SOS I rrlistnotifier SOSoregonvotes.org/irr/2020/040cmts.pdfStephanie Hull Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11 :05 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment

SOS I rrlistnotifier * SOS

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

[email protected] Friday, October 11, 2019 9:09 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS [email protected] IP40

The ballot title should be Makes Oregonians into criminals and defenseless act of 2020!!!

Thank you Michael Ramsdal

1

SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Caption

Jim and Susan McMahon <[email protected]> Friday, October 11, 2019 1:38 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Meaure 202-040 comment

Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities

Above is the proposed title for measure 2020-040. It is not adequate. While gun owners should be liable for safe storage, under no condition should that liability extend to what the measure which calls for the gun owner to be "strictly liable for resulting injuries". Does this mean the murderer is no longer liable?

While the voting public may be comfortable with accountability for improper gun storage, only a portion would be comfortable for a gun owner to suddenly become a murderer due to improper gun storage. So the title should indicate the degree of liability voters are agreeing with. Something like:

Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities, including strict liability for injuries caused.

Sincerely yours, James B McMahon Corvallis, Oregon

1



Mark Kronquist <[email protected]> Friday, October 11, 2019 3:12 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Ballot title 2020-40

The ballot title requires cable and trigger locks but the ballot copy says that cable and trigger locks are not safe and can be easily defeated with common household tools ... so, if one were to follow the law and use a trigger lock as the proposed measure suggests and the trigger lock (or cable lock) were defeated (as the copy in the measure suggests),

was the gun legally locked in the first place? Can the gun be legally locked? Given enough time and inclination and resources, every lock can be defeated. had a bike stolen with an unbreakable U Lock when the thief used liquid nitrogen (wart remover the police said) to render the metal easily shattered ...

Please send this one back for a complete redo because, as it is, it is not do-able at all

Thank you

Mark Kronquist 308 E Water Street Stayton, Oregon 97383 503 750 8235

1

John Woods IP 2020-40 ballot title challenge RECEIVED OCT 11, 2019 11:04pm

Elections Division

"Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties. "

I challenge this ballot title. This is a cover everything in the universe, hoping something will gain traction initiative, that is in direct violation of The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. First let's look at this section on title " locked during storage or transfer" A transfer is defined as giving a firearm to another person. To have it locked during a transfer means anytime you hand a rifle or pistol to anyone you must lock it. " locked during storage or transfer". How can this be enforced, will you have police at every shooting range? I challenge this title on three things it is poorly written, it is unenforceable, and it places impossible conditions on every transfer of a firearm.

I challenge this whole initiative as a blatant attempt to force law abiding gun owning citizens to follow a unconstitutional law that is designed to punish and prohibit gun ownership. Even the conditions on the loss part are designed to punish. If a locked gun is stolen, reported and is used in a crime the gun owner is still liable for damages up to five years. I suggest we apply this thinking to cars. If you sell or have your car stolen and it is in an accident, used for a getaway car in a bank robbery or in a police chase the owners be liable for all damages because their car was stolen. How idiotic and stupid that law would be. Ip 2020-40 would result in a law that is idiotic and unconstitutional, and there is no authority to enforce it. This bill will punish law abiding citizens who are gun owners. As a thinking free citizen, I challenge this title as being unconstitutional and incredibly stupid in its concept and language,

Date ... October 11, 2019

Signed John Woods ft, t:itJ~,l,,


From: Sent: To:

Keith E. Wright <[email protected]> Sunday, October 13, 2019 7:55 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS

This ballot measure title will mislead voters and will not save a life. This measure will not save children as the title claims. The entire measure will make all Oregon unsafe. Olease do not let this happen in this once great state

Keith E. Wright In Liberty I Stand and Fight MOLON-LABE

1



Dear Secretary of State,

David Blakey <[email protected]> Sunday, October 13, 2019 10:03 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS IP 2020-040

I'm contesting the unenforceable requirements and the unconstitutionality of this proposed ballot title and it's potential to be misleading to voters. This IP should not be allowed on the ballot.

Thank you.

Regards, David Blakey

1



Teddy Campbell <[email protected]> Sunday, October 13, 2019 11 :35 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS ballot title

I have rad the ballot measure and it has a lot of dumb things in it. 1. You cannot always be in control of the keys to trigger locks. I will not take them into the shower with me. 2. There is not a lock that cannot be defeated if given the time. 3. The Oregon Health Authority should not be making these dissensions. The State Police or the Dept of Justice should be involved. They are the ones that understand Firearms. 4. People have firearms in their homes to defend their home and them selves. If it is locked in a container in the middle of the night you will never get to the weapon but who ever breaks in to your house can carry it off and get the weapon out and use it later. 5 .. If a dealer must post signage the state should be required to provide it at no cost. 6. A person 18 years of age may but a rifle legally in this State. That is a Federal law.

Please rethink this and have someone with common sense redo or drop it all together.

You have all these laws that cannot be enforce now and you want more. The US Constitution says you cannot enter my home with out a warrant. This will cause a lot of court cases. You should try and limit video games they are the start of violence. Please let me know that you got this and read it.

Ted Campbell [email protected]

1



perrytilton < [email protected] > Sunday, October 13, 2019 8:06 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS In regards to IP 2020-040

This petition (IP 2020-040) is not only worded poorly, it is unconstitutional as well as not able to accomplish the ability to solve the problems it lists; such as prevent minors from doing any kind of harm because of an unsecured firearm, or prevent tragedies such as the 2012 Clackamas Town Center shooting.

People who wish to commit evil upon innocent people will still find a way one way or another. It doesn't have to be done with a firearm. And if one is able to steal a firearm, why should the victim of the theft be punished? How many people should be charged with a crime for having their car stolen and then have that car be used in a crime, be it running people in a crowd over, using the car to trasnport people in a robbery or even be used to transport victims of sex abuse? No one would. Why should guns be treated differently than cars (even though cars are used more in crimes)?

The aspect where 2020-040 is supposed to help LEOs catch thieves by forcing citizens (by threat of guns and kidnapping) to report stolen weapons. Let's say I don't even know, or don't even tell the LEOs, how are you supposed to know who owns what without a registry, that isn't supposed to exist in the first place?

Section 3 (4)(d) ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!? No need to explain any further.

Why should we trust bureaucrats to properly define what constitues "minimum specification"? What happens when these requirements are thwarted by a thief? What if these firearms in trigger locks (which only require cheap cutters to open up) are stolen as a whole?

IP 2020-040 is not only poorly written, it is poorly written by those who know little to nothing about locks and firearms. This needs to be rejected.

Sincerely, Perry Tilton

1



Mike Yonkman < [email protected]> Monday, October 14, 2019 6:42 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS IP 2020-40

The title of this ballot needs to be changed to reflect the inherent dangers created by this bill. The title is very misleading because how or why would anyone vote against "Oregonians for safe gun storage and reporting lost/stolen firearms"? The creators of this title are banking on people who have not looked into the bill to vote for it based on the ballot title alone. The title needs to include something that lets voters know that they would be rendering their firearms useless for self defense, and that law abiding Oregonians will be hurt or god forbid killed because of this bill.

Sent from my iPhone

1


From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

No. Bad legislation!

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

john tatge <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 15, 2019 8:49 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS John prop 40

1



davidsheern <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:54 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

The proposed ballot title for IP 40 is honest, clear and easily understood. It communicates exactly what the ballot measure would result in if passed. Please refrain from adopting misleading or inaccurate changes from opposition groups.

Respectfully, David Sheern 64 NE Holland St, Portland, OR 97211

1



JILL PUNCHES <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:58 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

I am submitting an email in support of the current IP 40 ballot title language.

"Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities" succinctly identifies what the ballot measure, if passed would require and avoids unlikely consequences that staunch "guns everywhere" everywhere advocates may request modifying to something like, "would make it easier for criminals to enter your home, etc."

Seatbelt laws have saved lives. Gun violence has increased in the US to almost 40,000 deaths in 2018. Passage of a Safe Storage law would save lives in Oregon by keeping guns out of the hands of children and those at risk of suicide.

Thank you,

Jill Punches Northeast Portland

Sent from my iPhone

1



Stephanie Hull <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11 :05 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

Good morning, I am emailing today in support of the appropriate and accurate language for IP 40 ballot title:

"Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities."

-Stephanie Hull

1



jblakinger <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11 :08 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

I support the ballot measure title:

Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities."

Thanks, JOhn

John Blakinger 541-410-1158

1



Emily Teixeira <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11 :58 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

As a gun owner, mother of two small kids, and wife of a law enforcement official, I take firearm safety very seriously. I am certain that IP 40 will save lives and support the draft ballot title that accurately describes the contents of the ballot measure.

Respectfully,

Emily Teixeira West Linn 97068

Sent from my iPhone

1



Cheryl McDowell <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 15, 2019 12:11 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

The proposed ballot title is clear, accurate, and easy to understand.

Do not let the NRA hijack Oregon's political process.

Thanks Cheryl J. McDowell 3431 SW Kelly Ave Portland, OR 97239

1



Eileen HUFANA <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 15, 2019 12:51 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

I collected signatures to get IP40 on the ballot and did not have anyone refuse to sign. Lots of people are for this ballot measure.

Sent from my iPad

1



Erik Colville <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 15, 2019 1 :17 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Initiative Petition 2020-040 Draft Ballot Title - Comments

Secretary of State, Election Division;

I am writing to offer comments on the Initiative Petition 2020-040 Draft Ballot Title.

Draft Ballot Title - Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities

While likely well intended the result of a yes vote on this ballot measure will be the requirement that firearms be locked and secured when not on the person or under direct control of the person. This requirement will render such firearms useless in a self-defense situation, such as a home invasion. Considering the following leads to an undeniable conclusion that the draft ballot title is misleading, inaccurate, irresponsible, and dishonest.

Crime statistics show that violent encounters are "over" generally within 10 seconds, and two minutes on average (http://assaultprevention.org/facts/ ). This fact makes a locked and secured firearm useless for self-defense. The result of a yes vote on this ballot measure will cause firearm owners to be defenseless in the event of a violent encounter.

The United States Bureau of Justice published a Special Report entitled Victimization During Household Burglary (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf ). That report noted 266,560 household members, nation-wide, became victims of violence in the estimated average 3.7 million home burglaries each year. The result of a yes vote on this ballot measure will be to expose tens of thousands of Oregon household members (the Oregon portion of the 266,560 household members nation-wide who were victims) to home invasion violence with no effective means to defend themselves, except to be wearing their firearm.

