and gets home before her parents get home

from work. It is immoral to deny her access to adequate self-defense tools when the police may be a

half-hour away (or more).

Robert Wallace



Hello,

Elissa Newton <[email protected]> Wednesday, January 29, 2020 8:21 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comments on gun control initiatives

I've considered Oregon my home since 1993 and strongly support more gun regulations and control. I think the minimum age to purchase any gun (not just semi-automatics) should be increased to age 25 (not 21) and gun dealers should not be allowed to sell any type of semi automatic gun.

I do support the requirement that purchasers need to go through a safety training course and pass a criminal background check. However, I think there should also be a requirement to pass a psychological check.

It sounds like Initiative 60 is better than 61, but still not strong enough as what I would hope for.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a public comment.

Elissa Newton Portland, Oregon

1


From: Sent: To:

Clement Lau <[email protected]> Wednesday, January 29, 2020 7:46 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS

Subject: Initiative Petition 2020-060 Comment

Here is my objection:

Dear Attorney General Rosenblum,

Following, please find my formal objection to the draft ballot title for Initiative Petition 2020-60 (IP 60).

The draft ballot title of "Certain semiautomatic firearms sold / transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits" does not comport with Oregon Revised Statute 250.035 (ORS 250.035), nor does it comport with established state case law relative to the matter. ORS 250.035 (2)(a) requires that the title, or caption" ... reasonably identifies the subject matter of the state measure."

Further, Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169, 174-75, 903 P2d 366 (1995) holds that:

"A caption satisfies the statutory requirement that it must 'reasonably identify' a measure's subject if .. .it states or describes the subject accurately and in terms that will not confuse or mislead potential petition signers and voters." (Emphasis added).

The draft ballot title employs ambiguous and potentially misleading terms like "certain semiautomatic firearms", "purchase restrictions", and "magazine capacity limits" that do not accurately represent the scope and the impact of the proposed measure.

In its application, the proposed measure broadly re-defines as "semiautomatic assault firearms" many firearms that, for decades and in some cases over a century, have been overwhelmingly in common use in the United States for lawful purposes. The term "semiautomatic assault firearms", a politically and emotionally charged term that has no universally accepted definition, and the proposed caption makes no mention of the measure's reclassification of a large portion of lawful, commonly owned firearms as such.

Further, the proposed initiative, while making no reference to training requirements in the draft caption, imposes a litany of new training requirements on law-abiding citizens that wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights, to include the following

very specifically defined classes:

>"semiautomatic firearm safety"; >"Firearms and children, including talking to children about gun safety"; >Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use, specifically related to semiautomatic assault firearms"; >"Firearms and suicide prevention"; and >"Safe handling of firearms and ammunition, specifically including semiautomatic assault firearms."

1

Finally, the proposed measure seeks to re-define standard capacity magazines as "large-capacity magazines", and subsequently criminalize their possession. The vague elusion to "magazine capacity limits" does not sufficiently identify the substantial impact that this measure will have on citizens that own modern firearms, nearly all of which are specifically designed to accept magazines with a capacity greater than 10-rounds.

While the text of the measure does provide a definition of the term "semiautomatic assault firearm" as applied in this particular instance, does detail the training requirements imposed on firearm purchasers, and does go on to explain the criminalization of the ownership of modern, standard capacity magazines, ORS 250.035, specifically states that it is the text of the caption that "must reasonably identify the subject matter of the state measure" not the text of the measure. Further, the caption makes no mention of new age restrictions, new waiting period requirements, expanded background check requirements, or new licensing requirements for firearm owners.

In summary, the proposed caption uses ambiguous and misleading terms that elude to "certain semiautomatic firearms", "purchase restrictions", and "magazine capacity limits." None of these terms are sufficient to describe the broad, meandering scope and impact of the proposed measure. Additionally, the proposed measure does not contain a "single subject or closely related subject" as required under the Oregon Constitution, Article IV, §1, Article XVII and OAR 165-014-0028. It contains numerous separate subjects, not one of which is adequately identified in the caption. For these reasons I strongly object to the proposed ballot caption for Initiative Petition 2020-60, and insist that it be rejected and revised.

Yours Very Truly,

Sheung Lau

Citations

Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169, 174-75, 903 P2d 366 (1995) Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035 (2017).

2


From: Sent:

RedNine - James Jeffery <[email protected]>

Wednesday, January 29, 2020 8:29 AM

To: SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS

Here is my objection:



The draft ballot title of "Certain semiautomatic firearms sold / transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits" does not comport with Oregon Revised Statute 250.035 (ORS 250.035), nor does it comport with established state case law relative to the matter. ORS 250.035 (2)(a) requires that the title, or caption" ... reasonably identifies the subject matter of the state measure."

Further, Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169, 174-75, 903 P2d 366 (1995) holds that:

"A caption satisfies the statutory requirement that it must 'reasonably identify' a measure's subject if...it states or describes the subject accurately and in terms that will not confuse or mislead potential petition signers and voters." (Emphasis added).

The draft ballot title employs ambiguous and potentially misleading terms like "certain semiautomatic firearms", "purchase restrictions", and "magazine capacity limits" that do not accurately represent the scope and the impact of the proposed measure.

In its application, the proposed measure broadly re-defines as "semiautomatic assault firearms" many firearms that, for decades and in some cases over a century, have been overwhelmingly in common use in the United States for lawful purposes. The term "semiautomatic assault firearms", a politically and emotionally charged term that has no universally accepted definition, and the proposed caption makes no mention of the measure's reclassification of a large portion of lawful, commonly owned firearms as such.

Further, the proposed initiative, while making no reference to training requirements in the draft caption, imposes a litany of new training requirements on law-abiding citizens that wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights, to include the following

very specifically defined classes:

>"semiautomatic firearm safety"; >"Firearms and children, including talking to children about gun safety"; >Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use, specifically related to semiautomatic assault firearms"; >"Firearms and suicide prevention"; and >"Safe handling of firearms and ammunition, specifically including semiautomatic assault firearms."

Finally, the proposed measure seeks to re-define standard capacity magazines as "large-capacity magazines", and subsequently criminalize their possession. The vague elusion to "magazine capacity limits" does not

1

sufficiently identify the substantial impact that this measure will have on citizens that own modern firearms, nearly all of which are specifically designed to accept magazines with a capacity greater than 10-rounds.

While the text of the measure does provide a definition of the term "semiautomatic assault firearm" as applied in this particular instance, does detail the training requirements imposed on firearm purchasers, and does go on to explain the criminalization of the ownership of modern, standard capacity magazines, ORS 250.035, specifically states that it is the text of the caption that "must reasonably identify the subject matter of the state measure" not the text of the measure. Further, the caption makes no mention of new age restrictions, new waiting period requirements, expanded background check requirements, or new licensing requirements for firearm owners.

In sum, the proposed caption uses ambiguous and misleading terms that elude to "certain semiautomatic firearms", "purchase restrictions", and "magazine capacity limits." None of these terms are sufficient to describe the broad, meandering scope and impact of the proposed measure. Additionally, the proposed measure does not contain a "single subject or closely related subject" as required under the Oregon Constitution, Article IV, §1, Article XVII and OAR 165-014-0028. It contains numerous separate subjects, not one of which is adequately identified in the caption. For these reasons I strongly object to the proposed ballot caption for Initiative Petition 2020-60, and insist that it be rejected and revised.

Thank you, James Jeffery

Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169, 174-75, 903 P2d 366 (1995) Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035 (2017).

2

Jan 25, 2020

Oregon Secretary of State

Eletions Division

255 Capitol NE Ste 501

Salem, OR 97310

Ballot Challenge-Objection to IP60:

"Certain firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions,

magazine capacity limits".

I object to IP60 for the following reasons:

1. The IP and ballot title covers more than one topic in violation of the Oregon Construction

and

2. The ballot title does not cover all the effects of the IP upon Oregon citizens.

In addition the affects on me as a law abiding citizen, seek to limit, undermind, and encroach

on my owning firearms.

Respectfully

Jj~ i. Y;)w,,m-Teresa E Burns

1

l\tt_y (.q U1 ~/ -'l5 5 c..o.., p I t CL( -ST. tJ f:=:-

s v\ l ·ce.__ 50 I ·

0lLle.J/Y)) OJ<Z. 31 o '

/4-t.(, NE q~ /tll-(J

1-f,//.Sbc> ro/C>/e., Cf1/2..,L.f

J~zt ;2t.>ZO.

~,..,-----......,\

3rt £/tv :s e.- c,.tJ {//,,d A111 end 117 e-.n/c :

C/ ~e,f ( 0e<1 LL.l 6{__. be-e:/ N / / / 6 ict I he-(~ IJe:t!e-S.Sc(r r 2020

-co tii e,, :S<-<:A-<--'rit::y Df- Cl- +'r-ee s f?a. ~ --ct.e, Ytj ht of -Z/it!!- feo P(~

1 , to j~e-f aftd pe_tzr

A-r7bs 1 .5 ha II /11Ji he- ;n/r-lt-'l ft:'.<(_ . r--.-,..,,,,.,... -..... ... ... . ;:;::.::aw- '

J;r1:frifl1~! . .4-M 111y .c/4~ci:/o!f'~4t'Y·5f:cctes::. .,j;;e_/2 ~ tJ fc _ I)) tccK.. <iJHj •.

tficet, i 5 . . wit Cl T l'' lL ,and' C' / ( 1~ 7 is/, abrP-£" Cl re. o/ I 11 f tz; V t1 v!-l/ 6 tt r {!.,t) /'1 s i:ittrl.1 t?J-[_,

IV/ a-y i4-e,,, L () v c1 3 LA-i cl-ll- 1 fJ ~.

-'-. )"f;, I /2ttrlC.' s-h:It&t; 1J w/17 n,t-/acf< Llf my 3u115,14

P [ .e.tils e do Y\ -t h re,td<., o r U)([a./<..Ut o u r S e....CA-n.c,(

/4-rri~n_d rn ~-t ~ '3, ht s ., ,. EdU<'.!.alL { ;,s,~t- DoN I s~ L}Jr f,Je_Pl/(e,t,c

0 IA_:~ vvV\ \(' 1.5 ltL$ ;;

.? 111CL e,~e .. ._/_y_ .

1~- . ju ri ~ h u1 e.YM i e@ .J ma , I t-1 Com,

Rs~· .J.. f ee_/ tlu,.I '/,/ _t-U 'ctf-C,. l /IL,tb/,,1_ r hlUt.d- t!u. ff'>

l) ~ £~fl-,_ ariCt ~- l Vi- V''"j 'ct '~ i e. . .f (.l.,. I (C..e.v, s e LtJ . '!'< d ( Jl'r1-e I to ro 6 rn. e... ~ f u-t. rn e. 1 Y\ <:;{ a.M..l e,,,r, L aVV\ Gt l So v ~~1 V\t;t~ of- he·<A-\"\ft) . ~j~/(1 d~tAF·

P. S, 'L ct l 5 O O f {J O 5 .e_ b o -r,,,ft_, a, I/ -clve.; g-u_n \r I j k:t S

1: ~ ·1 i;a.,, ti V -t. -S -

Jan.29.2020 9:53AM

Oregon Department of Justice The Honorable Ellen Rosenblum, Attorney General-State of Oregon 1162 Court St. NE Salem, OR 97301-4096

January 28, 2020


No. 0354 P. 2


The draft ballot title of "Certain semiautomatic firearms sold I transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits" does not comport with Oregon Revised Statute 250 035 (ORS 250.035), nor does it comport with established state case law relative to the matter.

