Yesterday, the “Explanatory Statement” committee met and adopted a proposed “explanatory statement” for the voter’s guide for IP 17, now ballot measure 114.
This, as you know, is the measure that will virtually end the sale of firearms in Oregon.
As expected, the deck was totally stacked. The only statement even considered was the one drafted by the proponents of the measure.
Neither of the opponents of the measure voted to approve the draft but the committee was weighted against them so it was adopted.
The proposed statement is a total fraud, as it was intended to be. It is intentionally misleading and contains outright falsehoods.
There is still time to send in your objections to this obvious attempt to mislead voters.
We have attached a copy of the draft statement so you can read it for yourself, but we’ll point out some of the more egregious elements.
First, no matter how much the proponents tried to hide it, the measure outright bans most modern shotguns. Period. Tubular magazines on most shotguns are capable of holding more than 10 rounds of certain ammunition. Therefore they will be banned.
The proponents attempted, lamely, to argue that shotguns were exempted because of the exception for “lever action firearms.” And no matter how much the opponents attempted to clarify that “lever action” is not the same as “pump action” the proponents insisted that was simply “argument” or “speculation.” And clearly it is not.
Tubular fed, semi-automatic shotguns were not even discussed. The language they did insert in the statement only confuses the issue more. Under the section “Regulates Large Capacity Magazines” they state: “ Particular application to certain firearms set forth in measure.” Whatever that means.
The measure requires that if you already own a “large” capacity magazine, you may only remove it from your property to go to a range or hunting trip. But it must be unloaded and removed from the firearm and locked separately from the gun. As anyone with a tubular fed shotgun knows, this is not a matter of simply pressing a magazine release and requires disassembly of the firearm.
The measure allows you to keep magazines you already own, if they don’t leave your property, but you can be charged with a crime if you cannot prove you owned them before the ban. Under the measure, it becomes your responsibility to prove your innocence. And, of course, nothing prevents you from being charged again and again for the same magazines since conventional magazines contain no identifying marks.
The proponents also included a clearly false description of the database police will keep on anyone applying for a “permit to purchase” a gun. Their statement says: “Requires State Police to maintain electronically searchable database of permits, information is exempt from public disclosure.”
But the plain language of the measure says the State police shall annually publish, the required report. There is nothing in the measure that exempts the report from public disclosure.
The statement also misleads voters by suggesting that the live fire requirement in the mandated classes for the “permit to purchase” can be completed with “hands on demonstration of basic firearms handling” by the instructor, when in fact, the student will need to be firing the gun. And of course, since you would need a gun to demonstrate that you could load, unload, and fire it, and you can’t buy a gun without the required permit, first time buyers will have an almost impossible hurdle to overcome.
The whole statement was designed to confuse and mislead voters and is totally unacceptable .
There is still time to send your objections to the Secretary of State. The committee is scheduled to meet again to consider objections.
You can email your objections to:
The explanatory statement is seriously flawed.
The statement refused to acknowledge that most modern shotguns will be banned under this measure. That is NOT speculation.
The statement falsely claims that the database of gun permit applicants is exempt from public disclosure. That must not be allowed to remain in the statement.
The statement ignores the lack of training facilities or people qualified to provide the training. This is a critical element of the measure.
The statement misleads voters about the live fire requirements.
The statement ignores the complete lack of funding for this expensive measure.
The statement fails to clarify many mandates that will be created later by the Oregon State Police without public input.
The flawed, proposed statement can be seen here.
Yesterday’s entire (painful) meeting can be viewed here. https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/mediaplayer?clientID=4879615486&eventID=2022071017