The Centers for Disease Control statistics (https://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe) show that approximately 20,000 people per year are unintentionally injured by a firearm. The number of people unintentionally injured by a firearm is less than ten percent of the number of people injured during home invasions. The stated "whereas" for this ballot measure state it will help reduce accidental child injury and death, and will hold irresponsible owners responsible for unsafe storage. The result of a yes vote on this ballot measure will be to place more than ten times as many people in danger of injury than it could possibly protect from injury, all while penalizing innocent people for the actions of criminals.

I propose that an accurate draft ballot title would be - Impairs ability to defend oneself and family with a firearm, loss reported, minors' use restricted and supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities on the innocent for the actions of criminals.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this misleading, inaccurate, irresponsible and dishonest draft ballot title.

Erik Colville Salem, OR

1



Ann Barkley <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 15, 2019 2:02 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

I am in full support of the IP 40 draft ballot title.

Beatrice Ann Barkley 5539 SW Westdale Drive PDX 97221

Sent from my iPhone

1



Christina Bertalot <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 15, 2019 2:37 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

I support IP 40 on the upcoming ballot. I believe the language and title for the ballot should be clear and to the spirit of the proposed law. Please consider requiring firearms to be locked during storage/transfer, minors being supervised and imposing penalties/liabilities if the guns end up lost or stolen and not reported.

Christina

Chri~tinil!l ~ee·talct I Account Supervisor

Coates Kokes 421 Southwest Sixth Avenue, Suite 1300 Portland, Oregon 97204 503.241.1124 I coateskokes.com Proud to be a Certified B Corporation®

1



Amy Long <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 15, 2019 4:03 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

As I understand it, the current ballot title is:

Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities.

I fully support this wording. I think it is a fair and unbiased description of the ballot measure.

Thank you - Amy Long

1



David <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 15, 2019 9:45 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

As a long time Oregon resident raising a daughter in Tigard Oregon, I think the IP 40 draft ballot title represents an urgent and necessary piece of legislation for our state!

David Knepprath Sent from my iPhone

1



Jon Simonson <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:18 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Initiative Petition 2020-040 ballot title

There is an issue with the caption for this initiative.

Slashes are not proper grammar and therefore should not be used in a ballot title. Do the slashes mean or, and, or both?

Jon Simonson Happy Valley, OR

-Jon

1



To Whom It Concerns:

Ervin Stubbs <[email protected]> Wednesday, October 16, 2019 9:49 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

I support IP 40 for the safety of children who live in houses that have firearms.

Gene Stubbs

1



Bill Lynch <[email protected]> Wednesday, October 16, 2019 4:39 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

I wholeheartedly support the draft ballot title -- or anything similar to it! I think gun owners should bear the responsibility of safe storage and other common sense things ( e.g., theft report). Owning a gun is a big deal and should come with more mandated responsibilities.

Thank you! --Bill Lynch

Bill Lynch

1



Gary Weis <[email protected]> Wednesday, October 16, 2019 5:58 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS for Initiative Petition 2020-040,

I object to ballot title, Result of Yes vote, and Summary, Because on duty law enforcement is NOT EXEMPT under this ballot measure. On duty Law Enforcement IS REQUIRED to transfer firearms WITH trigger locks. Liability for violation, transfers to the OFFICER not the agency. Exemption only on extends to on duty law enforcement for FAIL URE to SECURE when it can be stolen.

This is patently unfair to the officer and the voter.

Law Enforcement NOT EXEMPT should appear in the Ballot Title and or in the Result of Yes Vote and or Summary.

Gary Weis 1401 W. Ellendale# 108 Dallas, Oregon 97338 971-322-6465

1

Oregon secretar¥ of state October 16, 2019 Elections Division 255 capitol St NE Ste 501 Sal em OR 97310

Re; Initiative Petition 2020-040 objection to Draft Ballot Title

Proposed Dr aft Ba 17 ot Title: "Requires firearms be locked dur in~ st or age/transfer , 7 os s reported, minors use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities.

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

The title does not communicate the impossiblity of complaince with the proposed law as there is no way to avoid II a firearm is not secured if a key, com bi nation or OTHER MEANS of opening a lock or container is redily available to a person the owner or possessor has not authorized to carry or control the firearm. 11

Devices to easily defeat any gun lock are "readily available" to any person.

As just one example, an expensive met al cutting "hack saw" wi 11 cut through any firearms cable lock in minutes or less.

If compliance with the law is not possible, the ballot title should include that crucial information for the voters consideration.

Respectfully,

Stan Vi zi na

Oregon Secretary of State

Elections Division

255 Capitol St NE Ste 501

Salem OR 9731 O

October 16, 2019

Re; Initiative Petition 2020-040 Objection to Draft Ballot Title

Proposed Draft Ballot Title: "Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities."

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

1. The Oregon Constitution states; "Article IV, Section 1 (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 IP2020-040 covers multiple, separate and very unique individual proposals in changes to Oregon Law that are NOT clearly covered or covered at all in the proposed ballot title. Such as:

a). Sec. l(A); Requires the securing of and control of a firearm in one's possession.

b ). Holds the gun owner accountable for a secured (locked-up) firearm if another person obtains the key or combination to such locking device. Secl.,B.,(b.)

c). Holds a gun owner liable for the Criminal acts of a third party. "Liable" is also not defined and could include both criminal liability as well as civil liability. The ballot title as

. proposed is not clear as to the legal ramifications of "liability" when the condition and the causal act was that of a third (criminal) party. Secl.,(4)(a).

d). Requires that the theft of a firearm be reported. This is not covered at all in the proposed ballot title. Sec.3.,(l)(a). Loss or theft of firearms, not reported can result in multiple and unlimited violations. Se.3 .,(2)(b ).

e). Law enforcement retention of a lost or stolen firearm's serial number. Retention not defined in length, scope or purpose. A possible form of backdoor gun registration. This is not covered in the ballot title. Sec.3.,(4)(a).

f). Minor's Use, liabilities to adult, supervision. Sec.4.,(l)(a) through (3)(b). Another example where the ballot title covers more than just one subject. This IP in reality covers multiple topics and subjects each requiring their own initiative referendum.

g). Sec.5 establishes a State Organization to create rules and policies to certify firearm locking devices. Locking devices and their ability to lock up specific firearms vary widely, some

firearms due to design-may be challenging to comply with the law and locking devices already in use by gun owners may not comply. Another section likely requiring it's own IP or legislation.

h). Requirements of Gun Dealer's, poster language and posting with specificity. Sec.6.

i). A litany of definitions contained in the IP including "transfer"; transfer of firearms, Sec. 7., these definitions or statement of are not covered within the ballot title.

Due to the fact that this initiative petition covers various subjects and changes and additions to Oregon Law and; the fact that these are all covered and not covered within the proposed ballot title (of which may only include one subject), this ballot title should be rejected.

2. The proposed ballot title is Un-Constitutional and the proposed initiative petition is clearly Un-Constitutional. This is settled Law in the U.S. Supreme Court Heller Case.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Helle,· v. District of Columhia_f4n5

J The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Fireanns Contrnl Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.

https://www.thoughtco.com/overview-of-dc-v-heller-case-721336: SCOTUS ruled that; "the district's handgun ban and trigger lock requirement violated the Second Amendment."

The Oregon Department of Justice in developing this proposed ballot title, a ballot title that clearly violates the U.S. Constitution is an oven-each of Governmental powers. The initiative petition clearly violates the Heller decision regarding the locking up and securing of firearms. Based on this fact, the proposed ballot title should be disallowed AND due to unconstitutionality, the entire initiative petition be rejected.

On procedural, statutory and Constitutional grounds I respectfully request that this proposed ballot title be rejected.

R~ectfully, ({~~-7~~ '{_.,Af c <----~---

craig Ziegenhagel

Oregon Native, Voter, Citizen

4605 NE Granite Avenue

Albany, Oregon 97321

October 18, 2019

Oregon Elections Division Office of the Secretal'y of the State

Re: Initiative Petition 2020-040 Input concerning the legal sufficiency of the draft ballot title

In my opinion, the draft ballot title (AKA "caption") omits an important aspect of the measure. It excludes the concept from Section 1 (l)(a) "A person who owns or possesses a firearm shall, at all times that the fireann is not carried or under the control of the person fo»:n~r) o,: a,g. authorized person, secure the firearm: ... " emphasis added The draft ballot title only states, "Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, ... " Not including the concept of "carried or under the control of' does a disservice to the voting public. Most people would not conceive the term "storage" to have anything to do with carrying or controlling a firearm.

Results of "Yes" vote, speaks only to " ... strictly liable for injuries within four years." it does not mention "or pmperty damage" from Section 3 (3)(a) of the measure.

Results of "No" vote, likewise does not mention property damage and, since it omits the word 11cm·rent11 from negligence standard for injuries, it could easily be misinterpreted, in my opinion.

Summary: omits the word (and, therefore, concept, in my opinion) of the locked container must be "tamper resistant" contained in Section 1 (l)(a)(B) of the measure. It also states this bill defines "firearm," which it does not do. The language in Section 7 (4) refers to the meaning given in ORS 166.210 with an exception.

Sincerely,

~St~ Wendy Stone POBox40 525 N. Myrtle Avenue Stayton, Oregon 97383



Dear Secretary Clarno;

lynn krupa <[email protected]> Saturday, October 19, 2019 6:53 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

Oct. 19, 2019

I am a Behavior/Development Pediatrician with over 40 years experience. There has been a disturbing increase in youth suicide both in Oregon and nationwide. I have seen this in my own practice. A large percent of these suicides involve unsecure guns taken from private homes.

These unfortunate cases are quite treatable if only the patients are still alive.

Sincerely; Lawrence Krupa MD Mind Matters pc Hillsboro OR


1



lynn krupa <[email protected]> Thursday, October 24, 2019 7:58 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS comment re safe gun storage IP 40

To Attorney General Office: My name is Lawrence l<rupa MD, Behavior/Developmental Pediatrician. I have been practicing for over 40 years. I feel very strongly that this Initiative should become Oregon Law. Over½ of the child and adolescent suicides in Oregon are committed with unsecured firearms. These children can be treated successfully, if they do not commit suicide before treatment. Make Oregon the leader in safe gun storage.