ORS 250.035 (2)(a) requires that the title, or caption" .. . reasonably identifies the subject matter of the state measure.') Fuiiher, Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169, 174-75, 903 P2d 366 (1995) holds that:

''A caption satisfies the statutory requirement that it must 'reasonably identify' a measure's subject if...it states or describes the subject accurately and in terms that will

hot conj use or mislead potential petition signers and vote1·s. "(Emphasis added).

The draft ballot title employs ambiguous and potentially misleading terms like "certain semiautomatic firearms)', ''purchase restrictions", and "magazine capacity ltmits" that do not accui-a.tely represent the scope and the impact of the proposed measure.

In its application, the proposed measure broadly re-defines as "semiautomatic assault firearms" many firearms that, for decades and in some cases over a century, have been overwhelmingly in common use in the United States for lawful purposes. The term

"semiautomatic assault.firearms", a politically and emotionally charged term that has no universally accepted definition, and the proposed caption makes no mention of the measure's reclassification of a large portion of lawful; commonly owned firearms as such.

Further, the proposed initiative, while making no reference to training requirements in the draft caption, imposes a litany of new training requirements on law~abiding citizens that wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights, to include the following very specifically defined classes:

Jan.29.2020 9:54AM No. 0354 P. 3

► "semiautomatic firearm safety";

► "Firearms and childten, including talking to children about gun safety,,;

► Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use, specifically related to semiautomatic assaultfirearms";

► "Firearms and suicide prevention"; and

► "Safe handling of firearms and ammunition, specifically including semiautomatic

assault firearms. "

Finally, the proposed measure seeks to re-define standard capacity magazines as "largecapacity magazines'', and subsequently criminalize their possession. The vague elusion to "magazine capacity limits'' does not sufficiently identify the substantial impact that this measure will have on citizens that own modern firearms, nearly all of which are specifically designed to accept magazines with a capacity greater than l 0-rounds.

While the text of the measure does provide a definition of the term "semiautomatic assault firearm" as applied in this particular instance~ does detail the training requirements imposed on firearm purchasers1 and does go on to explain the criminalization of the ownership of modem, standard capacity magazines, ORS 250. 0351 specifically states that it is t!te text of the caption that "must reasonably identify the subject matter of the state measure" not the text of the measure. Further, the caption makes no mention of new age restrictions, new waiting period requirements, expanded background check requirements, or new licensing requirements for firearm owners.

In sum, the proposed caption uses ambiguous and misleading terms that elude to "certain semiautomaticfirearmi', "purchase restrictions", and "magazine capacity limits." None of these terms are sufficient to describe the broad, meandering scope and impact of the proposed measure. Additionally, the proposed measure does not contain a "single subject or closely 1·elated subject" as 1·equired under the Oregon Constitution, Article IV, §1, Article XVII and OAR 165-014-0028. lt contains numerous separate subjects, not one of which is adequately identified in the caption. For these reasons I strongly object to the proposed ballot caption for Initiative Petition 2020-60, and insist that it be rejected and tevised.

Yours Very Truly,

J,IO~,...,/'r"1. C. W11L-.T6rz,S -~~

~ cv¾·

Jan.29.2020 9: 54AM

Citations

Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169, 174-75, 903 P2d 366 (1995)

Or. Rev. Stat.§ 250,035 {2017).

No. 0354 P. 4



Mike Yonkman < michaelyonkman [email protected]> Wednesday, January 29, 2020 10:49 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Challenge to IP 2020-60 ballot title


Title leaves out the storage and transportation requirements described in section S;d.

11 Magazine capacity restrictions" does not cover the scope and breadth of ammunition storage devices described in sections 3, 4 of the ballot. Does not describe storage and transportation requirements of magazines (section 6 c) (impacts concealed carry holders).

"Adds purchase restrictions11 is too generic and does not encompass the expansive breadth of said restrictions, therefore misleading the public.

Title does not adequately describe the new age discrimination requirements.

Title does not adequately describe new waiting period requirements.

Title does not describe the creation of new state procedures for the licensing of firearm owners, or the additional cost to the state.

Sent from my iPhone

1

VIA EMAIL

Oregon Secretary of State Bev Clarno 255 Capitol Street NE, Suite 501 Salem, OR 97301


Elections Division

January 29, 2020

Subject: Objection to Ballot Title for Initiative Petition (IP) 2020-060 '7he Reduction of Gun Violence Act Through Regulation of Semiautomatic Assault Firearms and Large Capacity Magazines. 11

Dear Secretary Clarno,

This letter comprises my objection to the draft ballot title for IP 2020-060, which currently reads: "Certain jlrearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits.»

The ballot measure as currently written encompasses many infringements on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Oregon firearms owners. Oregon Revised Statues (ORS) Section 250.035 requires that the ballot title of any Initiative consist of 15 words that reasonably Identify the subject matter of the measure. Because the subject matter In this measure encompasses a such a wide range of potential impacts, it Is Impossible to reasonably identify those Impacts within the 15 words allowed. Therefore, voters will llkely be misinformed regarding the gravity of the measure. The ambiguity of the ballot title seems to be a deliberate attempt to mislead voters by significantly downplaying the serious and wideranging Impacts that the associated initiative that will have on the rights of Oregon citizens.

• The ballot measure has created a new firearms category of "semiautomatic assault firearm," which Is a "buzzword" used by anti-firearms groups In order to frighten the public. In the ballot text, this new category encompasses more than 200 models of firearms currently In common use by Oregon citizens. The words "Certain jlrearmsn In the ballot title do not adequately describe the class of firearms being targeted by this measure.

• The ballot title Includes the words "adds purchase restrictions." This seems Intentionally vague, given that the ballot measure contains several major restrictions on the purchase and transfer of firearms, including a minimum age requirement; onerous training requirements, and additional background check and transfer requirements. These major changes to existing law are not adequately described by the words "adds purchase restrictions."

• The words "magazine capacity limits" also seems Intentionally vague and do not adequately describe the scope of those limits, nor do they make clear It that those who find themselves not In compliance with the new limits could be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

IP60 - Objection to Ballot Title - Page 1 of 2 (Keith LaHale)

To relterate - thls ballot measure wlll have slgnlftcant lmpac.ts on Oregon cltlzens) and wlll llk.ely make criminals out of many lawaabiding firearms owners. The ballot title Is ambiguous, and it does not adequately disclose the gravity of the regulations which will be enacted through this measure. Therefore, I respectfylly request that the current ballot title be Invalidated. as It does not "reasonably identify the subject matter" of the measure as required by the ORS.

Sincerely,

(~~ Keith LaHale Central Point, OR


Elections Division

IP60 - Objection to Ballot Title - Page 2 of 2 (Keith LaHale)

To:

From:

Date: Subject:

Oregon Attorney General's Office through Oregon Secretary of State Nathan Brown, Oregon Resident Email: [email protected]

January 28, 2020 COMMENTS TO THE DRAFT BALLOT TITLE OF IP 2020~60


Elections Division

My name is Nathan Brown and these are my comments for the Draft Ballot Title of IP 2020-60. The current Draft Ballot Title does not accurately depict all of the major effects of the measure. It does not meet the requirements of OHS 250.035.

A major part of the measure is defining the term "semiautomatic assault firearm" (IP 2020-60 Sec.3(9)). Nowhere in the Draft Ballot Title does it say this measure defines a new class of firearm. Three quarters of the measure deals with "semiautomatic assault firearms" and the Draft Ballot Title should reflect that. The summary should have some wording that states this measure creates a new class of firearm and defines said firearms. As a side note I find it funny that "semiautomatic assault firearm" is not mentioned in the Draft Ballot Title but in its place is "certain semiautomatic firearms", great way to mislead Oregon Voters.

The phrase "certain semiautomatic firearms (including some rifles, shotguns, and handguns)" in the current Summary of the Draft Ballot Title is false. The measure lumps many other items in the definition as well.

IP 2020-60 Sec.3(9)(f) states "a part or combination of parts" for common rifles will be defined as "semiautomatic assault firearms". Can you believe this measure wants to define "parts" of a firearm as a firearm and would reqllire Oregon citizens to get a background check for firearm parts?

IP 2020··60 Sec.3(9)(a) states a "selective-fire rifle capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire "will be defined as a "semiautomatic assault firearm". These firearms are already defined under Oregon law (ORS 166.210 (6)) as a "machine gun" and under US law (26 U.S.C. 5845(b)) as a "machine gun". Machine guns are NOT semiautomatic firearms. Please make changes to the Summary reflecting above mentioned items of the measure.

The word "some" and "certain" in the phrase "certain semiautomatic firearms (including some rifles, shotguns, and handguns)" in the Summary and the word "certain" in the Caption of the Draft Ballot Title should be omitted. The word "some" gives the voter the idea that only a small number of said firearms will be affected by the new defined classification. The word "certain" gives the voter the idea that only specific known firearms will be affected by the new defined classification. The fact is the way the measure is intentionally worded most semiautomatic firearms would become included in the measures proposed definition of "semiautomatic assault firearm" (IP 2020·60 Sec.3(9)).

IP 202-60 Sec.3(9)(d),(e) use the verbiage "a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle". The use of the comma in this phrase makes the words "semiautomatic" and "centerfire" coordinate adjectives that separately modify the noun "rifle". The placement of this comma makes these sections not only about semiautomatic centerfire rifles but also semiautomatic rifles in general with the other attributes listed in these sections. You can say that all semiautomatic rifles will be included in the "semiautomatic assault firearm" definition not just "some" or "certain" rifles.

IP 2020-60 Sec.3(9) as a whole is very vague and has a lot of ambiguities. An Oregon voter will have a hard time trying to figure out what firearms are actually defined. As such an accurate Draft Ballot Title will be most impossible to come up with.

IP 2020-60 Sec.4(11) creates a permanent registry of "semiautomatic assault firearm" owners obtained from the background checks and maintained by the Oregon State Police. This is an important item of the measure and should be added to the Caption or the Summary of the Draft Ballot Title.

IP 2020-60 Sec.5(3)(d) creates safe storage requirements for "semiautomatic assault firearms". This is another important effect of the measure. The Summary of the Draft Ballot Title should have some verbiage describing this.

IP 2020-60 Sec.6(3)(C) creates safe storage requirements for "large-capacity magazines". The Summary of the Draft Ballot Title should have this in it as well. Oregon citizens, especially CHL holders should be made aware of this because effectively it would only allow you to carry a 10 round magazine in your defensive firearm.

IP 2020-60 Sec.6(3)(c) will create penalties and liabilities for Oregon "gun dealers". This section would force "gun dealers" to have to take a lose of profit moving magazines out of state, pay to have magazines retrofitted as to not be able to take more than 10 rounds, or destroy their inventory of magazines. Not only does it affect the separately sold magazines but it would also force "gun dealers" to do the same things with the magazines they have with their in-stock firearms. You are talking a lot of time, headache and money out of pocket for compliance.

