Politics Oregon assault weapons ban petitioners turn in signatures

[SlyPokerDog]

SALEM -- Petitioners for an initiative that would restrict the sale of assault weapons in Oregon have submitted some of the signatures necessary to make the November ballot.

If the batch submitted Monday in Salem includes at least 1,000 valid signatures, the attorney general will begin the ballot title drafting process. Petitioners must ultimately submit 88,184 signatures by July 6.

The initiative opposed by conservatives will likely be appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, and petitioners cannot gather signatures during an appeal.

Penny Okamoto, executive director of Ceasefire Oregon, tells the Statesman Journal she's concerned a months-long legal review will leave too little time to collect signatures.

Okamoto says if they fail to make this year's ballot, supporters of the ban will push for it during the next legislative session. If that fails, they will try for the 2020 ballot.

--The Associated Press

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Interfaith leaders, youths to push for assault-rifle ban

SALEM — A movement to ban assault rifles in Oregon was launched in a Portland church Thursday, with clerics saying youths — many of whom have been protesting for gun control — will drive the campaign.

Interfaith religious leaders in Portland said they aim to get enough signatures on petitions to put a ban on assault weapons before voters, in the November election, in a statewide ballot.

There has been some movement in just a few other states in the wake of the Feb. 14 shooting at a Florida high school that killed 17 people, including:

• In Delaware, Gov. John Carney on Feb. 23 called for state lawmakers to ban the sale of assault-style rifles, saying military-style weapons like the rifle used in Florida have no place in the hands of civilians. Legislation is now being drafted.

• In California, legislation is proposed that would expand the definition of an assault weapon to include most semi-automatic rifles bigger than a .22. But that would require them to be licensed like assault weapons, not banned.

In Oregon, the campaigners must gather over 88,000 signatures by July 6, and they're counting on youths who have demonstrated for gun control to help.

"Young people in this country are crying out. This is the moment in time where we need to step alongside them as adults and do our part with them," said Pastor Mark Knutson of the Augustana Lutheran Church in Portland.

While a person must be at least 18 to vote, even a 14-year-old can go out and seek signatures, Knutson told The Associated Press over the phone.

"This is going to be a youth campaign," said Knutson, who will be one of the three chief petitioners of the ballot measure.

Rev. Alcena Boozer, a former high school principal and pastor emeritus of St. Philip the Deacon Episcopal Church; and Rabbi Michael Cahana, of Congregation Beth Israel, are the other two chief petitioners. The treasurer is Imam Muhammad Najieb, director of the Muslim Community Center of Portland and a Marine veteran.


The anti-assault-rifle campaign was launched with a news conference at the Augustana Lutheran Church, which Knutson said is fitting. He recalled the civil rights campaigns of the 1950s and '60s, and how churches played a role, including one in Alabama where the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. preached.

"The civil rights movement started out at Dexter Avenue Baptist church in Montgomery," Knutson said. "Good things come out of unexpected places."

-- The Associated Press

 

[MARIS61]

Follow the money.

Want your political view promoted without blowback?

Make a large "donation" to a church.

 

[Lanny]

SALEM -- Petitioners for an initiative that would restrict the sale of assault weapons in Oregon have submitted some of the signatures necessary to make the November ballot.

If the batch submitted Monday in Salem includes at least 1,000 valid signatures, the attorney general will begin the ballot title drafting process. Petitioners must ultimately submit 88,184 signatures by July 6.

The initiative opposed by conservatives will likely be appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, and petitioners cannot gather signatures during an appeal.

Penny Okamoto, executive director of Ceasefire Oregon, tells the Statesman Journal she's concerned a months-long legal review will leave too little time to collect signatures.

Okamoto says if they fail to make this year's ballot, supporters of the ban will push for it during the next legislative session. If that fails, they will try for the 2020 ballot.

--The Associated Press

I think this movement has legs.

 

[CupWizier]

Follow the money.

Want your political view promoted without blowback?

Make a large "donation" to a church.

Are you talking about all the money that the NRA pushes to the politician to make sure their agenda is passed? That's a lot of money. blood money that is.

 

[dviss1]

Are you talking about all the money that the NRA pushes to the politician to make sure their agenda is passed? That's a lot of money. blood money that is.

All while CONSISTENTLY ignoring what their members want. They are NOT lobbying for their members, they're lobbying for the gun manufacturers.

 

[Natebishop3]

They're talking about confiscation and the definitions of "assault rifles" is extremely vague. This is a horrible bill.