Lawrence l<rupa MD, Mind Matters pc, Hillsboro. 10-24-2019


1



Hello,

Arthur Chaput <[email protected]> Saturday, October 19, 2019 10:43 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS 2020-040 Initiative Petition Ballot Title Comment

The draft ballot title for this initiative petition regarding firearm storage is inadequate. It fails to mention the most significant/ contentious facet of the bill, which is that victims of gun theft will be held liable for crimes committed with their stolen property. A better ballot title might be,

11A Bill Requiring You To Secure Your Firearms With A Bicycle Lock, And Holding You Liable For Crimes Committed With Your Guns If Stolen. 11

Thank you,

Norman A. Chaput Beaverton, Oregon

1

.-_i~{ .. \.,\\-. '. ;

,i9?> t,·~/ft ~,{~f J?~S1~~i/pi~~:s' ~~(s.~geryist~; i~' . ••·· .. ·.

·~1:;1~ij1i1,~}f :~;~ J;~pt~ft~W;ir /'1~Jti;r i!~h•n.~•f ··••.· . . 1r •. ·. 'JQ~;:P¥9V$;!~cl t91Ulfl ()~1l,~rs.Th~.r'.<tqu}rem~11ts putgun owners and

l,~;ij&f~:;;;;ti.illf i§f iillf tt{~li~JE . ,, ,s,Ji'9Jf~talLtitiles: Tll~s, ptit:dhe gu1towner at. risk if he/she .;.'1;-.,:-?:,·.',~',',;:•<":,·f<'.,<-i \·-:;:✓·-,:'.:·","""''-"··.·:--.,- .-__ • _,_._. .·, ·>--- :_<: ·.·~ .· · -.

Nlf~i,~<?JJfl1w~:<jf;t,li,eft > not discoV<,cy ofJheft. J f these guns 'ff'., \~~,(~~i1trhl.ay n~t h,ave paq suff1¢ierit ·time to discover

>Y,,,,, '(ri(ljg~~~~,qrother fir¢flrtirtraining, only for self-mt~~BJ,:;:,0·~~l~¥#t~iqr)erjousH1jury~ ,· < ,; · , · ·· ··· ·

.•Jt!/r1)~r~v·

1 2020-040, prnposed for the November 3, 2020, General Election . . ·.t_,c., ,c:_;:··:.:i·'",

: . , ... ,, , .. tff\;'.~;J~¢k~o~-,~;tit~ing'storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes ' ; r: ,,:,,;,1~1g;%iffz~t{;MC' ...... . . . .

[;\,J1iJf~i1jt,~t~·F,ii:Jito1s Wbile Asleep or Not at range; Owner felon if law is changed :{c,{f/;~·./t\~:;:.:~_:<.\ <~,-/;>- ; '->i·:~· :·(- .· _.· .:.<>" .' .

;,',;'j{{~,,~{1fJ}i(Ili~z1nlsleadinito·tlle public and to gun owners. The requirements put gun owners and ,,,.,,,,,,)lu~m1}tyJo,pefe,ndJll~msel~es and Hkelihoodthat criminals would manage to obtain keys ,,'5.,·~t:"+aefrs}btitirinalsJnoW Whatday to. ann themselves illegally to. commit a crime while gun

j~it'tfoirig{aw~~l>,idingyitizens whentheyare most vulnerable. Most gun crimes and most gun:1iJIMso''.a,re1com1phted;\YHh:illegally obtained and concealed handguns, notTitles. Gun owners 'gr~fr\~~~.~s,iiyr~}~,ith<w1,potice,andsubject to felon status. People under the age 21 are barred (,J~~s,e.qff~1fi i)y:~r,~~tfns'fon self-protection at. a.II times. This puts the gun owner at risk if he/ she .~nj.x~111f,fifl~~~)J1N~t~~~afyerthe,21hour time of theft-:not discovery of theft. lf these guns ,·

2 •'•'.~•m~J'li@:Jr~~l)Il\i#P~E~<!;wi.th, tlJe gun owner·may·nothave had sufficient time to discover ;,c'.: ,.,,, .. , .. )fo'r~tb;~'(,'~}B!:ii~}f,trajgi!i,g, J~nge use or other fireanu training, only for self-

• \~~tri!~r ·rm:em~~etpP,t~yent death or seriousjnjury. .· ·.• .



Dee Friesen <[email protected]> Saturday, October 19, 2019 8:17 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS

Ballot change request

This should be entitled - Turn Oregonians into Criminals

1



Dear State of Oregon:

Ellen Stearns <[email protected]> Sunday, October 20, 2019 9:12 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

Please maintain the current ballot title as shown below. We urgently need this important legislation to help prevent more gun deaths and injuries in our state.

Thank you,

Ellen Stearns Portland OR 97239

"Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities."

1



I am a pediatrician.

Lisa Reynolds <[email protected]> Monday, October 21, 2019 9:06 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS IP 40

Please move the process forward on IP 40. Safe gun storage laws save lives the day they are enacted! Thank you Lisa Reynolds MD

1



Henry Wessinger < [email protected] > Monday, October 21, 2019 1 :12 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS IP 40 draft ballot title comments

The draft title complies with ORS 250.035 in all respects.

Respectfully, Henry Wessinger

1000 SW Vista Avenue #1105 Portland, OR 97205

We can be free from gun violence!

Henry Wessinger, President

Cell: 503.329.6719

PO Box 28322, Portland, OR 97228

StateofSafetyAction.org

State of Safety Action is a 501(c)(4) organization. Donations are not tax deductible.

1

I would be the first to admit writing an accurate ballot title for ballot measure 40 in 15 words or

less is a daunting task. However your present ballot title is miss-leading at best. The most

glaring misleading part is "imposes penalties/liabilities". Most people are going to assume the

penalties/liabilities would apply to the criminal and not the victim of theft.

In this ballot measure it makes it clear the victim of firearms theft will be held criminally and civilly liable for having their firearms stolen even if they were locked. In section 1 it states a

firearm IS NOT secured if a key, combination or other means of opening a lock or container is

readily available to a person that is not authorized to carry or control the firearm. All that is

necessary is tools to defeat the lock are readily available. It does not specify if the thief brought

the burglary tools with them, or the thief found tools in the victim's garage and used them.

Point is under section 1 the firearm is not secured and the owner can be held liable even if it is

locked.

Here is what I think would be a more accurate ballot measure.

Imposes penalties/liabilities to theft victims, even Jocked. Mandatory reporting loss/theft. Requires locked storage/transfer., supervising minors.

This title specifies who the penalties/liabilities apply to, the victims of firearm theft, the

reporting of theft/loss is mandatory, requires locked storage, and the supervising of minors.

Ronald Duncan



Frank Connell <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 22, 2019 6:47 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS IP 40 draft ballot title comments

I support the draft IP 40 title and it complies with ORS 250.035 in all respects.

Sent from my iPhone

1



Jan Jamieson <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 22, 2019 7:04 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS IP 40 draft ballot title comments


Jan Jamieson

1



To Whom It May Concern.

PAUL KEMP <[email protected]>

Tuesday, October 22, 2019 8:24 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS IP 40 draft ballot title comments

The draft title complies with ORS 250.035 in all respects.

Respectfully,

Paul Kemp

1



GARY WITHERS <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 22, 2019 9:14 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS IP 40 Draft Ballot Title Comments

The draft title complies with ORS 250.035 in all respects. Respectfully, Kathryn Withers

1

To irrlistnotifier.sos@,or~on.~ov

Under Oregon Rules of _\ppellate Procedure, Rule 11.30, I object to the ballot caption for Initiative Petition 2020-040.

Caption Requires firearms be locked during storage/ iransfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities.

This is misleading in a couple of ways. First, under section 1 (a), the measure reads, ('For tJ1e pUiposes of (a) of this subsection, a firearm is not secured if a key, combination, or other means of opening a lock or container is readily available to a person the owner or possessor has nor authorized to carry or control the firearm."

I talked to an attorney friend of mine who immediately thought, ((such as a crowbar." As all such safe-cracking mols are readily available to thieves, this would mean that there is absolute liability for the theft of a firearm. To simply say, ((imposes penalties/liabliliities" is misleading, as the voter might believe that this is normal liability, or strict liability, neither of which is covered.

Further, as there is a reporting requirement for this absolute liability, there is selfincrimination involved. That should be in the title.

I recommend the following changes:

('Firearms storage/transfer to be locked up, self-incrimination, minors' use supervised, imposes absolute liability."

Thaqf you very much for considering this.

~ A- f ~ Ye"'~'\ Dr. Fred Yeung / ~ )



gina yates <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 22, 2019 10:11 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS IP 40 draft ballot title comments


1



ellen ellenbeier.com <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:01 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS IP 40 draft ballot title comments


Common sense guns laws are necessary.

Ellen B.

1



Beth Rectenwald <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 22, 2019 6:33 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS IP 40 Ballot

Hear me loud and clear, I support IP 40 Ballot

Elizabeth Rectenwald

1



Geri Berg <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 22, 2019 6:51 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

I am definitely in support of the ballot measure which would require the safe storage of firearms, including locked during storage and transfer, loss reported, minors use supervised, and imposition of penalties/liabilities.

As a long time advocate for children, a pediatric social worker, CASA, mother of four and grandmother of two, I see this as a public health and safety issue for all our children.

Sincerely yours, Geri Berg,MSW Portland, Oregon

1



Bronwyn Baz <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 22, 2019 9:50 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS I support IP40

As a pediatrician and a mother I strongly support IP40, which would require guns be locked when not in use. Lives will be saved the minute this bill becomes law-especially children and victims of suicide.

Thank you, Bronwyn Baz, MD, FAAP

1



D Liberge <[email protected]> Tuesday, October 22, 2019 10:11 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS IP 40 draft ballot title comments


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

1

October 22, 2019

TO:

[email protected] Stephen Trout, Director, Elections Division Bev Clarno, Secretary of State

-------

Frederick M. Boss, Deputy Attorney General A. Richard Vial, Deputy Secretary of State All other relevant or necessary Officials

RECEIVED OCT 23, 2019 8:00am

Elections Division

RE: Comments on draft ballot title and constitutional requirements for Initiative Petition 2020-040

I am writing with comments on the legal sufficiency of the draft ballot title (hereinafter "Draft Ballot Title") and the procedural constitutional requirements regarding Initiative Petition 2020-040.

I am a full-time Oregon resident and a registered Oregon voter. I am also a lawyer with 1nore than 35 years of practice, including experience in civil rights and constitutional law, including but not limited to Second A1nendment law, and administrative law. This is a serious letter setting forth detailed comments on the topics noted above with respect to Initiative Petition 2020-40 (hereinafter "Petition 40" or the "Petition").

For reasons including, but not limited to, those listed below, Petition 40 does not comply with the procedural requirements set forth in the Oregon Constitution.