The caption of the Draft Ballot Title of IP 2020-60 should read as follows:

"sale, transfer, ownership, restrictions: most Semiautomatic firearms and magazines. Creates registry. Penalties, liabilities for citizens" 15 words as per ORS

Nathan Brown Signed:



Hello,

Caleb Pifer <[email protected]> Wednesday, January 29, 2020 1:51 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Initiative 60-62

I read the January 19th Oregonian article about gun control and Initiatives 60 thru 63 and I am obligated to comment: The State of Oregon seems to have conveniently forgotten the second amendment to the Constitution. What authority does the State have to regulate magazine sizes? To restrict gun dealers to sell only "certain

semiautomatic weapons"? How would a five day waiting period do anything except make it more difficult for citizens (who haven't broken any laws) to purchase :firearms? How is this anything except an attempt to take away Oregonian's right to self-defence? " ... the right of the

people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." These proposals are unconstitutional and a threat to the citizens basic civil rights.

Those are my comments.

Sincerely,

Concerned Citizen

1



Dear Senator,

Joshua Shanks <[email protected] > Wednesday, January 29, 2020 1 :55 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS

Petition

Any infringement on our Second Amendment right to bear arms is unconstitutional and puts American Society in harms way. The Second Amendment is the only amendment that gives the Bill of Rights a backbone. It is the only amendment that empowers the citizens of our country to enforce the Constitution and no part of it should ever be infringed. If it were to be infringed in any way shape or form, our ability to worship God, our freedom of speech, our right to due process, etc. all become at risk of being infringed or denied as well. Banning high capacity magazines will accomplish absolutely nothing and you know it. The only thing it will accomplish is putting our beloved officers In harm's way when enforcing your new gun regulation laws that are unconstitutional as many Oregonians will not comply. "Assault" rifles have been banned in the past, for 10 years straight and it did nothing to prevent crime. Your time would be better spent fixing a corroded culture in our urban centers of our state and help position that culture into one that values life itself. That culture is the root cause of the evil things you are trying to prevent and is what needs to be addressed. Guns are absolutely not the issue here. Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Joshua Shanks

1

Oregon Secretary of State Via email: [email protected]

RE: 2020-IP060 Dear Madam Secretary of State Clarno,

I disagree with the Ballot Title of Initiative Petition 2020-IP060


Elections Division

January 29, 2020

"Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits".

The title is misleading and ambiguous. Further I believe it may be in violation of the Oregon Constitution: "Right to Bear Arms in Oregon Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution states: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]"

We have the right to bear arms.

Certain semiautomatic firearms, in the text of initiative petition, defines semiautomatic, and lists virtually every semiautomatic rifle and handgun made today.

IP060 really states, Bans ownership/transfer of non-revolver type rifles or handguns.

Further, the ballot title lists magazine capacity limits. This is misleading in that people who do not own firearms, or know very little about firearms, and magazine capacity may be under the impression that magazines hold well above 10 rounds. This statement is ambiguous. Title could state magazine limit 10 rounds.

Finally, ... " sold/transferred through gun dealers only" ... a voter needs to read the text to know this excludes members of the armed forces.

Considering the opinions of the Oregon Supreme Court regarding 2018-IP043, June 27, 2018, Control number S065981, wherein similar wording is used. I believe this

title is not clear and succinct and is violation of my right to bear arms. I should be able to have the firearm that is one I can personally handle and with enough magazine capacity wherein I can protect myself and others in the event of a multi-person attack.

Thank you for your service to Oregon,

Jo Rae Perkins, registered voter 1033 Maple St SW Albany, OR 97321 (541) 979-5395



mike chandler <[email protected]> Wednesday, January 29, 2020 3:16 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS IP 60 Ballot Title

The current ballot initiative title does not adequately described the scope and multiple subjects covered in the body of IP 60.


Title does not describe the storage and transportation requirements in section 5; d of the ballot.

"magazine capacity limits" does not cover the scope and breath of ammunition storage devices described in the ballot section 3, 4. Title does not describe new and unique regulations and restrictions for manufacturers (Section 6). Does not describe restrictions on storage and transportation requirements of magazines. (section 6(c)) (impacts concealed carry holders)

"adds purchase restrictions " is too generic, broad and does not encompass the expansive multiple requirements and programs that could be interpreted many ways, thus confusing or misleading the public. Title does not adequately describe the new age discrimination restrictions. (section 4, 3b )(Section 5) Title does not adequately describe new waiting period restrictions.(section 4, 8A) Title does not adequately describe changes in dealer handling of the background check process. (section 4) Title does not adequately describe the new training requirements (pass handgun concealed carry license course to purchase a rifle, etc ... ), (section 4, 3e) Title does not adequately describe the creation of new State procedures for licensing firearms owners, or additional costs to the state (section 4) Title does not adequately describe the changes and expansion of the background check system as performed by the State of Oregon. (Section 4, part 5 and 6)

Title does not disclose that restrictions also apply to a transfer NOT thru a gun dealer (Section 4, 14(a))(Section 5) (i.e. lending or temporary transfer, such as hunting or rifle range)

Finally, the ballot title does not reflects the ballot act purpose as named by the chief petitioners; "Regulation of Semiautomatic Assault Firearms and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazines".

Thank you,

Mike Chandler

1

Stephen N. Trout Director, Elections Division Office of the Secretary of State 255 Capitol St. NE, Suite 501 Salem, OR 97310

Sent via email - [email protected]

Comments on Proposed Initiative #60 Draft Ballot Title

Dear Mr. Trout;


Elections Division

The Ballot title for Initiative #60, "Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun

dealers only: adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits" leaves out much of the

important information that Initiative #60 would do if passed. It creates a "Gun Registry,"

changing the current Oregon law that the State Police only keep records on sales and

transfers for 5 years. Gun Registries are the first step in gun confiscation and voters need to

see this in the Title.

The Title also leaves out the change in the law that Relatives can have guns transferred to

them Wlttrout the expensive cost of transfer through a Licensed Gun Deater (FFL hotder).

Voters will have to look hard and read the current law to find this unnecessary change. It is

unclear how this will affect "standard capacity magazines," the magazines that came with the

gun. Do they go with the gun and are grandfathered in if purchased before this Initiative, if

passed, becomes law?

The phrase "Large Capacity Magazine" is inflammatory and incorrect. It should say "Standard

Capacity Magazines," which are the magazines that came with the gun.

Oregon law requires that an Initiative be limited to one specific subject, This Initiative has more

than one subject, including;

1. Gun restrictions

2. Magazine restrictions

3. Creation of a "Gun Registry."

4. Removal of the exemption that allows Relatives that are allowed to own firearms to

sell/transfer to/with each other without a FFL holder. This includes Wills and Trusts.

My edit to the Ballot title:

Only Dealers may sell/transfer semi-automatic firearms, creates gun registry, eliminates family

transfer, magazine limit.

Pagel of 2

Summary with edits;

Result of "Yes" Vote:

"Yes" vote only dealers may sell/transfer certain semiautomatic firearms: eliminates family

transfer: creates gun registry requires waitiAg period; minimum age 21; prohibits magazines

over 1 o rounds.

Result of "No" Vote;

"No'1 vote retains raws arlowing certain firearm sates/transfers to reratives persens without

using a other than gun dealer; minimum purchase age 18; no restriction on firearm standard

capacity magazines oapaoity.

Summary: Measure requires sales/transfers of certain semiautomatic firearms (including

some rifles, shotguns, and handguns) be performed by "gun dearer'' (defined); lncrudes

sales/transfers at gun shows. It Removes exemption for transfers to certain Relatives that are

legal to own firearms. Measure creates a 11Gun Registry." keeping records of sales/transfers

indefinitely and removes 5 year limit on record keeping by the State Police. Creates

requirement for firearm safety training every four years. Before oompleting sale/transfer, gun

sealer must oonfiFm that purohaser.'-transferee has completed appro'led firearm safety training

course in last four years and has passed orirninal background oheok. Measure limits

sales/transfers to persons 21 or over; requires minimum 5-day waiting period fFOm aay background check is requesteEf. Measure prohibits manufacture, purchase, Import, sare,

transfer or possession of "standard cagmclty magazines." "large capacity magazinesn (holding

more than 1 O rounds of ammunition ¥A1ioh oan be fired 1.t.,ithout reloading). Exceptions for law

enforcement, Armed Forces, and persons who possess large capacity magazines on or before

date measure becomes effective. Other prov, sfons.

Sincerely;

Peter Mark Furseth

59722 Woodland Terrace

St Helens, OR 97051

Page2 of 2

Eric C. Winters, Attorney RECEIVED JAN 29, 2020 4:16pm

Elections Division 30710 SW Magnolia Avenue Wilsonville, Oregon 97070

Via email: [email protected]

January 29, 2020

The Honorable Bev Clarno

Secretary of State of Oregon

Attn: Elections Division

255 Capital Street NE, Suite 501

Salem, OR 97310

Re: Comments on Draft Ballot Title for #2020-060

Dear Ms. Clarno:

Office: (503) 454-0828 Mobile: (503) 754-9096 Email: [email protected]

These comments are submitted pursuant to ORS 250.067 on behalf of Kevin Starrett by his

authorized legal counsel. Mr. Starrett is an Oregon elector who is not satisfied with the draft

ballot title filed by the Attorney General. Mr. Starrett is the Executive Director of Oregon

Firearms Federation (OFF), an organization with thousands of Oregon members that defends

the rights of hundreds of thousands of Oregon gun owners. Mr. Starrett requests that the

Caption, the Result of"Yes" Vote and Result of"No" Vote statements, and the Summary be

revised to meet the requirements of ORS 250.035.

Overview of IP 60

Initiative Petition 60 is a broadly sweeping piece of proposed legislation. It would

impose sales and transfer restrictions that encompass thousands of firearm models (some still

manufactured and many discontinued models still in use) and ban the acquisition of hundreds

of varieties of standard issue ammunition magazines and strictly curtail their use for those who

own owned such magazines prior to its passage. IP 60 imposes these regulations and

prohibitions on firearms and magazines that are perfectly legal under federal law. It would

prohibit the vast majority of Oregonians from acquiring the covered ammunition magazines and

strictly curtail their permissible uses. It would create a tier of exempt government entities (law

enforcement and US Armed Forces) who would be permitted purchase the firearms regulated by

and magazines banned IP 60 without its restrictions.

Private citizens who owned an ammunition magazine prior to its prohibition under IP 60 would

not be able to keep the magazine loaded during times of travel. This essentially means that

these standard issue firearm magazines will be rendered useless for self-defense if carried

outside of private property. Violations incur criminal penalties.

IP 60 will also regulate the sale and transfer of thousands of firearms, some of which are

specifically listed by model under Section 3(9)(a-b) but including far more unnamed models

that are captured within the expansive parameters of Section 3(9)(c-k). Included among the

Section 3 broad definitions are any "semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an ability to accept a

detachable magazine and has ... any ... stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the

rifle in a manner resulting in any finger on the trigger hand, in addition to the trigger finger,

being below any portion of the action of the rifle when firing." (IP 60, Section 3(d)(B)). This

definition encompasses nearly every centerfire, semiautomatic hunting rifle manufactured in

the last fifty years. A universal feature of rifles is a "stock" that permits one to use the rifle from

a fixed point of support at the shoulder. Similarly, another universal or near-feature ofrifles

features an "action" located above the trigger finger (and/or other fingers on the trigger hand).

While it would be technically possible (and permissible under IP 60) re-orient a rifle's stock to

permit placement of the trigger finger above the action of a rifle (i.e., requiring the user to fire

such rifles in an "upside-down" manner) that does not appear to be the purpose of IP 60, rather

it intends to sweep nearly all modern semiautomatic rifles (hunting, sporting, tactical) into a

single misleading label: "semiautomatic assault firearm".

