They ruled that the initiative was too vague and ordered them to make the wording more clear.

by

For the past few months, clergy members in Oregon, a well-known sanctuary state, have been leading a campaign to get a proposal that would supposedly ban “assault rifles” and “high-capacity magazines” on the ballot for the upcoming state elections in November. Upon learning about the gun control proposal, known as “Initiative Petition 43,” numerous supporters of the Second Amendment, which is a constitutional amendment protecting the gun rights of law-abiding citizens, promptly filed a lawsuit to stop their ballot push.

Shockingly, after reviewing the case against Initiative Petition 43, the justices at the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the wording of the proposal was far too vague and imprecise to withstand scrutiny. After doing so, they then ordered the group to revise the initiative and make it more clear so that it doesn’t potentially mislead voters.

Specifically, the court told Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum that she “must revise the summary of the initiative that would be put before voters in November.” To justify their decision, the justices stated that “assault weapons” is an extremely imprecise term that could be possibly be interpreted in different ways. The court added that the reference to the definition within the full text of Initiative Petition 43 provided by the attorney general was not adequate to explain the full effect.

Basically, all 88,000 signatures that the assult weapons ban has garnered are no good. The gun grabbers will have to start all over again.

“We conclude that the [ballot title] caption could accurately state that the proposed measure would criminalize the possession and transfer of many semiautomatic weapons, as well as magazines holding over 10 rounds,” explained Chief Justice Thomas Balmer in an attempt to show how the wording of the proposal could be changed to be more precise.

By wording it this way, it would be much more clear that the ban would not just ban “assault rifles” and “high capacity magazines,” but also “certain semiautomatic rifles and pistols capable of accommodating detachable magazines and have other military-style features, such as a collapsible stock or grenade launcher, plus some semiautomatic shotguns.”

Of course, the ballot made an exception for law enforcement officials and military employees who are required to carry such firearms. The same exception also went for the manufacturers and retailers who supply them, but denied citizens their Second Amendment right.

In order for residents who currently own any of the firearms that would be prohibited to keep their weapon, they would have to register with the Oregon State Police and pass a criminal background check. This, however, wasn’t stated very precisely in Initiative Petition 43 so Chief Justice Balmer ordered Rosenblum to also make this more clear.

On top revising the proposal, the gun control advocates behind the ballot push were also informed that after finalizing the wording of the initiative, they would then need to gather 88,184 by July 6, which is extremely unlikely because that date is only about one week away, in order for it to actually make it on the November ballot.

Given the fact that the supporters of the initiative are will not likely gather the necessary signatures before the deadline, they have since announced, quite incredibly, that they will give up trying to get the proposal on this year’s ballot and focus on preparing it for the 2020 ballot instead.

“Our lightning speed as a team was just too fast for our opponents,” reasoned Pastor Walter J. Knutson during a recent press conference in an attempt to spin their failure as good news.

“They started flopping all over the field with every legal maneuver they could imagine,” continued the delusional pastor.

“Oh, they are exhausted by the rightness of our cause,” he added, noting, “and we are just getting going.”

Sadly, Initiative Petition 43 isn’t the only utterly ludicrous gun control legislation that was recently proposed by the authoritarian left.

Earlier this year, for example, policymakers in Deerfield, Illinois, which is a suburb of Chicago, voted unanimously to pass a gun control bill banning all semi-automatic rifles as well as some pistols and shotguns “with certain features.”

Thankfully, though, much like what happened in Oregon, numerous locals who support the Second Amendment filed a lawsuit against the proposal, which would have fined people up to $1,000 a day if they failed to comply, and managed to have its implementation put on hold.

Just before the policymakers in Deerfield approved their controversial gun control legislation, Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) introduced a gun control measure, known as “The Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act.”

Unlike the other bills, though, Davis’ bill wasn’t a ban on assault rifles. Instead, his proposal was to raise the amount of federal tax on guns and ammunition.

Specifically, if passed, the bill that he proposed would not only increase “federal excise taxes on shells and cartridges from 11 percent to 50 percent,” but also raise “taxes on pistols and revolvers from 10 percent to 20 percent.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) also introduced a bill banning firearms like the AR-15 several months ago after 26-year-old Devin Kelley killed 26 people and wounded 20 others when he opened fire on a crowd of people attending a church service in Texas.

The authoritarian left must not be allowed to restrict the gun rights of law-abiding citizens. Hopefully, the courts understand this and in the event of Initiative Petition 43, or something similar making it on the ballot and getting enough votes for it to pass, they will strike the utterly absurd initiative on the grounds that it violates the gun rights of law-abiding Americans.

 

Advertisements