1

Moreover, for reasons resulting from, but not limited to, the Petition's inclusion of multiple subjects in contravention of the requirements of the Oregon Constitution, the Draft Ballot Title, including the Caption, the Result of a Yes or No Vote, and the Summary included therein, is legally insufficient, false and misleading, and does not adequately describe the Petition nor properly inform Oregon voters of the effect, subject matters, or impact of voting "Yes" or "No" on Petition 40. Indeed, any voter who relied upon any aspect of the Draft Ballot Title as currently proposed by the Attorney General would be seriously misled as to the meaning and impact of Petition 40, including the effects of voting "Yes" or "No." Use of the current Draft Ballot Title by the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, or the Elections Division would be unlawful, in violation of Oregon law and of the procedural requirements of the Oregon Constitution, and an act of fraud on the voters of Oregon.

A. Failure of Petition to Comply with the Procedural Reguirements of the Oregon Constitution:

At the outset, the Petition clearly fails to comply with the procedural requirements of the Oregon Constitution.

The Oregon Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, requires that: "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."

1. The Petition does not comply with the "one subject" procedural requirement.

2

Petition 40 includes multiple subjects and matters that are not properly connected with each other. This is a critical failing. Given the strict word count requirements of the Ballot Title process, it is not practically possible for a ballot title to accurately or sufficiently caption or describe for the voters the effects of an initiative petition that includes multiple subjects. Moreover, voters have the right under the Oregon Constitution to be able to vote yes or no on individual subjects without having multiple subjects bundled in the confusing and misleading way set forth in Petition 40.

Petition 40 includes in its Section 1 purported require1nents for firearms to be secured with locks or in locked containers. The penalties for noncompliance are huge and draconian, given that each firearm constitutes a separate violation, thereby subjecting an owner of multiple firearms (in other words, the typical Oregon hunter or target shooter) to multiple penalties for the same conduct. Moreover, an innocent firearm owner whose firearms are stolen without his or her knowledge of the theft is subject to strict liability for unlimited damages if the firearm is used by a criminal, and in any event far more significant penalties to be imposed on innocent Oregon gun owners than Oregon imposes on criminals who steal firearms and use them to commit crimes. The language of Section 1 concerning locks and storage requirements and penalties and strict liability is a subject unto itself, highly complex and worded in a misleading way, and would in and of itself be a challenge for the state officials to summarize for the voters.

But Petition 40 also includes an entirely different and unconnected subject in Section 3, which would create new legal

3

requirements and penalties concerning the reporting of loss or theft of a firearm. This Section also is complex and a separate and unconnected subject. For example, one could adopt a law regarding locking and storage of firearms, and penalties for noncompliance, without addressing the reporting of losses or thefts of firearms and penalties for failure to report. Or one could adopt a law regarding reporting of losses or thefts of firearms, without adopting a law concerning locking and storage. Sections 1 and 3 are different subjects, one is not dependent upon or connected to the other, and voters have the right under the Oregon Constitution to vote on the1n separately.

Further, Petition 40 includes yet another distinct and unconnected subject matter in Section 4, which addresses the transfer to and use by minors of firearms. Section 4 is a separate subject from Section 1 and also separate from Section 3, and completely unconnected from each of them. Setting aside for the purposes of present argument the patent unconstitutionality of Petition 40 under the United States Constitution, one could change the law on transfer of firearms to, and use of firearms by, minors without adopting new legal requirements and penalties on storage, or new legal requirements and penalties on reporting of loss or theft. Or the state could change the law on storage but not restrict transfers to minors. Or the state could adopt new legal requirements and penalties concerning the reporting of loss or theft of firearms without new legal restrictions on minors and families. Under the Oregon Constitution's single subject requirement, Oregon voter have the right to be able to vote yes or no separately on Section 4's proposed new draconian restrictions on minors and their families.

4

This is particularly important because Section 4 of Petition 40, if adopted, would profoundly alter Oregon law on use of firearms by minors, including outlawing many safe and common traditions and practices used without harm or trouble by lawabiding Oregonians since statehood and indeed before. As just one example, Section 4 would for all practical purposes outlaw shooting teams, competitions, instructional classes, firearms safety classes, etc., for minors. It would outlaw for all practical purposes the safe and necessary target practice by minors with firearms. It is a huge subject in and of itself and bundling it with the other separate subjects in Petition 40 appears designed to hide from the voters the real impact of Petition 40 if adopted.

To help put this in perspective, for purposes of argument consider a petition that sought to (a) require anyone performing an abortion in Oregon to have received training on the safe and medically proper techniques to perform abortions, and in another section of the petition, (b) outlawed abortions for minors unless accompanied by their parents, hence prohibiting a 20-year old woman from having an abortion unless her parents were present. A majority or Oregon voters might support subject (a) but oppose (b ). Both subjects could not, under the Oregon Constitution, be included in the same petition.

Similarly, for purposes of argument, consider a petition that sought in one section to (a) require Oregon car owners to lock their vehicles and lock up their car keys when not in use in order to reduce auto theft, and in another section to (b) make it unlawful for a minor to drive a car unless the minor's parents were present at all times. Again, a majority of voters might favor (a) but oppose (b).

5

These examples are directly relevant to the defects in the current Petition 40 and demonstrate why the constitutional requirement of one subject, to which Petition 40 does not comply, is so important.

As a result of the multiple and unconnected subjects set forth in Petition 40, Oregon voters would be deprived of the right, guaranteed in the Oregon Constitution, to vote yes or no on those subjects. Moreover, as addressed below, the drafting of a legally sufficient Ballot Title, with necessary informative Caption, Kesult of a Yes and No Vote, and Summary sufficient to inform the voters, becomes impossible given the applicable word count limits.

2. The Petition does not comply with the "full text" procedural reguirement.

Petition 40 also fails to comply with the procedural requirements of the Oregon Constitution for a separate and independent reason because it fails to include and thus hides the full text of its proposals from the voters, and hence fails to comply with the "full text" requiren1ent of Article IV, Section 1.

Petition 40 asks the voters to vote on locking and storage requirements for firearms, requiring locks and containers that must comply with certain "minimu1n specifications," but does not include any information for the voters as to what those requirements or specifications would be, whether they are practically or reasonably available with existing available products or technology, and what they would cost or involve.

6

Rather, Petition 40 attempts to hide the ball by providing that if the voters vote "yes," then the Oregon Health Authority can make up any rules or requirements it wants, with no limits as to cost or practicality, regardless of whether those requirements would NOT have been approved and been adopted by the voters if they had had a chance to consider those requirements in voting yes or no on Petition 40. This no small matter, as safes for firearms can cost thousands of dollars, or be practically impossible to install for voters living in certain types of residences. Moreover, the Oregon Health Authority, whose mission is limited to providing "access to quality and affordable heaith care," has neither legal jurisdiction nor any expertise with regard to the subject n1atter of Petition 40.

The Petitioners have had years to research and consider the locking and storage requirements they wish to impose on Oregonians, and could have included them in the text of Petition 40, but chose not to do so, apparently because do not want the voters to know what they are voting on.

Indeed, the petitioners have inserted a "Trojan Horse" or "Catch 22" provision into Petition 40, as even if a firearm owner utilizes an approved trigger lock, for example, to secure her firearm, the owner is not in compliance with Petition 40 if any "means of opening a lock or container is readily available to" an unauthorized person. Yet, as petitioners surely know, there is no trigger lock available to consun1ers which cannot be opened by a criminal using common household tools.

The "full text" requirement of the Oregon Constitution is designed to prevent Oregon voters from being asked to vote on

7

the proverbial "pig in a poke," but that is what Petition 40 does. Thus, the Petition does not meet the procedural requirements of the Constitution for this separate and independent reason. B. Comments on the Draft Ballot Title:

Each section of the Draft Ballot Title is legally insufficient. I sympathize with the drafters of the Ballot Title, as the multiple subjects included in Petition 40, and the complex and misleading language of the Petition, makes it difficult to summarize. But that does not, as a matter of law, excuse the Attorney General or the Elections Division from the requirements to provide a Ballot Title that is sufficient in an respects. If that cannot be done, within the permitted word limits, then the Petition itself is not Constitutionally proper under Oregon law.

1. The Caption is legally insufficient.

The caption proposed by the Attorney General is inadequate and indeed inaccurate and fails to inform voters what Petition 40 is about.

Petition 40 is a radical proposal that would punish and bankrupt law-abiding Oregonians, dramatically cripple the currently lawful use of firearms in common and customary use for selfdef ense, hunting, target shooting, safety training, and competition, and outlaw safe and traditional uses of firearms by minors unless next to a parent at all thnes, all in contravention of existing law and constitutional rights under both the Oregon Constitution and the Constitution of the United states. Yet the Draft Ballot Title falsely and misleadingly makes it appear that Petition 40 is a minor safety measure. That is simply not true.

8

As just one example, the language in the proposed caption, "minors' use supervised," does not tell the voters that com1non, safe practices and activities unde11aken by minors and their schools, clubs, community organizations such as the Boy Scouts, families, etc., would be outlawed by Petition 40 or that Oregon youth would be prohibited from qualifying for and competing in the Olympics or interscholastic competitions unless their parents quit their jobs and were with their children every second.

As another of many examples, the language in the proposed caption, "requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer," is simply not accurate. Indeed, it is false and misleading as to the actual language of Petition 40. Under the actual text of the Petition, a 65-year old widow living alone in a single-story farmhouse in Eastern Oregon, where the sheriff would at best respond to a 911 call in 1-2 hours, must lock up her bedside firearm if she gets out of bed in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom, or else take the firearm into the bathroom with her, as otherwise it would not, under the punitive and absurd language of the Petition, be "under the control" of the woman. No reasonable person would describe such a situation as falling under the description of "during storage/transfer" proposed by the Attorney general, and voters would be in1permissibly misled if that caption is used.

The caption states that Petition 40 would require that firearms be "locked during storage/transfer." That language is false and

9

misleading and does not inform Oregon voters of the true requirements or impact of Petition 40. Oregon voters would be falsely led to believe that the use of the word "transfer" in the Draft Ballot Title is consistent with the use of the term "transfer" as applied to firearms under governing Federal law, when in fact Petition 40 would redefine "transfer" to include any thne anyone hands a firearm to another person, or loans a firearm to a friend for lawful purposes, and thus make it unlawful to engage in almost all of the currently lawful and common uses of firearms under Federal and Oregon law. Hence the Draft Ballot Title is drafted so as to materially mislead the voters as to the subject matter and effect of Petition 40.