This label is misleading in two respects, first that it labels all covered firearms "assault

firearms" using a biased term that expands the normative understanding of this term. Secondly

it is misleading because it encompasses more than just semi-automatic firearms. The draft ballot

title wisely avoided using the loaded term "assault" but unfortunately described IP 60 as only

affecting "certain semiautomatic weapons" even though it includes almost all semiautomatic

rifles and includes revolving cylinder shotguns that are clearly not semiautomatic. (Revolving

cylinder shotguns, like revolving cylinder handguns and rifles do not have an action that is

described as or popularly understood to be "semi-automatic"), IP 60 did not incorporate

revolvers or rifles with revolving cylinders within its definition of "semiautomatic" firearms, but

is clearly attempting to smuggle revolving action shotguns within that description.

The firearms encompassed by IP 6o's definitions would be subject to a laundry list of

purchase and transfer restrictions and requirements for commonly owned covered firearms that

include:

• Requiring all transfers of covered firearms through gun dealers

• Prohibiting transfer of covered firearms to persons aged 18-21

• Completing a firearm transaction record through a licensed gun dealer

• Training certifications for concealed handgun licensure, firearm safety, firearm

storage, child safety, suicide prevention, safe handling of firearms and

ammunition, state and federal firearm laws

• Creates waiting period for purchases/transfers of affected firearms, minimum of

five business days or longer until required database checks have been completed

• Creation and retention of electronic records of affected firearm transactions that

include firearm models and parties to transaction

• Purchase or transfer of a covered firearm in violation of IP 6o's requirements

• Transfer of a covered firearm to a person under 21

Although one of the main goals of IP 60 appears to be requiring the involvement of gun

dealers in transfers of the covered firearms, it is already a requirement of Oregon law that all

firearm transfers require the involvement of a licensed gun dealer (ORS 166.435) or a

background certification from the Oregon State Police (ORS 166.436) except for a list exceptions

that do not require third-party involvement to transfer a firearm. (166.345(4)). IP 60 would

alter this arrangement by requiring the purchase of all covered firearms to be made through a

gun dealer and not granting exceptions for transfers to family members, law enforcement

officers or even to gun "buy back" charity events. 1

1 See:, IP 60, Section 4(2), "all sales or transfers of a [covered firearm] .... initiated through .... an unlicensed transferor making a transfer covered by ORS 166.435, shall be completed through a gun dealer." ORS 166,435 covers nearly all types of firearm transfers from unlicensed persons (e.g, not gun dealers). Transfers from unlicensed persons include transfers to law enforcement officers under ORS 166.345(4)(a), transfers to gun "buy back" charities under ORS 166.345(4)(b), and transfers to family members listed in ORS 166.345(4)(c). Under a strict reading of IP 60 a person who found a covered firearm could not turn it over to a law enforcement officer ( even if commanded to do so) without the involvement of a gun dealer completing a background check on the law enforcement officer (and waiting a week).

Additionally, IP 60 bans the manufacture or sale what it labels "large capacity

magazines". To be considered a "large capacity magazine", an ammunition feeding device or

mechanism need only be able to accept more than 10 rounds (regardless of configuration or

semiautomatic firing capability). This definition applies an equivalent standard for belt or strip

feed ammunition feeding mechanisms for exotic firearms as it applies to the vast majority of

standard issue detachable magazines owned by Oregonians with modern semiautomatic pistols.

Nearly every Oregonian with a modern semiautomatic pistol will likely own at least one

detachable magazine that subjects them to criminal penalty by IP 60 if the owner were to carry it

within any loaded firearm (including those outside the group of "semiautomatic assault

firearms" under IP 60) while travelling in public. 2

IP 60 applies the same criminal penalty to all violations of its provisions: Class A

misdemeanor. This is the most serious of misdemeanor crimes imposing sentences of up to one

year in jail.

Comments on the Draft Ballot Title

A. The Caption

Pursuant to ORS 250.035(2)(a), a ballot title must contain a "caption of not more than 15

words that reasonably identifies the subject matter of the state measure." The caption must

"state or describe the proposed measure's subject matter accurately, and in terms that will not

confuse or mislead potential petition signers and voters." Lavey v. Kroger, 350 Or 559, 563

(2011). The "subject matter" of an initiative is its "actual major effect." Lavey, 350 Or at 563.

The "actual major effect" is the change or changes "the proposed measure would enact in the

context of existing law." Rasmussen v. Kroger, 350 Or 281,285 (2011). "The caption is the

cornerstone for the other portions of the ballot title." Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169,175

(1995), The caption operates as a "headline" because it "provides the context for the reader's

consideration of the other information in the ballot title." Greene, 322 Or at 175.

A caption is "underinclusive" when it does not notify voters of all the major effects of a

measure, and thereby fails to comply with ORS 205.035. Towers v. Myers, 341 Or 357,362

(2006). "When the Attorney General chooses to describe the subject matter of a proposed

2 Following the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 2004, standard issue magazine sizes increased with market demand. Standard issue magazines for most post-2004 semiautomatic pistols are typically capable of holding more than 15 rounds. A handful of states have implemented 10 round magazine limits.

measure by listing some of its effects, [s]he runs the risk that the caption will be underinclusive

and thus inaccurate." Towers, 341 Or at 361. See also Mccann v. Rosenblum, 354 Or 701, 706

(2014) (''[ w ]hen the Attorney General chooses to describe a measure by listing the changes that

the proposed measure would enact, some changes may be of 'sufficient significance' that they

must be included in the description"). Each major effect of an initiative should be conveyed in

the caption. "A ballot-title caption written in terms so broad that they convey only one highly

generalized aspect of [an initiative's] multiple, important effects does not substantially comply

with ORS 250.035(2) and must be modified." Mccann, 354 Or at 707.

The Caption provided in the draft ballot title reads:

Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds

purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits

The proposed Caption is flawed because it does not reasonably identify the measure's subject

matter. IP 60 would make incredibly expansive changes to existing state law in the following

ways:

A. It would sweep innumerable models of firearms and magazines into two new

classifications "semiautomatic assault firearms" or "large capacity magazines"

B. It would criminalize the transfer of a covered firearm between family members

unless transfer was conducted through a "gun dealer"

C. It would create a minimum five day wait period to purchase a covered firearm and

eliminate the maximum three day for receiving background clearance to purchase

one

D. It would require concealed handgun training (even for rifle purchases) and add six

new educational categories that must be certified as completed by purchasers of

covered firearms

E. It would create a database of transferors, transferees and models of covered

firearms transferred by or through "gun dealers"

F. It would criminalize the transfer of a covered firearm to a person under 21

G. It would criminalize the possession or transfer of covered magazines by civilians

while exempting qualified government employees/agents and members of the

military

H. It would ban civilians from acquiring additional covered magazines or selling them

to anyone other than a "gun dealer"

The Caption in the Draft Ballot Title fails to inform the voter of these subject matters to

the extent that space is available and incorporates misleading language from the text of the

initiative by applying the term "semiautomatic" to a class of covered firearms that do not fit

that description (revolving cylinder shotguns).

Mr. Starrett offers the following alternative caption:

Criminalizes possession/transfer of various firearms and magazines, exceptions;

requires training/wait period for purchases

B. The Results Statements

ORS 250.035(2)(b) requires that the ballot title contain a "simple and understandable

statement of not more than 25 words that describes the result if the state measure is approved."

The yes statement "should describe the most significant and immediate effects of the ballot

initiative for the general public." McCann, 354 Or at 707. The yes statement must "provide the

voter with sufficient substantive information to understand the policy choice proposed by the

measure's operative terms." Rasmussen v. Rosenblum, 354 Or 344,348 (2013). A Result of

"Yes" statement cannot inaccurate, confusing or misleading. "To substantially comply with [ORS

250.035(2)(b)], an accurate description of the change that will be caused by the measure is key."

Lavey, 350 Or at 564. The results statements cannot create even an "erroneous inference" of

current law or the impact the Initiative would have on current law. McCormick v. Kroger, 347

Or 293,300 (2009). The "Result of'Yes' Vote" and "Result of'No' Vote" statements should be

"written, so that, to the extent practicable, the language of the two statements is parallel." ORS

250.035(3).

The Draft Ballot Title contains the following Result of "Yes" Vote statement:

Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote provides that only gun dealers may sell/transfer

certain semiautomatic firearms; requires waiting period, minimum age 21; prohibits

magazines larger than 10 rounds

This result statement is misleading for the reasons cited above relating to the caption. It

employs "semiautomatic firearms" to describe firearms outsides that category. Also the use of

"certain" improperly suggests that there is a known number of firearm models encompassed by

IP 60. Although IP 60 specifically lists about 130 firearm models in Section 3(9)(a-b) it also

incorporates an unknown universe of other models and configurations that currently exist or

may be manufactured at a future date in Section 3(9)(c-k).

Mr. Starrett offers this alternative Result of "Yes" Statement:

Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" Criminalizes all transfers of various firearms without gun

dealer, bans magazines over ten rounds, exceptions; Firearm purchase requirements:

training certifications, longer wait, age 21.

The Result of "No" Vote statement in the Draft Ballot Title is as follows:

Result of"No" Vote: "No" vote retains laws allowing firearm sales/transfers by

persons other than gun dealers; minimum purchase age 18, no restriction on firearm

magazine capacity

The proposed "No" statement fails to inform the voter that under current law firearms may be

transferred between relatives without the involvement of third parties. It also does not inform

voters that restrictions on the purchase of handguns already require a purchaser to be 21 years

of age. Voters also should be instructed that training requirements required for concealed carry

licensure exist under current law even though IP 60 would require this training for purchasers

of covered firearms who have no intention of carrying a concealed firearm. Finally, under

current law, the maximum wait for clearance to purchase a firearm after the initiation of a

background check is three business days. IP 60 would transform the maximum wait into a

minimum wait of at least five business days ( one week) with no upper limit to the amount of

time a person who wishes to purchase a covered firearm must wait for clearance. These

changes should be described so that voters have a better grasp of the current framework of

laws governing firearm transfers in Oregon.

Mr. Starrett offers this alternative Result of "No" Statement:

Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains firearm laws allowing direct transfers to

police/family; concealed carry training; three day wait; minimum ages 18/rifles,

21/handguns; magazines unrestricted

The Summary should be a concise and impartial statement of no more than 125 words

summarizing the measure and its major effect. (ORS 250.035(2)(d)). The draft summary is

insufficient because it does not discuss current firearm laws within context of the proposed

changes. It also is misleading in that it refers to "certain semiautomatic firearms" in the

manner discussed above and it unnecessarily incorporates the drafter's use of the biased term

"large capacity magazines" which was included by drafters to induce voter support. The

magazines banned by IP 60 include hundreds of standard issue magazines that come with

modern handguns. IP 60 would also require the involvement of a gun dealer (and a 5 day wait

period) in transfers that are currently allowed under state law for public policy reasons: these

include turning over a covered firearm to a police officer, inheriting a covered firearm from a

relative, or donating a covered firearm to a buyback charity. Whether or not the drafters of IP

60 intended these exceptions to the current transfer requirements to be left out of IP 60, it is

clear that their chosen language leads to that result, and that result should be described for

voters.

Mr. Starrett submits the following Summary:

Summary: Currently firearm transfers permitted only through gun dealers or background

clearance from State Police. Transfer exceptions: law enforcement, gun buybacks, relatives.

