Oregon Liberals File Gun Confiscation Ballot Measure

Gateway Pundit – by Brock Simmons

As the lying anti gun hysterical types try to tell us “Nobody is coming to take your guns away,” they file a ballot measure petition in Oregon that would do just that. The “Promote Public Safety for All Through the Reduction of Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines” initiative has been filed with the Oregon Secretary of State’s office, and will require over 88,000 signatures in order to make it to the 2018 general election ballot. The chief petitioners are Walter John Knutson (aka WJ Mark Knutson), Michael Z. Cahana, and Alcena E. Boozer.  

Some key parts of the text include defining what an “assault weapon” is:

(1 )(a) “Assault weapon” means any:

(A) Semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:

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

(B) Semiautomatic pistol, or any semiautomatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept
more than 10 rounds of ammunition;”

That would pretty much ban every single gun out there. This would include the legendary Ruger 10/22 rifle in .22 caliber; Every semi auto pistol, because it’s possible for someone to design a magazine to hold more than 10 rounds for even the smallest of pistols; And the classic Marlin Glenfield Model 60 .22, designed in 1959, which holds 14 rounds in a fixed tube magazine.

They continue to define an “assault weapon” as also including a pistol that has “a folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock”. If Knutson, Cahana, and Boozer had any idea what they were talking about, they’d know that there is no such thing as a pistol with a stock. If you add a stock to a pistol, it becomes a short barreled rifle.

So, the actual “crime” would be “A person commits the crime of unlawful possession or transfer of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine if the person manufactures, imports, possesses, purchases, sells or transfers any assault weapon or large capacity magazine”

That’s right. Even if you’ve owned a Ruger .22 or a WW1 era 1911 since the 1970’s, you would be a felon overnight. That is, unless, of course, you want to “register” your .22. The petition adds “Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall, withing 120 days after the effective date of this 2018 Act, without being subject to prosecution:

(a) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state;

(b) Sell the assault or large capacity magazine to a firearms dealer licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 for lawful sale or transfer under subsection (2) of this section;

(c) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction;

(d) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(e) If eligible, register the assault weapon or large capacity magaine with the Department as provided in Section 5 of this 2018 Act.”

There’s also a 120 day rule for anyone who moves into the state with a previously lawfully owned “assault weapon”, of which keeping the firearm is not an option, as there is no registration option. Your only options are to sell them or turn them in.

If you opt to “register” your “assault weapon”, you “must submit evidence satisfactory to the Department to establish that: (a) The owner has securely stored the assault weapon or large capacity magazine pursuant to existing law and, in addtion, as provided in any rules and regulations adopted by the Department specifically relating to assault weapons and large capacity magazines;”

Violation of any of these things is a Class B Felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. For owning something as minuscule as a piece of plastic.

The measure goes on to say “The Department shall maintain a registry of the information obtained by it pursuant to Sections 5 and 6(3) of this 2018 Act, and shall adopt rules concerned the administration of the registry, including but not limited to renewal and revocation procedures and storage requirements for assault weapons and large capacity magazines.”

Yes, that’s right, this “department” that is often mentioned will adopt rules regarding “revocation procedures” and arbitrary “storage requirements”.

There’s only way to ensure compliance with all of this, and that would be home by home, room by room inspections done by police to every house in the state.

So when an anti gun lunatic tries to tell you “Nobody wants to take your guns away. Nobody is talking about confiscating anything. Nobody is talking about any kind of gun registry”, you can kindly show them this initiative petition and let them know that they are lying.

For all of Knutson, Cahana, and Boozer’s efforts in this, they have not filed any ballot initiative to deal with the rising drug overdose deaths in Oregon, which are quickly rising to be one of the biggest killers in the state.

Gateway Pundit


8 thoughts on “Oregon Liberals File Gun Confiscation Ballot Measure

  1. dream all you want tyrants , ya aint gonna get um

    paper dont mean shit , and obviously neither do any laws

  2. The purpose of the Second Amendment is not for if the Deer rebel against the People…I asked the kids if they could go up against the BEST ARMED; BEST FUNDED; BEST TRAINED GOVERNMENT AND ITS MILITARY ON THE PLANET with less than the military grade guns that the gov & its military has IF it ever went NAZI or SOVIET on We The People? They said no. I reiterated, could you do it with just a hunting rifle or a simple hand gun? Answer: No. I then asked what would you need to fight a war as the Founders worried about and created the Second Amendment for? Answer from the kids: EVERYTHING! EVERY TYPE OF GUN AND AMMUNITION. This is what “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” IS SAYING.

    I next asked did the Germans conceptualize what the Nazis were or the power they were taking before they did? Answer: No. The Germans never seen the danger that the Nazis were to them and the world.

    This ladies and gentlemen who would institute gun regulation and confiscation is the reality. You never see a monster coming…that’s why people die at the hands of monsters. Just ask criminal investigators about monsters…they look, sound, and act publicly normal…they look like you…they’re genius at blending in until they strike. That is why the Second Amendment is necessary. The Second Amendment makes you a deterrent and part of the potential solution in the worst case scenario. If you are ‘registered’ the Second Amendment is hollow because a monster or an organization of monsters have the means to find you and single you out, thereby nullifying any potential threat to themselves you may present.