Similarly, the Draft Ballot Title in using the term "storage" is false and misleading because Petition 40 does not use the term "storage" in any common or even common sense understanding or usage of that term. A voter reading the Draft Ballot Title would be entitled to understand that only when a firearm was put into "storage," in the common usage of that word, would the firearm need to be locked. But that is not true. Under Petition 40, any time a firearm owner puts her firearm down on a table across the room, or leaves the room, that firearm would magically be deemed to be "stored" and would be required to be locked. Failure to take such unreasonable, impracticable, and unnecessary steps would magically and tragically turn lawful, safe and innocent gun owners into violators subject to fines, penalties, unlimited strict liability, and ultimately personal bankruptcy if a criminal steals their firearms.

In fact, Petition 40 would effectively render firearms unusable for self-defense in the home or in a tent at a campsite or in a

10

recreational vehicle, yet the Draft Ballot Title falsely states that only "storage/transfer" is impacted by the Petition.

2. Result of "Yes" or "No" vote is legally insufficient.

For the reasons set forth in section B.1 of this letter, above, the proposed language on result of a "yes" or "no" vote is similarly false, misleading and legally insufficient as it would mislead the voters as to the actual impact of their votes when it uses language such as "locked during storage/transfer" or "minors' use supervised."

Moreover, the proposed language does not disclose that Petition 40 would unlawfully give the Oregon Health Authority the ability to make unknown, unspecified, binding rules establishing specifications for trigger and cable locks and locked containers, no matter how unnecessary, how ineffective, how unreasonable, how contrary to law, and how much expense would be imposed on Oregonians. At the time Oregonians would be asked to vote "yes" or "no" on Petition 40 they would have no knowledge of what requirements they may be voting for. hnagine an initiative petition that provided, "it will be a violation to perform or to receive an abortion except under future rules as to when, how, where, and by whom abortions may be performed, such rules to be drafted by the Oregon Health Authority and have the force of law after the voters approve the Petition." Would the Attorney General use the same language in describing such an initiative petition as is proposed to be used in the Draft Ballot Title for Petition 40?

3. The proposed summary is legally insufficient.

11

The proposed summary shares the same defects as described above.

In sum, the wording of the Draft Ballot Title does not communicate or sufficiently summarize the true meanings of Petition 40, nor does it accurately describe the effects of voting "Yes" or "No," and proceeding with the current language would be unlawful and only lead to massive litigation and the State of Oregon paying millions of dollars in attorney's fees to those who challenge it.

Sincerely,

~AJ~ Stephen D. Poss Sisters, Oregon

12 RECEIVED OCT 23, 2019 8:00am

Elections Division



EILEEN KEMP <[email protected]> Wednesday, October 23, 2019 12:14 PM

SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Support for IP 40 ballot language

I fully support the Attorney General's ballot title for IP 40: "Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities."

I have read the full text of this initiative and it accurately covers what the initiative is proposing. Gun owners need to be responsible for safely storing any weapons so that they cannot be stolen then not reported like the AR-15 assault weapon that was used to murder by nephew, Steve Forsyth, at Clackamas Town Center! This proposed law should also help prevent suicides by gun or children harming others with an unsecured gun. Most gun owners are responsible but penalties should be imposed on those who are not! This is a safety issue!

Eileen Kemp 15125 SW 119th Ave. Tigard, OR 97224

1

Greetings Elections Division,

I agree that there are many instances that guns should be locked up, but IP40 goes too far in a bad

authoritarian one size fits all way. I think the Ballot title should be:

Dangerous over-reach of the government telling you what you can do with your property "guns" at your

property "house, car."

Robert Smith,

~ fl -

~

COMMENTS ON Initiative Petition 2020-040 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 OCT 23, 2019 2:53pm

Elections Division

Re: Proposed Initiative Petition - Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities.

DOJ File #BT~40-19; Elections Division #2020-040

Dear Mr. Trout:

The proposed ballot title is misleading and needs to be re-written. Text in the "Yes Vote" reads (some exceptions), which is broad and can mean anything. The summary does nothing to explain what those exceptions are other than stating "some exceptions". Does an owner with a concealed carry firearm have to have the firearm locked when being legally carried? The title also does not address what happens to a criminal who steals a firearm and should be addressed In the summary section.

Regards, ~----...--..V-'.,,.,.-,,.,..- _ . ....,_,.,-- . . . . , .~~-~-... ~~~---

10/23/2019

The Honorable Bev Clarno Secretary of State 255 Capitol St NE, Suite 501 Salem, OR 97310

The Honorable Eileen Rosenblum Attorney General of Oregon 1162 Court St NE Salem, OR 97301

Subject: Comments on Initiative Petition 4QJ1raft Ballot Title

I am an Oregon registered elector and long time resident of Oregon. I am submitting the following comments cm the draft ballot title for Initiative Petition 40 on behalf of myself. I am a law abiding sportsrnari who commonly uses a variety of firearms for hu.nting and self defense. I have hunted· with mfoo:rs, and I will be adversely impacted by lP 40. I believe IP 40 infringes on my rights tinder Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution, and my Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.

I practice safe handling !Uld storage of fireanns as a matter of personal :responsibility. l don't · need a new state law, which viol~tes my constitutional rights, to dictate hciw to do this.

The Draft Ballot Title for IP 40 is misleading by omission and does not adequately sUI11In.arize the full and far-reachu1g effects this Jnitiafrve Petition could have on hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Oregonians incl_uding· hunters and who are members of our association .

. The ballotin~asure title seems innocuous but is misleading. It doesn't reveal the imposition or cost of c9ropl~ance for. gun· owners. It fails to give any idea that a grandparent _can't gift a firearm to a minor, since that "person11 .(the grandparent) would need to directly-supervise the child and the parent could not, and hence the child ·coul~ not use the firearm unless the grandparent was the supervisQl'. As we try to pass along our hunting heritage, IP 40 is extremely detrimental. ·

The ballot measure, title and measure summary deals with multiple subjects in violation of Article IV(l)(d) the Oregon Constitution. The measure includes the following subjects: 1) Storage and Control, 2) Transfer of Fireanns1 3) Reporting Theft and Liability, and 4) Minors use of firearms. While item 1 ao.d 2 may be "matters propedy related therewith" under Article IV~ we do not believe that item (3) Reporting, and especially item (4) Minors, are related. The safe storage of firearms is one matter. The requirement for reporting theft/loss and a creatiou, of strict liability is a separate matter. Likewise, the direct supervision (undefined) of minors is a separate matter. · ·

The "minors" sections states (4)(1)(a) ''A person who transters a firearm to a minor shall directly supervise the minor's use of the fireann''. TI1e Summary statement says "person transfening

6rearm to minor must directly supervise minor's use.'1 There is no definitioJ1 of what "directly supervise" means. There is an exemption for firearms "owned by the minor" but this measure m,akes it unclear how a minor could own a firearm that was gifted or transferred to the minor since it requires ''direct supervision" at all times, except while hunting.

Storage is one subject. Minor's use is another subject. The creation of strict liability for merely not reporting a theft ( or having the law enforcement agency misplace, misfile, or lose the record of theft/1.oss repo1tlng) is another major ch,mge to current law and a separate subject from gun storage. Making a person strictly liable for the actions of a third party for a period of 4 years is a tremendous change from current law. Minors use, reporting~ and the creation of strict liability

. are not related, in violation of Article IV of the Oregon Constitution.

The draft ballot title does not comply with ORS 250.035. The meas1rre does not conform with the Oregon Constitution (Art. IV). It should be completely rejected and not allowed to be on the ballot, period. Why would YOll place an unconstitutional meastu·e on the ballot?

Sincerely,

ll.1.0em1r Paul Donheffner

OREGON HUNTERS -ASSOCIATION

10/23/2019

The Honorable Bev Clarno · Secretary of State 255 Capitol St NE, Suite 501

. Salem, OR 97310

WiLDLIFE • HABlmT • HUNTERS1 RIGHTS

P.O. Box 1706, Medford, OR 97501 • (541) 77_2w7313 • Fax (541} 772~0964 oregonhunters.org •·[email protected]

The Honorable Eileen Rosenblum Attorney General of Oregon 1162 Court St NE Salem, OR 97301

· Subject: Comments on· Initiative Petition 40 Draft Ballot THle

I am a;n Oregon registered elector _and the Legislative·-commit~ee Chrurman of the Oregon Hunte~s Associatio·ii (QHA), with over 10,000 membei•s s~atewide. I am submitting the :(ollowing coinme1its on the draft ballot title for Initiative Petition 40 on behalf of myself and the.

_•. members of OHA., .. we are an as·sociation oflaw abiding sportsmen and _women who commonly ' · use a: variety of firearms ·ru:id who hunt with minors, and·we will be advei-sely 1mpacted by IP 40. ·. We believe IP 40 infringes on om· rights under Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Con~titutfon,

and ourSecond A.mendme11t rights under the U.S. Constitution. . .

. The Draft Ballot Title.for IP 40 ·is misJeading by omission and does not adequately sunima,rize _the fu11 and far--reachinieffects this.Initiative Petition could have on: hundreds· of_thousands of lawMabiding Ot·egonfans "including hunters and who are members of our association.

The ballot measure title· seems inno·cuous but is misleading:· It doesn't reveal the imposition or . co,st of co'rnp1iance for gun owners. tt fails to give any idea that a grandparent can't gift a firearm to a minor, sJrice th~t "person" (the grandp~ent) would nee_d to directly supe1vise the child and . the parent coukJ i1tjt, and. hence the .chHd. could not use the fireal'm unless the grandpatentwas the sup¢rvisor. As w.e·try to.pass.·al<;mg our hunting heritage, IP 40 .is extremely detr~mental.

The ballot measure, title and measure summary deals with multiple subjects in violation of , Article IV(l)(d) the Oregon Constitution. The measure includes.the following subjects: 1)

Storage "1nd Control, 2) Transfer of Firearms, 3) Reportitig Theft and Liability, and 4) Minors · use of firearms. While item 1 and 2 may be· "matters propel'ly related therewith11 tmder Article N, we do not believe that item (3) Reporting, and especially itern (4) Minors, are related. The

1

· safe storage of firearms is one matter. The requirement for reporting theft/foss and a creation of strict liability is a separate matter. Likewise~ the direct supel'vision (undefined.) of minors is a separate matter. ·

. The "minors" sections states (4)(1)(a) uA person who transfers a firearm to a minor shall directly supervise the minor's use of the firei:irm 11

• The Summary statement says "person transferring firearm to minor must directly supervise minor's use. 11 There is no definition of what "directly .supervise11 means. There is an exemption fol' fi1'earms "ow1;1ed by the minor" but this.measure makes .it unclear how a minor could own a firearm that was gifted or transferred to the minor since it requires 11direct supervision" at all times, except while hunting. ·

Storage is one subject. Minor's use is another sul~ject. The creation of strict iiahiiity for merely not reporting a theft (or having the law.enforcement agency misplace, misfile, or lose the record of theft/loss reporting) is another major change to Clll'l'ent law and a separate subject from gun storage. Making a pel'son strictly liable for the actions of a third party .for a period of 4 years is a tremendous change from current law. Minoi-s use., reporting, and the creation of strict liability are not related, ii~ violation of Article IV ofthe Oregon Constitution.