Maximum three days for background check. Magazine capacity unrestricted. Training required

for concealed carry. Minimum purchase age 18 for rifles, 21 for handguns. Measure requires

sales/transfers of various firearms (including some rifles, shotguns, handguns) be performed

exclusively though gun dealers. Includes police/buybacks/family transfers. Gun dealer

confirms transferee completed concealed carry training and additional education, cleared

criminal background check. Minimum five day wait. No transfers to persons under 21.

Prohibits manufacture, purchase, import, sale, transfer or possession of ammunition

magazines capable of holding over 10 rounds. Exceptions: law enforcement, Armed Forces,

grandfathered magazines. Criminal violations - $6250 fine and up to year imprisonment. Other

provisions.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely Yours,

Eric Winters RECEIVED JAN 29, 2020 4:16pm

Elections Division

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION 11250 WAPLES MILL ROAD FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030-7400

January 29, 2020

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL The Honorable Beverly Clarno Secretary of State Elections Division 255 Capitol Street NE, Suite 501 Salem, Oregon 97310-0722 Fax: (503) 373-7414 Email: [email protected]

Re: Initiative Petition 2020-060 - Draft Ballot Title Comments

Dear Secretary Clarno,


Elections Division

As an Oregon elector, I, Keely Hopkins, write to comment on the Attorney General's draft ballot title for Initiative Petition 2020-060 (hereinafter, "IP60"). I also submit these written comments in my capacity as State Director for National Rifle Association of America ("NRA") and on behalf of our Oregon NRA members.

I. INTRODUCTION

IP60 would heavily regulate commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, ban the possession of these firearms by law-abiding adults, and ban standard capacity magazines. IP60 would deprive law-abiding Oregonians access to the firearms and magazines that Americans overwhelmingly choose for self-defense.

We appreciate the challenge the Attorney General faces under OR 250.035 when addressing a measure with the many inherent obscurities that IP60 contains. Nevertheless, as explained below in more detail, the draft ballot title does not satisfy the legal requirements of ORS 250.035 because the draft ballot title provides information that is too general to alert voters of the significance of the changes in the law the measure proposes.

II. THE CAPTION

ORS 250.035(2)(a) requires that a ballot title contain "[a] caption of not more than 15 words that reasonably identifies the subject matter of the state measure." The caption serves as the "headline" or "cornerstone for the other portions of the ballot title" and must identify the proposal's subject matter in terms that will not "confuse or mislead potential petition signers and voters." Kain/Waler v. Myers, 337 Or 36, 40, 93 P3d 62 (2004) (quoting Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169, 174-75, 903 P2d 366 (1995) ). In addition, the Attorney General must look past "politically charged" phrases and prepare a

January 29, 2020 Page2

ballot title that is "impartial" so as to prevent argument, misleading descriptions, or emotionally laden words within the ballot title. Carson v. Kroger, 351 Or 508,270 P3d 243 (2012); Hamilton v. Myers, 326 Or 44,943 P2d 214 (1997).

As the Oregon Supreme Court recently emphasized, the "subject matter" is the "actual major effect" or effects of the measure. Laveyv. Kroger, 350 Or 559,563,285 P3d 1194 (2011). "To identify the 'actual major effect' of a measure, this court examines the text of the proposed measure to determine the changes that the proposed measure would enact in the context of existing law and then examines the caption to determine whether the caption reasonably identifies those effects." Rasmussen v. Kroger, 350 Or 281,285,253 P3d 1031 (2011).

A caption that is underinclusive, because it does not notify readers of all the major effects of an initiative, is statutorily noncompliant. Towers v. Myers, 341 Or 357, 362 (2006). "When the Attorney General chooses to describe the subject matter of a proposed measure by listing some of its effects, [ s ]he runs the risk that the caption will be underinclusive and thus inaccurate. Towers, 341 Or at 361. See also McCann v. Rosenblum, 354 Or 701, 706 (2014) ("[w]hen the Attorney General chooses to describe a measure by listing the changes that the proposed measure would enact, some changes may be of' sufficient significance' that they must be included in the description"). Each major effect of an initiative should be conveyed in the caption. "A ballot-title caption written in terms so broad that they convey only one highly generalized aspect of [an initiative's] multiple, important effects does not substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2) and must be modified." McCann, 354 Or at 707.

The caption prepared by the Attorney General for IP60 states:

CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS SOLD/TRANSFERRED THROUGH GUN DEALERS ONLY; ADDS PURCHASE RESTRICTIONS, MAGAZINE CAPACITY LIMITS

This proposed ballot title blatantly violates ORS 250.035(2)(a) and interpretive case law. It's focus on sales through gun dealers significantly misleads a readers about the effect of IP60. The description does not convey the sweeping changes that IP60 would make to the acquisition process for popular firearms and fails to mention entirely the broad gun ban on 18-20 year old law-abiding adults.

a. Certain semi-automatic firearms.

The draft ballot title fails to convey the sweeping definition of "semiautomatic assault firearm" in IP60, which is itself a deceptive and politically-charged term that has no relation to commonly-accepted firearm definitions. It would include any semi-automatic rifle that has a detachable magazine and one of several features common on modern firearms, such as a pistol grip or thumbhole stock, a protruding grip, a folding or telescopic stock, a barrel shroud, or a forward pistol grip, as well as features unrelated to the performance of the firearm, including a "bayonet mount" and "grenade launcher". 1 The definition would also include any semi-automatic centerfire

1 While grenade launcher attachments for use on rifles do not fall within the definition of a "destructive device" under the National Firearms Act, the grenades used in these devices are highly regulated. pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5845; 27 CFR 479.11.


rifle less than thirty inches in length.2 The definition would further include any semi-automatic pistol that has a detachable magazine plus one of many standard features such as a protruding grip, a threaded barrel, or the ability to accept a detachable magazine outside the pistol grip. Lastly, it would also include any semi-automatic shotgun that includes a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, a protruding grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a revolving cylinder, or an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Semi-automatic firearms were introduced in the 19th century. The first semi-automatic rifle was introduced in 1885, the first semi-automatic pistol in 1892, and the first semi-automatic shotgun in 1902. Semi-automatic firearms account for more than 25 percent of the over 400 million privatelyowned firearms in the United States today. This percentage is rising, because semi-automatics account for more than half of the 10-15 million new firearms purchased each year. Semi-automatic firearms discharge only one shot when the trigger is pulled-like revolvers, bolt-actions, leveractions, pump-actions, double-barrels and all other types of firearms except fully-automatic firearms(machine guns). As such, these firearms are not "dangerous and unusual weapons," but rather those "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" as clearly protected by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Heller v. United States.3

b. Sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions

The draft ballot title's description of its impact on, semiautomatic firearms is also seriously flawed. The implication of this language is that the affected firearms are currently not generally required to be sold through licensed dealers, but that is incorrect. Oregon law has generally required all firearm transfers to be processed through gun dealers since 2015.4

The real impact of 1P60 would be to create substantial burdens on the acquisition of these firearms through a mandatory waiting period, training requirement, and duplicative background check procedure. None of this is conveyed by the current language.

1P60 would create a sweeping ban on the possession of firearms by law-abiding adults 18-20 years of age, yet the draft title completely fails to mention this ban.

c. Magazine capacity limits

The draft ballot title also fails to convey the scope of its restrictions on firearm magazines. 1P60's definition of "large capacity magazine" yet again employs a deceptive and politically-charged term that has no relation to commonly-accepted firearm definitions. 1P60 imposes a sweeping legal change by defining "large capacity magazine" as any ammunition-feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds; or any conversion kit or combination of parts from which such a device can be assembled.

2 The definition is also duplicative, since the National Firearms Act already highly regulates rifles having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length and weapons made from a rifle with an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel ( or barrels of less) than 16 inches in length. 26 U.S.C. 5845; 27 CPR 479.11.

3 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

4 2015ORS941


The reality is that ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are standard for most handguns and rifles.5 These "standard capacity magazines" are used in firearms commonly kept at home and carried outside the home for protection and are commonly used in defensive firearm training and sports. Once again, these items are not "dangerous and unusual weapons," but rather "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."

Because the Attorney General's proposed caption for IP60 fails to employ the criteria set forth in ORS 250.035(2)(a) and applicable case law, as explained above, we recommend the following caption:

RESTRICTS SEMI-AUTOMATIC HANDGUNS, RIFLES, SHOTGUNS, AND THEIR MAGAZINES, BANS POSSESION FOR 18-20 YEAR OLDS

III. RESULT OF "YES" VOTE

ORS 250.035(2)(b) mandates that a ballot title contain a "simple and understandable statement of not more than 25 words that describes the result if the state measure is approved." The purpose of this section of the ballot title is to "notify petition signers and voters of the result or results of enactment that would have the greatest importance to the people of Oregon." Novick v. Myers, 337 Or 568, 574, 100 P3d 1064 (2004). The yes statement is to build on the caption. Hamilton v. Myers, 326 Or 44, 52-53 (1997). Further, when a caption is modified, the results statements should also be modified to conform to the changes made to the caption. Phillips v. Myers, 325 Or 221,227,936 P2d 964 (1997).

The proposed yes statement prepared by the Attorney General for IP60 states:

RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "YES" VOTEPROVIDESTHATONLYGUN DEALERS MAY SELL/TRANSFER CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS,· REQUIRES WAITING PERIOD, MINIMUM AGE 21; PROHIBITS MAGAZINES LARGER THAN 10 ROUNDS.

The yes statement of the Attorney General's proposed ballot title magnifies the errors of the caption and, consequently, violates ORS 250.035(2)(b) and applicable case law. Further, it raises an additional problem: it blatantly ignores existing rights.

The yes statement makes a minimal attempt to explain the age ban, but its simple use of "minimum age 21" fails to convey to a reasonable reader that a "yes" vote would create an age-based ban on semiautomatic firearms.

The description of the waiting period requirement is similarly lacking. IP60 would use the existing background check procedure for concealed handgun licenses and apply it to semiautomatic firearms. Under the existing law, those background checks can take up to 45 days to perform. While the initiative language creates a minimum waiting period of five days, it is exactly that, a minimum. There is no limit on how long a background check could take to complete under IP60.

5 For example, standard magazines designed for the ubiquitous Glock 17 pistol hold 17 rounds, while standard magazines for comparable Beretta and SIG pistols hold between 15 and 20 rounds.

January 29, 2020 Page 5

Because of the above, the Attorney General's yes statement for IP60 violates ORS 250.035(2)(b) and the applicable case law. To correct these violations, we recommend the following yes statement:

RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "YES" VOTE RESTRICTS SEMI-AUTOMATIC HANDGUNS, RIFLES, SHOTGUNS, AND BANS THEIR MAGAZINES, BANS POSSESION FOR 18-20 YEAR OLDS, CREATES LONG WAITING PERIODS FOR PURCHASE OF SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS

IV. RESULT OF "NO" VOTE

ORS 250.035(2)( c) requires that the ballot title contain a "simple and understandable statement of not more than 25 words that describes the result if the state measure" is rejected, that is, the status quo. As with the caption and the yes statement, the no statement cannot be inaccurate or misleading, and must accurately identify the subject matter of the measure. Towers v. Myers, 341 Or 487, 145 P3d 147 (2006); Perryv. Myers, 340 Or 180, 185-86, 131 P3d 721 (2006). The no statement must also "us[ e] the same terms" as the yes statement "to the extent practical." ORS 250.035(2)( c ). ORS 250.035(3) reinforces the requirement by requiring that the no and yes statements "be written so that, to the extent practicable, the language of the two statements is parallel."