 

[MarAzul]

They're talking about confiscation and the definitions of "assault rifles" is extremely vague. This is a horrible bill.

These guys don't give a shit what an assault rifle is! They just want them banned. They will add to list later when it feels good.

 

[Lanny]

Are you talking about all the money that the NRA pushes to the politician to make sure their agenda is passed? That's a lot of money. blood money that is.

Most of the money, by a large majority, regarding gun restriction issues is spent by the NRA.

 

[jonnyboy]

People need to learn about guns before they try to legislate them. It really isn't too much to ask.

 

[Natebishop3]

Most of the money, by a large majority, regarding gun restriction issues is spent by the NRA.

Well that's what lobbyists do.

If you had to wager a guess, would you say that most of the money, by a large majority, regarding age related issues is spent by the AARP?

Seriously though, what do people think that special interest groups do exactly? If you join Green Peace or the Sierra Club, you expect that it will be fighting for environmental rights, correct? A lot of people join the NRA because they believe in the second amendment and they want to support an organization that will fight for their rights. This isn't an uncommon thing.

 

[MarAzul]

People need to learn about guns before they try to legislate them. It really isn't too much to ask.

That deserves to be posted again! Perhaps even trolled a bit.

 

[santeesioux]

This is really going to rile up people outside of the Willamette Valley, still might not be enough people to vote it down though.

 

[Lanny]

Well that's what lobbyists do.

If you had to wager a guess, would you say that most of the money, by a large majority, regarding age related issues is spent by the AARP?

Seriously though, what do people think that special interest groups do exactly? If you join Green Peace or the Sierra Club, you expect that it will be fighting for environmental rights, correct? A lot of people join the NRA because they believe in the second amendment and they want to support an organization that will fight for their rights. This isn't an uncommon thing.

Most NRA members want to tighten up our gun laws. Not sure why they don't vote for representatives that will lobby for that issue. It must have something to do with secret video in Russia.

 

[MarAzul]

NRA members want to tighten up our gun laws.

I am not a member so would you let us know what gun law needs to be tighten up? Perhaps you could include why.
It would really be cool if you could include how it interfaces smoothly with shall not be infringed.

 

[Natebishop3]

Most NRA members want to tighten up our gun laws. Not sure why they don't vote for representatives that will lobby for that issue. It must have something to do with secret video in Russia.

There's a pretty stark difference between passing some extra laws for background checks compared to a ban on assault rifles or confiscation.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

As a dog your human laws don't apply to me.

Give me all of your assault weapons. I will give them a very nice home.

 

[Lanny]

As a dog your human laws don't apply to me.

Give me all of your assault weapons. I will give them a very nice home.

Apparently, neither do our bathroom habits.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I have read the proposed bill.

This is entirely too far reaching and vague by design.

By definition any rifle with a clip falls under the preview of this proposed action.

So, my little .22 cal target toy suddenly becomes an "assault" rifle. I would have to register it with the state, turn it over to a registered gun dealer or render it inoperable.

If I am able to retain the rifle, I must prove to the satisfaction or a state inspector, the it is in a safe , locked storage on my own property. If the inspector deems my facility to be lacking, they can refuse to allow me to retain the rifle, and arguably allowed to confiscate at that time (if the allotted time has expired).

Pretty simple guys, if you do not like guns, do not own one. Just leave my stuff alone.

 

[Lanny]

I have read the proposed bill.

This is entirely too far reaching and vague by design.

By definition any rifle with a clip falls under the preview of this proposed action.

So, my little .22 cal target toy suddenly becomes an "assault" rifle. I would have to register it with the state, turn it over to a registered gun dealer or render it inoperable.

If I am able to retain the rifle, I must prove to the satisfaction or a state inspector, the it is in a safe , locked storage on my own property. If the inspector deems my facility to be lacking, they can refuse to allow me to retain the rifle, and arguably allowed to confiscate at that time (if the allotted time has expired).

Pretty simple guys, if you do not like guns, do not own one. Just leave my stuff alone.

How about if I don't like me or my loved ones being shot?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I have read the proposed bill.

This is entirely too far reaching and vague by design.

By definition any rifle with a clip falls under the preview of this proposed action.

So, my little .22 cal target toy suddenly becomes an "assault" rifle. I would have to register it with the state, turn it over to a registered gun dealer or render it inoperable.

If I am able to retain the rifle, I must prove to the satisfaction or a state inspector, the it is in a safe , locked storage on my own property. If the inspector deems my facility to be lacking, they can refuse to allow me to retain the rifle, and arguably allowed to confiscate at that time (if the allotted time has expired).