The draft ballot tide does not comply with ORS 250.035. The measure does not confonn with the Oregon Constitution (Ali. IV). It should be complete.ly rejected and not allowed to be on the

. ballot, period. Why would you place afr unconstitutional measure on the ballot?

Sincerely,

t:J~ Paul Donheffner, Legislative Chairman O:regon Hunters Association

2



Hello,

Ryan Hassan <[email protected]>

Wednesday, October 23, 2019 4:01 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Supporting firearm safety

I am a pediatrician in Oregon writing to you to support ballot title IP40, requiring Oregon gun owners to be responsible for their firearms by storing them safely and reporting when they are stolen. This is a common sense measure that has scientific evidence showing that it will reduce rates of gun injury and death. There is no consideration more important than keeping people safe from unnecessary injury and death; therefore this measure must pass. It is unacceptable that there are still children in Oregon dying each year from preventable gun injuries.

Thank you for your time and for the work you do for Oregon's children.

Ryan Hassan MD MPH

1




Elections Division


DOJ File #BT-40-19; Elections Division #2020-040

Dear Mr. Trout:

I am concerned that a vote of "Yes" for this proposed ballot will infringe on my constitutional rights as a

United States citizen. If voters are to consider requirements to store firearms in a way to impedes their

ability to protect themselves in their homes or otherwise, the implications of this going into law will

stifle that ability profoundly. Also, the proposed ballot title is misleading and needs to be re-written.

Text in the "Yes" vote reads (some exceptions), which is broad and can mean anything, Please be very

clear and transparent to the public as to what exactly the penalties will be for a violation in the context

of this proposal being adopted into law. Does an owner with a concealed carry firearm have to have the

firearm locked when being legally carried? Does a firearm owner have to keep a locking device on the

firearm while in the home or are other means acceptable? Have all available and conceivable means of

locking been considered? The title also does not address what happens to a criminal who steals a

firearm and should be addressed in the summary section.

Regards,

:0 i 1:/

l_}J(;t. ~p,,v

Adam l<oble


Elections Division

Oregon Firearms Federation • P.O. Box 556 • Canby, OR 97013 • 503.263.5830

Via email: [email protected]

October 24, 2019

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 IP40

Dear Ms. Clarno:

www.oregonfirearms.org

I am submitting these comments as an Oregon elector who is not satisfied with the draft

ballot title filed by the Attorney General for IP 40 (2020) pursuant to ORS 250.067. I am 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. I

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

be revised to meet the requirements of ORS 250.035.

Overview of IP 40

Initiative Petition 40 would make a number of significant changes to existing Oregon

firearms laws by imposing new firearm ownership rules upon hundreds of thousands of

Oregonians who would face fines and unusual liabilities for violations. Although patterned

after IP44(2018), IP 40 contains many noteworthy revisions that were unaddressed in the

draft ballot title.

1) Firearm Possession Rules

Section 1 of IP 40 would require anyone who owns or possesses a firearm to keep it

locked (and therefore immediately inaccessible) unless it is carried or "under the control" of the

owner or someone authorized to possess it. To comply with the locking requirements, a firearm

must be locked with a trigger lock, a cable-lock or be locked within a container equipped with a

tamper-resistant lock. A firearm is "under the control of a person" if a person who is authorized

to possess a firearm "is in sufficiently close proximity to the firearm to prevent another person

from obtaining the firearm."1

A violation of these requirements occurs whether or not an unauthorized person actually

obtains an unsecured firearm resulting in a Class A violation if the firearm owner/possessor

knew or should have known that a minor could obtain the firearm (or a Class C violation if

minors were not capable).

Aside from changing the strict liability date range from five years to four, there are several

noteworthy differences between Section 1 of IP 40 (2020) and Section 1 of IP 44 (2018). Most

significant is the broadening of circumstances in which a person could be held strictly liable for

injuries caused by an unlocked firearm. Where IP 44 (2018) applied strict liability to "[a]

person whose violation [of the locking requirement] 1•esult-s in injury to person or property ... ",

IP 40 disconnects the violation oflocking requirements from a causation requirement for

damages.

Under IP 40, if an unauthorized person obtained an unlocked firearm on January 1, 2021,

and the owner retrieved it that ·same day, the owner would still be subject to strict liability for

any use of the firearm until January 1, 2025 that resulted in an injury to person or property (if

not subject to the self-defense exception). Suppose a hunter did not immediately lock a hunting

rifle upon returning home from a hunting trip, but his 17 year old son (who had been lawfully

hunting with the rifle all weekend) locked it for him while he was using the restroom. This

would be a Class A violation not subject to an exception (unsupervised minor temporarily

possessing a firearm he does not own for purpose other than hunting, trapping or target

shooting). If the owner of the hunting rifle were then to use it on a hunting trip the next year,

he would be strictly liable for any damages to a person or property resulting from his use of the

rifle (assuming he wasn't using it for defense of self or others). This is because IP 40 does not

require damage to stem from a violation of its rules before it imposes strict liability. Under it,

any firearm that has been the subject of a violation (whether or not the violation was even

prosecuted at the time) subjects the owner to strict liability for four years after the violation no

matter who uses the firearm (and even if the firearm was legally transferred to another person).

IP 40 also includes new situational exceptions for violations of Section 1 (target practice,

safety courses, hunting, trapping, repairs, modifications, etc.) and a categorical exemption for

on-duty law enforcement officers. Two chief petitioners for IP 44(2018) are also chief

petitioners ofIP 40. They made substantive changes to Section 1 ofIP 40, involving causation,

exceptions and an exemption. The impact of those changes should be considered anew.

2) Firearm Transfer Rules

The locking requirements applied to firearms owners/possessors are further required in

any circumstance where a weapon is transferred to another person whether by "sale, gift, loan or

lease." Failure to comply is a Class C Violation and each firearm offense is a separate violation.

Its apparent purpose is to ensure that any person who acquires a firearm will also acquire a

means to prevent unauthorized access to it. Section 2 requires any transfer to occur with an

engaged trigger lock on the firearm or within a locked container. Failure to comply is a violation

that cannot be rectified by any subsequent act. Whether or not a violation is actually enforced

for an improper transfer, strict liability attaches to the transferor for the next four years for any

use of the firearm that results in an injury to person or property (assuming no applicable

defense exception). 2

This is very different from the strict liability provision in Section 2 of IP44(2018) which

required that a violation "results in injury to person or property ... "(IP44 (2018) Sec.2(3)).

Voters should be informed that IP 40 impose impose strict liability to injuries that may be

completely unconnected to any violation. This is not application of "strict liability" as it is

traditionally understood and it should be noted for the voter. If the Attorney General believes

that IP 40 may or may not alter standard causation 1·equirements in strict liability claims, then

this uncertain aspect should be noted in the summary as having an unclear effect that may

expose firearm owners to liability for unconnected damages.

3) Loss/Theft Reporting Rules

Section 3 of IP 40 requires any person who "owns, possesses or controls a firearm" to report the

loss or theft of the firearm to the local law enforcement agency with proper jurisdiction within 24

hours from the time the loss was known and means of reporting are reasonably available. Once a

violation occurs, strict liability attaches to the owner of the firearm for four years or until the

owner files a report with law enforcement (whichever is sooner). Unlike IP 44 (2018), IP 40

would require all law enforcement agencies to report information about lost or stolen firearms to

the State Police and to enter it into a database. Failure to timely report is a Class B violation

(punishable by up to $1000).

1 The definition of "control" makes the duty of a firearm owner subjective and contextual. For example, a young professional fighter (with lightning fast reflexes) could keep an unlocked handgun on his nightstand for protection while sleeping (assuming he is a light sleeper), while pregnant woman would might have to keep a firearm holstered to her body while sleeping to prevent another person from obtaining the firearm (with certainty).

2For example, suppose Sally wants to sell her handgun to her uncle. She legally allows her uncle to inspect the unlocked firearm in her presence. Satisfied with the action of the handgun, Sally's uncle hands her payment and she then hands him the (unengaged) trigger lock. This is a violation of Section 2. Now suppose, that three years after buying Sally's handgun her uncle accidentally shoots himself in the foot while practicing quickdraw maneuvers. Under IP40, Sally could be held strictly liable for her uncle's injury (and the hole in his boot) even though her actions did not actively contribute to his injury.

4) Supervision of Minors using Firearms

Section 4 of IP 44 would subject persons to four years of strict liability for any damage to

persons or property resulting from transferring a firearm to a minor without supervising the

minor (unless the minor owns the firearm).4 This section seems to recognize that minors may

legally own firearms in Oregon (other than handguns) but is drafted so awkwardly that it may

conflict with a minor's current right to acquire a firearm under existing law by imposing a new

condition upon it (holding a valid youth license for hunting). For example, a sheep rancher can

currently gift a rifle to his 17 year old son for use in protecting their livestock (and himself) from

common predators (coyotes, mountain lions). Under IP 40, making such a gift would expose the

rancher to strict liability (barring an exception defense, hunting). Further, due to the

ambiguous language in IP 40, the rancher might have to supervise his son's use of that rifle even

after he transferred ownership to his son. a

5) Qtber Sections

Sections 5-9 delegate rulemaking authority to the Oregon Health Authority, require new

signs in gun stores, provide definitions for terms used in IP 40, name the Act, and provide

operative dates. Although these section do contain some changes from IP 44(2018) none of

them appear to be substantial enough to require inclusion in the ballot title of IP 40.

SUGGESTED CHANGES TO BALLOT TITLE

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

3Section 4(3) exempts the "transfer of a firearm [t]hat is owned by the minor" from creating strict liability for the transferor, but it is not clear if it only applies to a firearm owned by a minor before the passage of IP 40. It could be read to permit transferring ownership after IP 40's passage or recognizing antecedent ownership while barring new transfers (can a minor own a firearm prior its transfer as a gift?). 4 IP 44 does not outlaw transfers to minors, but it establishes strict liability for some transfers if a minor's use Is unsupervised. Current law limits minor firearm possession to two circumstances: ORS 166.250(2)(a)(A) which permits minors to own firearms (other than handguns) with parent/ guardian permission; and, ORS 166.250(2)(a)(B) which permits minors to possess a firearm for hunting , target practice or other temporary lawful purposes.

context of existing law." Rasmussen v. KJ'Oger, 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." GT'eene, 322 Or at 175.