The proposed no statement prepared by the Attorney General for IP60 states:

RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "NO" VOTE RETAINS LAWS ALLOWING CERTAIN FIREARM SALES/TRANSFERS BY PERSONS OTHER THAN GUN DEALERS; MINIMUM PURCHASE AGE 18,· NO RESTRICTION ON FIREARM MAGAZINE CAPACITY.

The no statement fails to convey that all firearm transfers must generally go through licensed dealers and that the current minimum purchase age is 18 for rifles and shotguns, but 21 for handguns. To correct these violations, we recommend the following no statement:

RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "NO" VOTE RETAINS LAWS REQUIRING FIREARM SALES/TRANSFERS THROUGH GUN DEALERS; MINIMUM PURCHASE AGE 18 FOR RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS; STANDARD CAPCITY FIREARM MAGAZINES PERMITTED.

V. SUMMARY

ORS 250.035(2)(d) requires a "concise and impartial statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state measure and its major effect." The goal of the summary is to "help voters to understand what will happen if the measure is approved" and the "breadth of its impact." Mabon v. Myers, 332 Or 633, 640, 33 P3d 988 (2001), (quoting Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Roberts, 308 Or 169, 175, 777 P2d 406 (1989)).

The proposed summary prepared by the Attorney General for IP60 states:

January 29, 2020 Pae 6

SUMMARY: MEASURE REQUIRES SALES/TRANSFERS OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS (INCLUDING SOME RIFLES, SHOTGUNS, AND HANDGUNS) BE PERFORMED BY "GUN DEALER" (DEFINED); INCLUDES SALES/TRANSFERS AT GUN SHOWS. BEFORE COMPLETING SALE/TRANSFER, GUN DEALER MUST CONFIRM THAT PURCHASER/TRANSFEREE HAS COMPLETED APPROVED FIREARM SAFETY TRAINING COURSE IN LAST FOUR YEARS AND HAS PASSED CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK MEASURE LIMITS SALES/TRANSFERS TO PERSONS 21 OR OVER; REQUIRES MINIMUM 5-DAY WAITING PERIOD FROM DAY BACKGROUND CHECK IS REQUESTED. MEASURE PROHIBITS MANUFACTURE, PURCHASE, IMPORT, SALE, TRANSFER OR POSSESSION OF "LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES" (HOLDING MORE THAN JO ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION WHICH CAN BE FIRED WITHOUT RELOADING). EXCEPTIONS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, ARMED FORCES, AND PERSONS WHO POSSESS LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES ON OR BEFORE DATE MEASURE BECOMES EFFECTIVE. OTHER PROVISIONS.

The summary of the Attorney General's ballot title carries forward all the problems of the caption and the yes statement. Consequently, it violates ORS 250.035(2)(d) and applicable case law. We hereby incorporate the comments articulated in sections II, III, and N above into this section as additional argument as to why the Attorney General's draft summary violates ORS 250.035.

Because of the above, the Attorney General's summary for IP60 violates ORS 250.035(2)(d) and applicable case law. To correct these violations, we recommend the following summary:

SUMMARY: MEASURE RESTRICTS SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUNS, RIFLES, AND SHOTGUNS. BEFORE COMPLETING SALE/TRANSFER, GUN DEALER MUST CONFIRM THAT PURCHASER/TRANSFEREE HAS COMPLETED APPROVED FIREARM SAFETY TRAINING COURSE IN LAST FOUR YEARS AND HAS PASSED CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK. MEASURE BANS POSSESSION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUNS, RIFLES, AND SHOTGUNS BY 18-20 YEAR OLDS; REQUIRES MINIMUM 5-DAY WAITING PERIOD FROM DAY BACKGROUND CHECK IS REQUESTED, BUT BACKGROUND CHECK MAY TAKE LONGER. MEASURE BANS MANUFACTURE, PURCHASE, IMPORT, SALE, TRANSFER OR POSSESSION OF "LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES" (HOLDING MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION WHICH CAN BE FIRED WITHOUT RELOADING). EXCEPTIONS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, ARMED FORCES, AND PERSONS WHO POSSESS LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES ON OR BEFORE DATE MEASURE BECOMES EFFECTIVE. OTHER PROVISIONS.

VI. CONCLUSION

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough consideration of these comments. We acknowledge that drafting ballot titles is a difficult task. We offer these comments to assist in

January 29, 2020 Page 7

certifying a ballot title that is fair, accurate, impartial, and compliant with ORS 250.035 - so that the voter may make and cast a fully-informed vote in November 2020.

Sincerely,

Keely M. Hopkins State Director NRA-ILA State and Local Affairs


Elections Division

.. ~♦ Bennett ~ Hartman

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP


Elections Division

Robert A. Bennett (1931-2018) Nora J. Broker

Thomas K. Doyle WA

Nelson R. Hall Gregory A. Hartman

Henry J. Kaplan NY

Linda J. Larkin • Aruna A. Masih WA

Margaret Olney direct: 503.546.9634 [email protected]

Michael J. Morris Richard B. Myers WA

Margaret S. Olney WA

Trent R. Taylor KY,Mo

Other state admissions noted

Via email: [email protected]

The Honorable Bev Clarno Secretary of State Elections Division 255 Capital Street NE, Suite 501 Salem, Oregon 97310-0722

January 29, 2020

Re: Initiative Petition 60 (2020) - Draft Ballot Title Comments Our File No. 18717-01

Dear Secretary Clarno:

This office represents Rev. Walter John Knutson, Rabbi Michael Cahana and Rev. Alcena E. Boozer, Chief Petitioners for IP 60 (2020). All are faith leaders and Oregon electors who care deeply about limiting the senseless deaths and emotional and physical trauma caused by the lack of effective gun regulations in Oregon. They write to comment on the Attorney General's draft ballot title for IP 60 (2020).

1. INTRODUCTION

Having witnessed the lack of action on either a state or national level to the senseless mass shootings using assault weapons and high capacity magazines, a group of faith leaders and other activists have filed IP 60 (2020), an initiative to regulate semiautomatic assault firearms and limit the manufacture and proliferation of high capacity magazines.1 Currently, Oregon law contains a patchwork of limited regulations concerning guns, none of which specifically address these particularly dangerous weapons. Semiautomatic assault firearms -which allow multiple rounds of ammunition to be shot without reloading or significant additional finger pressure - are the weapons of choice in mass shootings, causing the death or

1 This proposal, unlike IP 43 (2018), would not prohibit possession of semiautomatic assault firearms, but rather impose common sense regulations. While Chief Petitioners disagree strongly with the court's opinion in Beyer v. Rosenblum, 363 Or 157 (2018), they recognize that the ballot title for this proposal must be written with the court's comments in mind. Thus, they have not proposed that the ballot title use the phrase "semiautomatic assault weapon" or "large-capacity magazines".

~- of counsel

210 SW Morrison Street, Suite 500, Portland, Oregon 97204 office: 503.227.4600 I fax: 503.248.6800

WWW.BENNETTHARTMAN.COM

Knutson, Cahana and Boozer Comments -- IP 60 (2020) January 29, 2020

Page 2 of 12

injury of hundreds of innocent people, including students. Large-capacity magazines - which can hold 15, 50 or even 100 rounds of ammunition - similarly enable (and encourage) deadly outcomes of shootings. IP 60 is a modest proposal to regulate the sale and transfer of these firearms by requiring completed background checks, real waiting periods, targeted and meaningful safety training, and minimum age limits. It limits the proliferation of large-capacity magazines that allow a shooter to fire repeatedly without reloading by prohibiting the manufacture, purchase or sale of these magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, except for law-enforcement and military use.

The draft ballot title fails to adequately identify these two key concepts, instead making it sound like the primary or most significant change made by the proposal is to require the purchase and transfer through gun dealers. That is misleading. What IP 60 does is add significant new regulations on who can purchase or receive semiautomatic assault firearms and when. Those new requirements are the "meat" of the proposal. Then, to ensure more uniform and effective enforcement of those new restrictions, IP 60 requires all purchases and transfer of semiautomatic firearms to be through dealers. But gun dealers already play a significant role in implementing existing regulations for the purchase/sale of almost all firearms. The only exception is for transfers by private owners at gun shows - where gun dealers may still be involved in requesting the background check Therefore, this change is not the actual subject of the proposal. Relatedly, because so many words are spent focused on gun dealers, the regulation of large-capacity magazines is inadequately described.

Below, we will first review relevant current law and then discuss how the measure works. We will then turn to the ballot title itself.

2. CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Currently, Oregon law does not regulate semiautomatic assault firearms any differently than other firearms. That is, the same rules apply to the purchase of these military-style (and similarly enhanced) weapons as those that apply to hunting rifles or shotguns, while handguns are subject to greater restrictions. More specifically, the following general rules apply:

■ No license is required to carry a firearm, except a concealed handgun. It is also permissible to openly carry any firearm. ORS 166.240; ORS 166.250(a); see also, NRA Oregon Gun Laws. www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/oregon/

■ Firearms can be sold or transferred through a federally registered gun dealer or at a gun show by private owners.2 While gun dealers have been required to request a background check since at least 2011 to determine whether the

2 Transfers between close family members or by inheritance do not require a background check. ORS 166.435(4)(c).


Page 3 of 12

purchaser may lawfully possess a firearm, the requirement was not imposed on private sellers (at gun shows or otherwise) until 2015. Since then, private owners transferring a gun outside of a gun show must go through a gun dealer to complete the background check. Private sellers at gun shows may personally request background checks or ask a gun dealer to do so. ORS 166.4438(1); ORS 166.435.3 The dealer must then retain the "firearms transaction thumbprint form" for five years. ORS 166.412(2)(f). In addition, gun dealers must enter information into a register, a copy of which is sent to local law enforcement.4

ORS 266.427. Private sellers must also retain records for five years. ORS 166.438(2).

■ Certain individuals are prohibited from possessing a firearm under ORS 166.250: o Convicted felons; ORS 166.270 and ORS 166.250(1)(c)(C); o Certain individuals with adjudicated mental illness under ORS 426.130

and ORS 426.133; and o Certain individuals who are subject to a domestic abuse order; ORS

166.255. ■ Handguns are subject to additional regulation. Unless the owner has a concealed

handgun permit, the handgun cannot be kept in an "accessible" place within a vehicle but must be in a closed and locked compartment. Owners wishing to carry a concealed handgun must obtain a license which requires, among other things, completion of firearms safety and training. ORS 166.291.

■ Possession of firearms or other dangerous weapons are prohibited in public buildings or court facilities, including schools. There are exceptions, however, for law enforcement and other public employees authorized to carry firearms, as well as individual's licensed to carry a concealed weapon. ORS 166.470.

With regard to ammunition, there are no separate laws regulating or restricting the sale of ammunition, with the exception of sales to individuals subject to a domestic abuse order (ORS 166.255) and a prohibition on making or possessing armor piercing handgun ammunition. ORS 166.350. See, www.lawcenter.giffords.org/ammunition-regulation-in-oregon. And, of

3 Although the statute refers to this as a "criminal" background check, the state police are required to check a variety of databases to determine whether the requestor may lawfully possess a weapon under ORS 166.250, including an "Oregon mental health data system." ORS 166.432. Thus, the required background check is more than a "criminal" records check, which means that it can be referred to in the ballot title as a "background check"

4 Prior to 2015, there were loopholes in the process that allowed transfers to be made by private citizens without conducting a background check See, ORS 166.433. Even now, under the "Geckas Amendment to the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of Nov. 1993," a federally registered gun dealer may deliver the firearm without a completed background check after three business days have passed with no clear response to the records request. See also, ORS 166.412(3)c). There is currently no accurate state registry for firearms.