Pretty simple guys, if you do not like guns, do not own one. Just leave my stuff alone.

Just say it's a starter pistol for a track team of stutterers.

 

[Lanny]

Just say it's a starter pistol for a track team of stutterers.

Let's not demean the Stuttering Therapy Center's track team.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

How about if I don't like me or my loved ones being shot?

Frankly, I know you are not stupid. By taking guns from responsible owners will have zero effect on the criminal element you are concerned with.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Poll added to thread.

 

[Lanny]

Frankly, I know you are not stupid. By taking guns from responsible owners will have zero effect on the criminal element you are concerned with.

No, I don't want to take guns away from those who are and will remain responsible. But I don't see any way around tightening the laws. e.g. No sales to those under 21; No bump stocks; No AR-15 type assault weapons; Closing the gun sale loophole; Registering all firearms at the point of any sale; Smaller magazine capacity; No sales to those who are significantly mentally handicapped.

Responsible gun owners are going to have to be limited by as many of these provisions as possible the way we say such things as an open alcoholic container while driving is prohibited even though some drivers are responsible or cars can't have those things on the hood so that pedestrians can't be hurt even worse when struck by the front of the car.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

No, I don't want to take guns away from those who are and will remain responsible. But I don't see any way around tightening the laws. e.g. No sales to those under 21; No bump stocks; No AR-15 type assault weapons; Closing the gun sale loophole; Registering all firearms at the point of any sale; Smaller magazine capacity; No sales to those who are significantly mentally handicapped.

Responsible gun owners are going to have to be limited by as many of these provisions as possible the way we say such things as an open alcoholic container while driving is prohibited even though some drivers are responsible or cars can't have those things on the hood so that pedestrians can't be hurt even worse when struck by the front of the car.

Lanny, my man, I just dont get you...how can you as a fellow Vet, say that a 18 year old is old enough to vote, go to war and die for his or her country, yet if they happen to return to civilian life, they should be denied the right to own a rifle?

Bump stock are as goofy as a chain saw attachment, there are far better ways to convert to full auto.

You of all people should know that an AR15 is more of a style of rifle, like a Harley , that can be personalized to ones taste. These single shot rifles are a long way off from being an assault rifle, like an M16 etc etc.

Smaller clips are purely a feel good, and not a fix. I have to believe that we both can change clips at a rapid rate.

And, of course, those that show a propensity toward anti social or violent behavior, criminal back ground showing committing of a crime in the position of a firearm or mental instability should be highly scrutinized and denied if deemed necessary.

 

[CupWizier]

Frankly, I know you are not stupid. By taking guns from responsible owners will have zero effect on the criminal element you are concerned with.

and how do you know that? Sitting back and doing nothing certainly hasn't changed it has it? They aren't proposing taking guns they are proposing certain guns. Let's give it a try as it seems to have helped in other countries. Will it end gun violence? No, but if it reduces it then it is a win for everyone. Gun owners still get to keep legal guns.

 

[riverman]

.how can you as a fellow Vet, say that a 18 year old is old enough to vote, go to war and die for his or her country, yet if they happen to return to civilian life, they should be denied the right to own a rifle?

When I got back from the war I was not old enough to buy a beer in San Diego..had to go to Mexico to drink...and the last thing I wanted to do was purchase a weapon....I didn't see it as a huge infringement on my age....if it keeps a high school kid from easily purchasing one...I think it needs to be looked at from the greater good perspective...and I don't include manually chambered hunting rifles or shotguns in the conversation....also when I returned from the war I don't recall any mass shootings stateside in schools, churches, movie theaters or concerts....times they are a changin'

 

[Natebishop3]

How about if I don't like me or my loved ones being shot?

Do you know what the odds are that you'll ever be shot, let alone by an AR-15? You people need to focus your energy elsewhere. I swear to god, if they actually reported on every single car accident that happened every day nobody would want to drive. You are significantly more likely to be in a car wreck. I have been in four separate car wrecks, none of which were my fault, in my lifetime. I have never been shot or shot at. Not once. I have been around a lot of guns in my lifetime. Never seen someone shot, never felt the urge to shoot at another human being. There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country, and yet the number of people who are shot every year is a fraction of a percent. The number of people who are killed by drunk drivers or just plain negligence is staggering. You guys are fixated on the wrong thing.

 

[Natebishop3]

Poll added to thread.

No option for outright civil war?!?