A caption is "underincl usive" 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

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:

Requires fi.rear.ms be locked dul'ing stol'age/transfer, loss !'epm-t:ed,

minors' use supervised; imposes penalties/liabilities

Although this same caption was upheld for IP 44 (2018), as discussed above, IP 40 contains

many noteworthy changes. Specifically, IP 40 imposes a version of "strict liability" that has

no parallel application under current law. If deciding whether to enact a new form of "strict

liability", the caption should direct voters to the nature of that change. I offer the following

alternative caption:

Penalties for unlocked firearms, unreported loss, unsupel'Vised use by minor; imposes "strict liability"; certain exceptions

Although IP 44 (2018) caption described it as requiring firearms to be locked during

"storage/transfer" that description was somewhat misleading. IP 40 would require locks for

firearms that are not "stored" in any conventional sense (e.g. when sitting on a nightstand

next to a sleeping person). Furthermore, the operative text of IP 40 does not use the term

"store" or "storage", rather it refers to unlocked firearms that are not "carried by or under the

control of a person." The caption should not imply that IP 40 only applies to firearms that

are in storage.

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 be 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. Kroge1', 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 requires firearms to be locked during storage/

transfer (some exceptions), loss/theft rep01ted, minors' use supervised. Penalties;

strictly liable for injuries within four years.

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

identify the activities that carry penalties. It also fails to adequately notify voters that the "strict

liability" contemplated by IP 40 involves a unique application of that concept. I offer this

alternative Result of "Yes" Statement:

Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote penalizes possession/ ownership of unlocked

firearms unless carried/controlled, unreported loss/theft; requires supervising

minor's firearm use; imposes four years "strict liability". Exceptions.

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

Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains current laws regulating firearm

transfer/possession, limiting minors' use; no locks or reporting loss/theft

required; maintains negligence liability standard for injuries.

The proposed "No" statement fails to clearly inform the voter that current law allows a person

to have personal access to an unlocked firearm in their home (without carrying throughout the

house or keeping in within immediate proximity) in the event that it is needed for self

defense. For many people, ready access to a firearm for self-defense at night is their primary

purpose of gun ownership. IP 40 would undermine the ability of a firearm owner to keep an

operable firearm within ready access for self-defense in the home as is permitted under

current law.

I offer the follow alternative statement:

Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains current laws regulating firearm transfers,

imposing liability under common negligence standard and permitting possession of

immediately accessible/operable firearms in the home.

C, The Summary

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 fails to identify the consequences of certain violations (fines) and the

unique nature of "strict liability" that would be imposed by IP 40.

Mr. Starrett submits the following Summary:

Summary: Firearm owner/possessor must: lock firearms with trigger/cable lock, or

in tamper-resistant locked container unless carried or under "control" (defined) of

owner/authorized person (police exempt); lock firearms transferred to another; report

theft/loss to law enforcement within 24 hours. "Control" means a person is "in

sufficiently close proximity to the firearm to prevent another person from obtaining"

it. Fines for violations. Firearm owners/possessors must supervise minor's use of

firearms. Person failing to lock, repo1t loss/theft, or supervise minors is "strictly

liable" if subject firearm is used to injure person or property an injury. Liability may

be imposed without connection to violations for four years. No liability if injury results

from self-defense/ defense of others. Oregon Health Authority adopts specifications

for trigger locks, cable locks, firearm containers. Other provisions.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely Yours,

ii/ ~--L./ ·----...._

evin Starrett,


Elections Division

October 24, 2019

The Honorable Bev Clarno

Secretary of State of Oregon

Attn: Elections Division

255 Capital Street NE, Suite 501

Salem, OR 97310

Re: IP40 ballot title comments

Dear Ms. Clarno:

Salvatore Casuccio PO Box 1982

Gresham 97030

RECEIVED OCT 24, 2019 9:58am _______ _. Elections Division

I am submitting these comments as an Oregon elector who is not satisfied with the draft ballot

title filed by the Attorney General for IP 40. I am the father of a minor who is a firearm owner

who would be impacted by this proposed measure. He is not yet an elector, so he may not submit

comments, nevertheless, his rights as a firearm owner are directly impacted by this measure.

Under ORS 166.250(2) minors are permitted to own a firearm ( other than a handgun) with the

consent of a parent or guardian as long as they are not otherwise disqualified from possessing a

gun under ORS 166.250(l)(c). My son is fifteen years old and is the owner of a 30.06 hunting

rifle that he received as a birthday present. Under current law, he can possess his own rifle, he

can clean and maintain independently, and he can take it to our local shooting range without

supervision. If IP40 were to pass, it commands:

Notwithstanding ORS 166.250, except in the case of a lawful act of self-defense

or defense of another person, a minor may possess a firearm only under the direct

supervision of an adult. (IP 40, Sec. 4(1 )(b )).

Although my son would apparently still own his rifle he would no longer be able to "possess" it

without adult supervision. It is a distinction without a difference. IP40 would permit him (in an

emergency) to use it for defense of himself or our family without my supervision, however, I

could not leave him in possession of it for that purpose.

The draft ballot title for IP 40 highlights "minors' use supervised" in the caption and "Result of

Yes Vote" statement, but is described in the summary as: " ... person transferring firearm to

minor must directly supervise minor's use." While this is true (for transferred firearms) it does

not tell the whole story. A minor, like my son, would be forbidden from continuing to

independently possess the firearm he owns. IP 40 would significantly curtail his right to use his

property under current law and the summary should reflect this change.

Thank you for considering my comments,

Salvatore Casuccio


Elections Division

Oct 20, 2019

Oregon Secretary of State

Elections Division

255 Capitol NE Ste 501

Salem OR 97310

RE: Initiative Petition 2020-040 Objection to Draft Ballot Title

Proposed Draft Ballot Title: "Requires firearms be locked during storage/transfer, loss reported, minors use supervised: imposes penaltles/liabilites."

I object to IP 2020-40 for the following reasons

a). Sec. 1 (A) Requires the securing of and control of a firearm in one's possession.

b). Seel (4)(a) Holds the gun owner accountable for a secured or locked up firearms if another person obtains the key or combination to such locking device.

c). Seel (4}(a) Holds a gun owner liable for the Criminal acts of a third party. "Liable" is not defined, could a gun owner be accountable for both criminal liability and ciVil liability? This specific sec, does not give clear wording as to the legal ramifications of "liability" What I am reading is I become the criminal and the criminal is not held accountable.

There are many more besides the 3 listed above that concern me, each one seems to criminalize the gun owner and not the person whom either stole or used the firearm in a crime. Each and every Section here takes away my basic right to own a firearm as outlined in the Constitution of the United States, which our representatives take an oath to uphold:

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State") and its operative clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"),

Infringed means - act so as to limit or undermine (something); ~ncroach on. This ballot measure clearly infringes on my rights as a gun owner.

On Constitutional grounds I ask this proposed ballot be rejected.

I would like to leave with this. You cannot legislate a person to be moral, they either are or they are not. Drugs are illegal, yet drugs are a huge problem across the United States, drug dealers don't care who they sell to as long as they make their money. Prohibition didn't work in the 19301s and was overturned due to the fact it didn't work, it became a big profit for mafia and gangs. Gun control will be no different in my oplnion, I feel it will be a gateway to a bigger problem.

Respectfully fJ. ( .D

t1jJJt»J)L ~. J;;)//Jt)r;J-.

1




Elections Division


DOJ File #BT-40-19; Elections Division #2020-040

Dear Mr. Trout:

The proposed ballot title is misleading and needs to be re-written. Text in the "Yes Vote" reads (some exceptions), which is broad and can mean anything. The summary does nothing to explain what those exceptions are other than stating "some exceptions". Does an owner with a concealed carry firearm have to have the firearm locked when being legally carried? The title also does not address what happens to a criminal who steals a firearm and should be addressed In the summary section.

Regards,

Vlad Karnafel

Unrestricted

INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION 11250 WAPLES MILL ROAD

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030-7400

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]

October 24, 2019

Re: Initiative Petition 2020-040-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 2020-040 ("IP40"). 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

IP40 would impose a series of sweeping, new requirements on firearm owners; subject them to severe penalties for failure to comply; and hold them strictly liable for injuries resulting as late as four years after the violation-without consideration of mental state or other mitigating factors.

IP40 adopts the definition of "firearm" from Oregon Statute 166.210: "a weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of powder." It does not, however, provide an exception for antique firearms, a term defined in Oregon Statute 166.210 but not incorporated by IP40. Thus, IP40 would apply to every firearm in the state-regardless of age or purpose. This would include all antique :firearms-including a :fifteenth-century arquebus, matchlock or snaphance, Revolutionary War flintlock, and Civil War musket.

IP40 would require any firearm not carried or under the direct control of a person to be secured with a trigger or cable lock or kept in a locked container. Failure to comply would be punishable by a Class C violation per firearm.' The penalty would be increased to a Class A violation if the firearm was not secured in a compliant manner and the person knew or should have known that a minor could gain access, with each firearm constituting a separate violation.2

1 Pursuant to ORS 153.019, a Class C violation is punishable by a fine of$165. 2 Pursuant to ORS 153.019, a Class A violation is punishable by a fine of $440.

October 24, 19 Page2 IP40 would also require any person transferring a firearm to transfer it with a trigger or cable lock engaged or in a locked container equipped with a tamper-resistant lock. Failure to comply would be a Class C violation for each firearm. 3

IP40 would further hold any person who failed to conform to these storage and transfer requirements strictly liable for any injury to persons or property that resulted up to four years after the failure. This strict liability would apply without regard for the intervening criminal or negligent act of another person or whether the accused had a culpable mental state.4

As such, IP40 dictates particular storage and transfer requirements while imposing conditions that burden the ability of law-abiding citizens to use arms for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Safety and storage are matters of personal responsibility and subject to each individual's particular circumstances and needs. It is, therefore, unreasonable to impose a one-size-fits-all solution. This intrusive initiative invades people's homes and forces them to render their firearms useless in an emergency self-defense situation. Furthermore, the imposition of strict liability for injuries resulting as long as four years after a violation-without regard for mental state or the intervening criminal and negligent acts of another-raises significant due process concerns.