Page 4 of 12

course, there is a lack of other significant gun safety regulations in Oregon, including any requirement that gun owners register their guns or obtain a license (any record keeping obligation is imposed on dealers, not gun owners); any limit on the number of firearms that can be bought at one time; or any requirement that guns to be stored safely. See, www.lawcenter.giffords.org/state-law/oregon; see also, www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gunlaws/oregon/.

3. HOW IP 60 WORKS

IP 60 adds provisions to ORS Chapter 166, which is where existing Oregon law regulating firearms is codified, to regulate and restrict the proliferation of semiautomatic assault firearms and large-capacity magazines. Consistent with existing law, violations of the new law generally constitute a Class A Misdemeanor,5 Compare, ORS 166.418, ORS 166.435, ORS 166.438 and OR 166.425 and IP 60, Section 4(15), Section 5(5) and Section 6(4).

A. Semiautomatic Firearms Defined

As a threshold matter, IP 60, section 3 sets out the operative definition for "semiautomatic assault firearm." It does so in two ways. First, it lists by make and model "selective-fire rifles" that are "capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user" and "semiautomatic centerfire rifles." Section 3(9)(a) and (b). Those named rifles and any copies or duplicates are subject to the regulations set out in Section 4 of the initiative. Section 3(9)(c).

In addition, Section 3(9)( d) through (k) describes those features and functions that render a firearm - be it a centerfire rifle, a pistol, or a shotgun - a "semiautomatic assault" firearm. For each of those styles of weapons, the key question is whether they possess design features that allow a person to fire a large number of rounds rapidly while maintaining control of the firearm, or to easily alter the firearm to do so. Specific features identified in IP 60 that allow an assault weapon to perform this way include:

■ Detachable magazine: A firearm that can accept a detachable magazine allows a shooter to attach magazines of any size available for the firearm. In some cases, magazines can hold as many as 100 rounds. Even smaller detachable magazines greatly increase firepower since the firearm can be reloaded with pre-filled magazines in seconds;

5 Because IP 60 tracks existing law, there is nothing new or noteworthy with regard to enforcement that needs to be included in the ballot title. Compare Beyer v. Rosenblum, supra.


Page 5 of 12

■ Pistol grip: To counteract the movement that occurs when a semiautomatic weapon is fired rapidly, assault weapons are typically equipped with features that allow the shooter to steady the weapon. A forward pistol grip, not typically found on a sporting rifle or shotgun (which would be fired from the shoulder), allows the shooter to control the firearm by shooting from the hip during rapid fire;

■ Folding or telescoping stock: A folding or telescoping stock folds or collapses to make the weapon easier to conceal and transport;

■ Shroud on barrel: A protective shroud allows the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned.

B. Large-Capacity Magazines Defined

As a corollary to regulating the semiautomatic assault firearms themselves, IP 60 also restricts the manufacture and sale of large-capacity magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. Thus, responsible gun owners who either already own semiautomatic firearms or those who satisfy the requirements for purchase or transfer, can still use their firearms as intended, but not with magazines that would render those firearms especially lethal. IP 60, Section 6(d) defines "large-capacity magazine" to include fixed or detachable magazines, or their functional equivalents, that are capable of accepting (or being converted as accept) "more than 10 rounds of ammunition and allows a shooter to keep firing without having to pause to reload" with a few limited exceptions. Again, the focus is on function.

C. Regulation of the Purchase or Transfer of Semiautomatic Firearms

IP 60 would enact common sense regulations governing the purchase and transfer of these dangerous firearms. The goal, of course, is to improve public safety, while also allowing responsible gun ownership. More specifically, IP 60, Section 4(3):

1. Requires that the person to whom the gun is being sold or transferred be at least 21 years old. Section 3(b). This is a modest change from current law. Under federal law, a gun dealer (also known as a "FFL Dealer" holding a federal firearms license) can only transfer or sell shotguns or rifles to someone over age 21. 18 USC Sec. 922(b)(l). Oregon law prohibits the transfer of firearms to someone under age 18. ORS 166.470(1)(a), with certain exceptions. Under IP 60, Section 5, an individual under the age of 21 may possess a semiautomatic firearm, but only in the person's home, real property or fixed place of business, or in their capacity as a member of the military or law enforcement. Section 5(3).

2. Requires that the person to whom the gun is being sold or transferred complete an enhanced safety training course. In addition to the basic training required to obtain a concealed handgun license under ORS 166.291(f), IP 60 requires confirmation that


Page 6 of 12

the purchaser has completed an approved training course that specifically addresses safe storage and handling of semiautomatic assault firearms, a review of laws relating to the sale and transfer of semiautomatic assault firearms, and firearms and suicide prevention. This is a significant change in current law as training is not

required to purchase any firearm; a general firearm safety course is only required to obtain a concealed handgun permit.

3. Requires a complete background check before a semiautomatic firearm can be purchased or transferred. Although current law generally requires background checks for the purchase or transfer of these firearms, if the background check does not clear within three days, a gun dealer may still make the transfer. ORS 166.412(3)(c). Under IP 60, the transfer of a semiautomatic firearm can only be made once the background check has been completed and the purchaser approved. Section 4(10).

4. Require a minimum five business day waiting period before a semiautomatic assault firearm is transferred. This waiting period is a distinct requirement from the background check. That is, a purchaser or transferee cannot physically receive a semiautomatic assault firearm for five business days, starting from the day the request for a background check has been submitted.

As is the case under current law, "gun dealers" (those licensed under federal law to sell firearms) have significant responsibility for enforcing these regulations. ORS 166.412(f), incorporating by reference 18 U.S.C. 921. That is, under current law, sales of guns are facilitated by dealers in retail shops (ORS 166.412(2)(a)-(e)) and private transfers (ORS 166.436), with the dealer responsible for making the request to state police for a background check and then delivering the firearm. The sale or transfer of firearms by private owners at gun shows may also involve gun dealers, (ORS 166.438), but that is not required, so long as the private owner completes the required background check. ORS 166.438. Thus, the only change in the gun dealer's role under IP 60 relates to transfers through gun shows. As discussed in more detail below, that change is not so significant - when compared to the new substantive requirements for the lawful transfer or purchase of semiautomatic assault firearms - that it justifies the focus in the draft ballot title placed on gun dealers.

D. Regulation of Large-Capacity Magazines

IP 60 generally prohibits the manufacture or sale of large-capacity magazines, except for use by the military or law enforcement. Section 6((2) and (3). Regarding the sale or transfer, large-capacity magazines owned by someone on the effective date of the measure may be retained for personal use or sold and transferred to a gun dealer for sale in another state. Gun dealers who have large-capacity magazines in stock on the effective date of the measure have


Page 7 of 12

180 days to either transfer them out of state or render them incapable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition.

4. DRAFT BALLOT TITLE

A. Caption

ORS 250.035(2)(a) provides that a ballot title contain "a caption of not more than 15 words that reasonably identifies the subject matter of the state measure." The caption is the "headline" or "cornerstone for the other portions of the ballot title" and to comply with the statute, it must identify the proposal's subject matter in terms that will not "confuse or mislead potential petition signers and voters." Kain/Waller v. Myers, 337 Or 36, 40, 93 P3d 62 (2004) (quoting Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or 169, 174-75, 903 P2d 366 (1995)). As the court has repeatedly emphasized, "the "subject matter" is the "actual major effect" of a measure or, if the measure has more than one major effect, all such effects (to the limit of the available words.)" Parrish v. Rosenblum, 365 Or 597, 600 (2019) (citations omitted; emphasis added). "To identify a measure's actual major effect (or effects), we consider the changes the proposed measure would enact in the context of existing law." Fletchall v. Rosenblum, 365 Or 98, 103 (2019) (internal quotations marks omitted; citation omitted).

The Attorney General issued the following draft caption:

Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits

This caption fails to meet the statutory standards because it impermissibly emphasizes one change at the expense of other substantive changes. Kendall v. Rosnblum, 358 Or 612 (2016). Voters reading the draft caption will believe that the primary objective or change is to require all sales to go through gun dealers. That is simply untrue. The most significant change proposed by IP 60 as it relates to the purchase or transfer of semiautomatic assault firearms is to add new restrictions on who can purchase or receive them and when. As is already the case for the majority of firearm purchases or transfers, gun dealers simply implement those new requirements. In other words, it is misleading to suggest that the subject of IP 60 is to regulate gun dealers, as opposed to the individuals purchasing or receiving the covered firearms.

The court's decision in Kendall is illustrative. In that case, the initiative required employers in Oregon to use the federal system to verify employment eligibility, and it enforced that mandate by adding a licensing requirement for private employers which could be sanctioned for failure to comply with employment verification provisions. The certified ballot title focused primarily on the imputed licensing scheme. The court agreed with proponents that, although the licensing scheme was "legally significant" as the "means" by which


Page 8 of 12

compliance would be accomplished, the focus on that aspect obscured the measure's major effect. Kendall, supra. 358 Or at 619. Similarly, while IP 60' s requirement that all purchases or transfers of semiautomatic firearms occur through gun dealers does represent a change for a subset of gun transfers, the actual true subject of the proposal is to add new restrictions on the purchase or transfer of those weapons. Stated differently, requirements on gun dealers are the means by which the law keeps firearms out of the hands of people who may not legally possess them.

The caption also falls short because it does not adequately describe the significant new provision relating to large-capacity magazines. The phrase "magazine capacity limits" provides scant information. For example, voters might not understand that "magazines" refers to ammunition magazines. It must be more detailed.

The following alternative provides a more balanced and complete "headline" to the measure. While there is insufficient word space to describe all new requirements for the lawful purchase or transfer of semiautomatic assault firearms, by leading with "restricts," voters will understand that the subject of the proposal is to add new regulations and limits on the purchase and sale of these firearms. This alternative also allows greater detail regarding the equally important limitation on large-capacity magazines. Additional detail can be added in the remainder of the ballot title.

Restricts purchase/transfer of certain semiautomatic firearms; prohibits ammunition magazines over ten rounds; exceptions.

B. Result of "Yes" Vote

ORS 250.035(2)(b) requires that a ballot title contain a "simple and understandable statement of not more than 25 words that describes the result if the state measure is approved." The purpose of this section of the ballot title is to "notify petition signers and voters of the result or results of enactment that would have the greatest importance to the people of Oregon." Novick v. Myers, 337 Or 568, 574, 100 P3d 1064 (2004). Typically, the "yes" vote result statement builds on the caption.

The Attorney General issued the following draft "yes" vote result statement:

RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote provides that only gun dealers may sell/transfer certain semiautomatic firearms; requires waiting period, minimum age 21; prohibits magazines larger than 10 rounds.

Like the caption, this statement impermissibly focuses on gun dealers, misleading the voters about the key subject and changes made by the proposal. The description of the


Page 9 of 12

substantive restrictions is also underinclusive. That is, only two of the four substantive changes are actually identified. Voters must be told about the requirement for enhanced safety training and completed background checks (which under IP 60, unlike current law, must be completed before the firearm is delivered), as well as minimum age and waiting period requirements.

The following alternative demonstrates that it is possible to do so within the word space available:

Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote requires background check, safety training, waiting period, minimum age (21) to purchase/transfer certain semiautomatic firearms; prohibits ammunition magazines over ten rounds; exceptions.