    The Oath of Service speaks of defending against “All enemies foreign and domestic” because the most insidious and effective enemies on the planet are not the sabre rattling nationalists across either of the ponds. They are subversion next door…the kids who dressed in red & black with “Stalin” adoration stamped on their shirts who are marching on your street with flags that mask baton weapons. That block public places. That are taught to write white papers by more sophisticated handlers who in turn take those to a ‘think-tank’ that then turns it into legislation and claims the American People want the incremental disarmorment that makes martial law justified by manufactured shootings possible and ‘reasonable’ sounding to a general population who does not see the danger, the machinations, nor deeply investigates complex patterns of conspiracy because they don’t have the time, energy, resources, nor experience.

    This is how Weimar Germany spawned the Nazis; how Czarist Russia was overrun by western designed Soviets; and how Depopulation Agenda emerges from illicit Globalism & Global Government infrastructure raised from the ashes of fearful nations obsessed with personal security because they can’t see the events implemented to herd them into the cattle chutes for the slaughter.

    America was designed by the Founders to be the alternative to the Illuminati and their Global Redesign Initiative. The Illumined/Globalists know this even if you do not. That is why number one priority is to deconstruct your nation, your society, your culture, your history, and your capacity to defend against this kind of clandestine invasion by people with your looks, your citizenship, your public service positions, and your resources. They are destroying you with the proverbial sword named: The Fluffy Bunny and teaching you to LIKE IT!

    What you do not know can hurt you.

    What you do not know can kill you.

    What you do not know or will not acknowledge can steal from you your personal capability, home, family, nation, and future. It is not IF it will be done…it IS being done. Right now.

    A granddaughter of Washington’s Cruisers aka First Navy and the Laconia Colony Maine/NewHampshire resistance of 1775.

    Remember who you are America!

  3. Total firearm confiscation has been and will be the goal. They will settle for nothing less. It is not about safety, it is about power. Absolute power if possible. Never forget; they (the Lefties) do hate you and they want you dead. That is the why of “gun control”; you/we have to be disarmed before they can begin to exterminate us. All of us. No exceptions.

  4. “That would pretty much ban every single gun out there.”



    1. I scrolled down here looking for your finger.

      I hear ya, Hatr. Come and take ’em.

      There’s no sense in arguing these new laws individually, because they’re going to be endless. A new week; a new gun law.

  5. It must be conceded that there are such rights in every free government beyond the control of the state. Citizens Savings and Loan v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655, 662 (1874) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/87/655.html aff’d. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 536, 4 S.Ct. 111 (1884) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/110/516.html

    Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm’n., 271 U.S. 583, 593-594 (1926) aff’d. U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 71-72 (1936); 44 Liquormart, Inc., Et al. v. Rhode Island Et al., 517 U.S. 484, 513 (1996) (It is not necessary to challenge the proposition that, as a general rule, the state, having power to deny a privilege altogether, may grant it upon such conditions as it sees fit to impose. But the power of the state in that respect is not [271 U.S. 583, 594] unlimited, and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/271/583.html

    West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638-639, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943) (The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html

    Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5 (1958) (No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: “If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . .” United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/358/1.html

    Barke v. Maeyens, Jr. M.D., 176 Or App 471, 31 P3d 1133 (2001) (“[t]he legislature lacks authority to deny a remedy for injury to absolute rights that existed when the Oregon Constitution was adopted in 1857.” Id. at 119, citing Mattson v. Astoria, 39 Or 577, 580, 65 P 1066 (1901).” http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A111121.htm; accord Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or 83, 23 P3d 333 (2001) http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S44512.htm

    Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc., No. 04-35563, 04-35795, 04-35842 (9th Cir. 08/24/2006) (Of course, “[n]ot all rights are waivable.” United States v. Perez, 116 F.3d 840, 845 n.7 (1997) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993)). For instance, “waiver is not appropriate when it is inconsistent with the provision creating the right sought to be secured,” New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110, 116 (2000), and “a right conferred on a private party, but affecting the public interest, may not be waived or released if such waiver or release contravenes the statutory policy.” Id. (quoting Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 704 (1945)). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0435563p.pdf

    Westbrook v. Mihaly, 2 Cal.3d 765, 796-797 (06/03/1970) (“A citizen’s constitutional rights can hardly be infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be. [Fn. omitted.]” (Lucas v. Colorado General Assembly, supra, 377 U.S. 713, 736-737 [12 [2 Cal.3d 797] L.Ed.2d 632, 647]; Jordan v. Silver (1965) 381 U.S. 415 [14 L.Ed.2d 689, 85 S.Ct. 1572] (concurring opinion).); http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/ca/cal3d/year/1970_6.htmlhttp://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/westbrook-v-mihaly-30152

    N.B. Right cannot die {Droit ne poet pas morier};

    There are two instruments for confirming or impugning every thing, reason and authority {Duo sunt instrumenta ad omnes res aut confirmandas aut impugnandas, ratio et authoritas};

    The laws of nature are unchangeable {Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia; Branch. Princ.; Oliver, Forms, 56};

    Nothing against reason is lawful {Nihil quod est contra rationem est licitum; Coke, Litt. 97};

    Nothing that is inconvenient is lawful {Nihil quod est inconveniens est licitum};

    Reason is a ray of divine light {Ratio est radius divini luminis};

    Reason and authority, the two brightest lights in the world {Ratio et auctoritas, duo clarissima mundi lumina};

    The thing speaks for itself {Res ipsa loquitur}; and that class of authority, infra:

    Cf. http://oregonvotes.org/irr/2018/042text.pdf

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.