IP40 would also punish crime victims by imposing severe penalties on those who fail to report lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours. Failure to comply with the reporting requirement would be a Class B violation, with each firearm constituting a separate offense.5

Firearm owners who fail to report their firearms lost or stolen would, again, be strictly liable for any injury that results within four years of the offense. Beyond the due process concerns raised above regarding strict liability, IP40 would hold a firearm owner liable for the criminal acts of a person who illegally obtained their firearm-either by theft or subsequent criminal transfer. The initiative would, therefore, further victimize individuals who have already experienced loss as the result of a crime.

3 Pursuant to ORS 153.019, a Class C violation is punishable by a fine of$165. 4 The assignment of strict liability raises serious due process concerns. Oregon Statute 161.095(1)

establishes that:

The minimal requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which the person is capable of performing.

Oregon Statute 161.095(2) further provides that:

Except as provided in ORS 161. 105 a person is not guilty of an offense unless the person acts with a culpable mental state with respect to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a culpable mental state."

Oregon Statute 161.105(1 )(a) provides an exception to the general requirement of a culpable mental state for offenses under the Oregon Criminal Code if "[t]he offense constitutes a violation." In consequence, the application of strict liability for any offense other than a violation would not comply with the requirements of Oregon criminal law.

5 Pursuant to ORS 153.019, a Class B violation is punishable by a fine of $265.

October 24, 19 Page 3 Lastly, IP40 would require a person who transfers a firearm to a minor, which the minor does not own, to directly supervise the minor's use of the firearm. Anyone failing to provide direct supervision would be strictly liable for any injury to person or property indefinitely after the violation. Beyond the due process concerns raised above, the unlimited duration of the strict liability provision could result in the transferor being held liable for acts committed after the minor has turned 18 and is now an adult. Furthermore, this initiative would have a substantial impact on youth shooting sports, training, and education programs by requiring direct supervision by the individual who has transferred the firearm.

II. CAPTION

We appreciate the challenge the Attorney General faces when addressing a measure with the many inherent obscurities that IP40 contains under ORS 250.035. Nevertheless, as explained below in more detail, the draft ballot title does not satisfy 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.

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 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. Lavey v. 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) ("When 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 IP40 states:

October 24, 19 Page4

REQUIRES FIREARMS BE LOCKED DURING STORAGE/TRANSFER, LOSS REPORTED, MINORS' USE SUPERVISED; IMPOSES P ENALTIESILIABILITIES

This proposed caption does not comply with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(a) and interpretive case law. The description is misleading and deceptive because it implies the measure simply requires firearms to be locked while stored or being transferred, that losses must be reported, and that minor's must be supervised when using guns. It is also underinclusive, and therefore statutorily non-compliant, because it says nothing about the difficulties of compliance or the strict liability imposed for up to four years for any violation.

IP40 would impose substantial burdens on otherwise-lawful firearm activities. A person living alone who kept an unlocked firearm by their bed for self-defense could commit a Class C violation if they got up to use the restroom during the night. A crime victim would be guilty of a Class C violation and strictly liable for any injury in the subsequent four years-without regard for the criminal acts of the thief-unless they could prove they did not know and could not know the firearm had been stolen.

In light of the above, the draft ballot title and proposed caption for IP40 are misleading, deceptive, and underinclusive. Because the Attorney General's proposed caption for IP40 fails to conform to the criteria set forth in ORS 250.035(2)(a) and applicable case law, we recommend the following caption:

REQUIRES FIREARMS BE LOCKED AT ALL TIMES, WITH EXCEPTIONS, REPORT THEFT/LOSS; IMPOSES STRICT LIABILITY

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." Novickv. 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 IP40 states:

RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "YES" VOTE REQUIRES FIREARMS TO BE LOCKED DURING STORAGE/TRANSFER (SOME EXCEPTIONS), LOSS/THEFT REPORTED, MINORS' FIREARM USE SUPERVISED. PENALTIES: STRICTLY LIABLE FOR INJURIES WITHIN FOUR YEARS.

The yes statement of the Attorney General's proposed ballot title magnifies the errors of the caption and, consequently, fails to comply with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(b) and applicable case law. Furthermore, it raises an additional problem by ignoring existing rights.

October 24, 19 Page 5 The ballot title's statement regarding the result of a "yes" vote does not clearly state the practical results if IP40 is approved. It is deceptive and misleading because it implies the measure simply requires firearms to be locked while stored or being transferred, that losses must be reported, and that minor's must be supervised when using guns. While it indicates that strict liability would be imposed for noncompliance, it does not adequately describe how difficult it would be to be compliant. It further fails to acknowledge the overly broad definition of "firearm" and the burdens it imposes upon the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in our federal and state constitutions.6

Given that the Attorney General's yes statement for IP40 fails to comply with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(b) and the applicable case law, we recommend the following yes statement to correct these violations:

RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "YES" REQUIRES FIREARMS TO BE LOCKED AT ALL TIMES (SOME EXCEPTIONS), IMPOSES STRICT LIABILITY, REPORT FIREARM THEFT/LOSS, DIRECTLY SUPERVISE MINORS' FIREARM USE

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 14 7 (2006); Perry v. 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 IP40 states:

RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "NO" VOTE RETAINS CURRENT LAWS REGULATING FIREARM TRANSFER/POSSESSION, LIMITING MINORS' USE; NO LOCK OR REPORTJN LOSS/THEFT REQUIRED; MAINTAINS NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY STANDARD FOR INJURIES.

The no statement of the Attorney General's ballot title perpetuates the deficiencies and inaccuracies of the caption and yes statement and therefore fails to comply with ORS 250.035(2)( c) and applicable case law. It further fails to acknowledge existing laws that place substantial restrictions on firearm transfers.

Oregon Statute 166.470(1)(a) already prohibits a person from selling, delivering or otherwise transferring a firearm to anyone under age 18, while Oregon Statute 166.250(1)(c)(A) prohibits any person under age 18 from knowingly possessing a firearm.

To correct these violations, we recommend the following no statement:

6 U.S. CONST. amend. II, OR. CONST. art I,§ 27.

October 24, 19 Page 6

RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "NO" RETAINS CURRENT LAWS, WHICH BAR TRANSFER/POSSESSION OF FIREARMS BY CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS; DOES NOT IMPOSE NEW VIOLATIONS/STRICT LIABILITY FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH SEVERAL NEW LIMITATIONS

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 IP40 states:

SUMMARY: REQUIRES FIREARM OWNER/ POSSESSOR TO SECURE IT WITH TRIGGER OR CABLE LOCK, OR IN LOCKED CONTAINER WHEN NOT CARRIED BY OWNER/ POSSESSOR, WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS; MUST TRANSFER FIREARM WITH TRIGGER OR CABLE LOCK, OR IN LOCKED CONTAINER; MUST REPORT THEFT OR LOSS OF FIREARM TO LAW ENFORCEMENT WITHIN 24 HOURS; PERSON TRANSFERRING FIREARM TO MINOR MUST DIRECTLY SUPERVISE MINOR'S USE. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS TREATED AS VIOLATION (NOT CRIME). PERSON WHO VIOLATES REQUIREMENTS STRICTLY LIABLE IF FIREARM THAT IS SUBJECT OF VIOLATION INJURES PERSON/ PROPERTY WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF VIOLATION; LIABILITY DOES NOT APPLY IF INJURY RESULTS FROM SELF-DEFENSE OR DEFENSE OF ANOTHER. OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY TO ADOPT SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRIGGER LOCKS, CABLE LOCKS, FIREARM CONTAINERS. DEFINES "FIREARM, " "TRANSFER, " OTHER TERMS. OTHER PROVISIONS.

The summary of the Attorney General's ballot title carries forward all the problems of the caption, the yes statement, and the no statement. Consequently, it violates ORS 250.035(2)(d) and applicable case law. We hereby incorporate the comments articulated in sections II, III, and IV above into this section as additional argument as to why the Attorney General's draft summary violates ORS 250.035.

The summary would also be a good place to indicate that the applicable penalties apply to each individual firearm that is stored, transferred, or not reported lost or stolen in violation of IP40. Because firearms are often stored together, the storage requirement and lost or stolen reporting requirement would lead to many violations for only a single case of failing to report or improper storage. This result is not at all clear from the existing summary.

October 24, 19 Page 7 To correct these violations, we recommend the following summary:

SUMMARY: MEASURE REQUIRES FIREARMS TO BE LOCKED AT ALL TIMES UNLESS BEING CARRIED BY OR IN DIRECT CONTROL OF OWNER, IMPOSES STRICT LIABILITY OR VIOLATIONS FOR FAILURE TO STORE OR TRANSFER LOCKED FIREARMS, NOT REPORTING THE THEFT OR LOSS OF A FIREARM WITHIN 24 HOURS OF DISCOVERY, OR DIRECTLY SUPERVISE MINORS' USE OF THE OWNER'S FIREARM. EACH FIREARM IMPROPERLY STORED, TRANSFERRED OR NOT REPORTED IS A SEPARATE VIOLATION. QUALIFICATIONS FOR TRIGGER OR CABLE LOCKS TO BE DETERMINED BY OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY.

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 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



[email protected] Thursday, October 24, 2019 5:04 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment in support of IP 40 draft ballot title

I totally support the draft ballot title of IP 40 as written by the Attorney General.

!ca roT-,vtanstrom: ~ollectecl horse@aol, com! 13333 saint Thomas Street 'fugene; OR 9?4Q$; ···· ·· ·

~4J~Q1-4~2~S:O:

1



Chandler Sherwood <[email protected]> Thursday, October 24, 2019 8:58 PM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comments regarding Initiative Petition 2020-040 - Gun Lock Up Ballot Measure

If I understand this correctly, a person who has their unlocked firearm stolen is liable for any criminal activity committed using that firearm for up to 4 years after the date of theft, but that same person is not liable if they have a cable lock on their firearm? How many years do you think that it takes to cut through a I/8th inch of cable?

Anyone who wants to bust through a cable or trigger lock can do so in minutes. Those things exist only for the assurance of people with young children. Anyone with a mind to do ill will not be deterred in the slightest from bypassing one. If you want to make a law that says people with children in their homes need to lock up their weapons, go ahead and do so. Otherwise, this is a complete waste of time at the very best and an impediment to the natural right to self defense besides.

1

Documents

SOS I rrlistnotifier SOSoregonvotes.org/irr/2020/040cmts.pdfStephanie Hull Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11 :05 AM SOS lrrlistnotifier * SOS Comment