This alternative builds on the "headlines" set out in our proposed caption. It clearly explains to voters the new requirements for lawfully purchasing or receiving semiautomatic firearms. It puts "21" in parentheses to help with readability and it clarifies that the restriction is on ammunition magazines. 6 Finally, it lets voters know that there are exceptions - an important detail for a topic where advocates often allege extreme effects. We urge that this be adopted.

C. Result Of "No" Vote:

ORS 250.035(2)(c) requires that the ballot title contain a "simple and understandable statement" of up to 25 words, explaining "the state of affairs" that will exist if the initiative is rejected, that is, the status quo. It is also essential that the law described in the "no" vote result statement concern the subject matter of the proposal. Markley v. Rosenblum, 362 Or 531, 541 (2018) Otherwise, the description could mislead voters about the effect of their vote. Nesbitt v. Myers, 335 Or 219, 223, 64 P3d 1133 (2003). Finally, it is generally impermissible for the "no" result statement to simply state that a "no" vote rejects the "yes" vote. Nesbitt v. Myers, 335 Or 424,431, 71 P3d 530 (2003).

Here, the Attorney General drafted the following "no" vote result statement:

6 Another acceptable alternative would be to delete the specific age "(21)" but make clear that the measure requires a completed background check, since that is a significant change from the existing background check requirements. This alternative would read:

Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote requires completed background check, safety training, waiting period, minimum age to purchase/transfer certain semiautomatic firearms; prohibits ammunition magazines over ten rounds; exceptions.


Page 10 of 12

RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote retains laws allowing certain firearm sales/transfers by person other than gun dealers; minimum purchase age 18; no restriction on firearm magazine capacity.

This statement fails to meet the statutory standards because, like the remainder of the ballot title, it overemphasizes the change relating to gun dealers, and fails to adequately describe the current weak regulatory scheme. That is, semiautomatic firearms and largecapacity magazines are not subject to any specific firearm regulations, notwithstanding the fact that they are exceptionally lethal weapons (like machine guns), have no recognized noncriminal utility (unlike hunting rifles or handguns used for self-defense), and have been used in a large percentage of mass shootings and those targeting law enforcement. IP 60 seeks to change that. Accordingly, the relevant status quo is the lack of regulations, which currently allows that permit individuals to possess an unlimited number of these firearms.

We propose the following:

RESULT OF ✓1NO" VOTE: "No" vote retains current gun laws which provide no additional regulations restricting purchase/transfer of semiautomatic firearms or limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines.

D. Summary

ORS 250.035(2)( d) requires that the ballot title contain a summary which accurately summarizes the measure and its major effects in a concise and impartial manner. The goal is to provide voters with enough information to understand what will happen if the measure is approved and the "breadth of its impact." Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Roberts, 308 Or 169,175,777 P2d 406 (1989).

The Attorney General's draft summary reads:

Measure requires sales/transfers of certain semiautomatic firearms(including some rifles, shotguns, and handguns) be performed by "gun dealer" (defined);includes sales/transfers at gun shows. Before completing sale/transfer, gun dealer must confirm that purchaser/transferee has completed approved firearm safety training course in last four years and has passed criminal background check. Measure limits sales/transfers to persons 21 or over; requires minimum 5-day waiting period from day background check is requested. Measure prohibits manufacture, purchase, import, sale, transfer or possession of


Page 11 of 12

"large-capacity magazines" (holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition which can be fired without reloading). Exceptions for law enforcement, Armed Forces, and persons who possess largecapacity magazines on or before date measure becomes effective. Other provisions.

This summary, like the other portions of the ballot title, fall short of the statutory standards. Again, the focus is on the gun dealer, instead of the new requirements. The description of what kinds of firearms are deemed "semiautomatic assault firearms" fails to make clear that the proposal uses a functional definition, in addition to naming specific firearms. That is, the reference to "some rifles, shotguns, and handguns" may cause confusion and alarm to gunowners whose firearms would not be regulated. We propose the following:

Summary: This measure adds new restrictions on purchase or transfer of certain semiautomatic firearms (including rifles, shotguns and handguns capable of accepting detachable ammunition magazines and possessing other specified features). Measure prohibits transfer of semiautomatic firearms, except by gun dealer, who must confirm that purchaser/transferee is age 21 or older, has completed training course on semiautomatic firearm safety, and passed criminal background check. Gun dealer must wait 5 business days from date background check requested before delivering semiautomatic firearm. Measure prohibits manufacture, purchase, import, sale, transfer or possession of "large-capacity magazines" holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition that allow firing without reloading. Exceptions for military/law enforcement use, or for personal use of magazines owned on or before measure's effective date. Other provisions.

This alternative starts by telling voters the key subject of the proposal - to add new restrictions on the purchase or transfer of semiautomatic firearms. It then provides additional detail on the types of firearms that would be regulated. With regard to the restrictions, it describes the new provisions and also alerts voters to the fact that gun dealers will be enforcing those regulations. We urge that it be adopted.

4. CONCLUSION

As with many initiatives, the subject of this initiative is subject to fierce public debate. It is always important that the ballot title be fair and accurate and avoid any misleading language. But given the stakes and the debate over gun safety, these objectives are even more important. Here, the draft ballot title improperly focuses on gun dealers, rather than the substantive restrictions on who may purchase or receive semiautomatic firearms. The ballot title must be revised as suggested above.


Page 12 of 12

Thank you for your careful consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

BENNETT HARTMAN, LLP

cc: Clients


Elections Division



Dear Mr. Trout;

Tim Trento <[email protected]> Wednesday, January 29, 2020 5:15 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS lp60

The Ballot title for Initiative #60, "Certain semiautomatic firearms sold/transferred through gun dealers only; adds purchase restrictions, magazine capacity limits" leaves out much of the important information that Initiative #60 would do if passed. It creates a "Gun Registry," changing the current Oregon law that the State Police only keep records on sales and transfers for 5 years. Gun Registries are the first step in gun confiscation and voters need to see this in the Title. The Title also leaves out the change in the law that Relatives can have guns transferred to them without the expensive cost of transfer through a Licensed Gun Dealer (FPL holder). Voters will have to look hard and read the current law to find this unnecessary change. It is unclear how this will affect "standard capacity magazines," the magazines that came with the gun. Do they go with the gun and are grandfathered in if purchased before this Initiative, if passed, becomes law? The phrase "Large Capacity Magazine" is inflammatory and incorrect. It should say "Standard Capacity Magazines," which are the magazines that came with the gun. Oregon law requires that an Initiative be limited to one specific subject. This Initiative has more than one subject, including; 1. Gun restrictions 2. Magazine restrictions 3. Creation of a "Gun Registry." 4. Removal of the exemption that allows Relatives that are allowed to own firearms to sell/transfer to/with each other without a FFL holder. This includes Wills and Trusts. My edit to the Ballot title: Only Dealers may sell/transfer semi-automatic firearms, creates gun registry, eliminates family transfer, magazine limit.

Summary with edits; Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote only dealers may sell/transfer certain semiautomatic firearms; eliminates family transfer; creates gun registry requires waiting period; minimum age 21; prohibits magazines over 10 rounds. Result of"No" Vote; "No" vote retains laws allowing certain firearm sales/transfers to relatives persons without using a other than gun dealer; minimum purchase age 18; no restriction on firearm standard capacity magazines capacity. Summary: Measure requires sales/transfers of certain semiautomatic firearms (including some rifles, shotguns, and handguns) be performed by "gun dealer" (defined); includes sales/transfers at gun shows. It Removes exemption for transfers to certain Relatives that are legal to own firearms. Measure creates a "Gun Registry," keeping records of sales/transfers indefinitely and removes 5 year limit on record keeping by the State Police. Creates requirement for firearm safety training every four years. Before completing sale/transfer, gun dealer must confirm that purchaser/transferee has completed approved firearm safety training course in last four years and has passed criminal.background check. Measure limits sales/transfers to persons 21 or over; requires minimum 5-day waiting period from day background check is requested. Measure prohibits manufacture, purchase, import, sale, transfer or possession of"standard capacity magazines." "large capacity magazines" (holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition which can be fired without reloading). Exceptions for law enforcement, Armed Forces, and persons who possess large capacity magazines on or before date measure becomes effective. Other provisions. Sincerely, Tim Trento

1



To Whom it may concern,

Talon Sherer <[email protected]> Thursday, January 30, 2020 12:12 AM

SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Regarding Initiative 60, 61, and 62

Regarding Initiative 60,61, and 62.

I write to you today as a concerned citizen. I have read all three proposed initiatives and I would like to briefly give you my thoughts on them.

Firstly I will say that I very much understand the concern of those who are pushing for harsher, stricter, and generally more "Gun" control and banning measures. I have lost multiple people very close to me. However I can tell you for a fact that both of those whose lives were taken by firearms would stand in harsh opposition of these Initiatives. That is not to say I would not suggest some, however these initiative are highly flawed for many reasons.

Firstly, they are undeniably unconstitutional. The constitution's language is clear as day: that my rights "shall not be infringed". I as an individual have a right to protect myself, my family, my home, as well as most importantly the "security of a free state". This is why you see California in legal battles, like there have been across the country. Attempting to pass these unconstitutional initiatives would squander untold state resources to take further rights away from law abiding individuals. Not to mention that the burden for this pointless spending would be put on me, the tax payer. And using the taxpayers money to strip the taxpayer of more rights is an insult to your responsibility as a states-person.

Secondly, you cannot seriously be concerned with the issue at hand, which is presumably gun violence, and claim to be in support of these initiatives. I can very much understand being in sorrow and wanting something quick and easy to blame: i.e. guns. However when making policy there must be a harsh lean towards reason and research. The evidence that supports these initiatives reducing any amount of gun violence is not conclusive. While studies have been done, they are contradicting and often cherry-picked. Did you know that squirt gun scares are includes in many gun statistics? I implore you to look into the research yourself and do not believe the hype of tailored data sets. Even beyond this, frankly there is no feasible way that these initiatives would have any effect based on the amount of guns/magazines already in circulation. There is law that you cannot enforce. This has already been ruled on.

Lastly, speaking very closely to these Initiatives, it is hard to read the their language-it being so incredibly vague-and believe it was done in an educated fashion with comment and consideration from anyone who knows anything about firearms. While I understand that not everyone-especially those in lawmaking

1

positions-will be experts on firearms, with any bill that tries to alter what this country is founded on and what we the people still believe are inalienable rights, it must include a balanced rational decision from experts in the field. These initiatives quite obviously do not.

As an Oregon resident and potential constituent I urge you to not support these Initiatives. They will not even serve as a band-aid and will do nothing more than strip law abiding citizens of their rights. Understanding you and yours must be under considerable pressure I urge you to do your part and do research. The leading cause of gun deaths is suicide. The primary issue here is that of Mental Health, which translates to all gun violence. I know myself and others who support us keeping our rights would support much more specific initiatives aimed solely at safety. A state funded class program to learn about guns before purchasing for example. While it would need to be highly accessible as to not infringe upon our rights, this is but one of many suggestions that could help you create what you and all of your constituents really want: a better tomorrow.

Sincerely yours,

Talon Sherer

2

Reduction of Gun Violence Act through Regulation of …oregonvotes.org/irr/2020/060cmts.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of Reduction of Gun Violence Act through Regulation of …oregonvotes.org/irr/2020/060cmts.pdf ·...