Gun control initiative submits signatures, poised to be second on Oregon's November ballot
Backers of an initiative petition that would ban gun magazines of more than 10 rounds and require an individual interested in purchasing a firearm to get a permit on Friday turned in more than 160,000 signatures in support, likely paving the way for Oregonians to vote on the measure this fall.
If the Secretary of State's Office verifies at least 112,020 valid signatures for Initiative Petition 17, it will represent the culmination of four years of work by Lift Every Voice Oregon to get a gun control proposal on the ballot for Oregonians to consider.
“I hope it shows how residents in a state can come together from many directions and address the public health crisis of gun violence with common sense and well-put-together legislation," said the Rev. Mark Knutson, chief petitioner and pastor at Augustana Lutheran Church in Portland. "I hope that people are inspired to say: We can do this."
Faith-based coalition Lift Every Voice Oregon came into being in the aftermath of the 2018 mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and has been pursuing gun control measures via initiative petition and legislative action ever since.
Their first effort for the 2018 general election ballot started too late to gather the needed signatures. Their campaign for 2020 was derailed by the coronavirus pandemic. Bills in the Legislature also went nowhere.
This election cycle they faced a COVID-19 resurgence and a historically wet spring but gathered the needed signatures with more than 1,600 volunteers around the state.
Lift Every Voice Oregon also pursued Initiative Petition 18 this year, which would have banned the manufacture, purchase, use and possession of "semi-automatic assault firearms" beyond its effective date. It also would have required all previously purchased firearms that qualify to be registered within 180 days of the effective date.
Knutson said they still support the measure, but they needed to make a decision about which initiative to pursue this year to ensure one of them made it to the ballot. He said there already are conversations happening with lawmakers about a similar proposal being introduced as legislation in the 2023 legislative session.
“Trying to do two signature sheets in the rain, it doesn’t work that good. We didn’t want to come up short with two good ones," Knutson said. “We trust the Legislature to get it done and we’ll work with them on that, all the way."
Initiative Petition 17 has three main provisions: banning ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds, requiring a permit for firearm purchases and reporting permitting data.
After the effective date of the measure, it would become unlawful in Oregon to manufacture, import, possess, use, purchase or sell ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds, with a number of exceptions.
Sale to and possession by law enforcement or military personnel still would be permitted. A person owning "large-capacity" magazines could possess them on their own property, assuming they were purchased before the act went into effect.
And the use of "large-capacity" magazines still would be allowed by individuals who purchased the magazine before the effective date of the act if they are being used: at a public or private shooting range; for recreational activities like hunting; or while participating in a firearms competition or exhibition, display or educational project.
Violation would constitute a class A misdemeanor.
Oregon Firearms Federation executive director Kevin Starrett said there are a variety of issues with IP 17.
Among them, he pointed to the firearm safety course requirement as being overburdensome and time-consuming, both for permit applicants and for police departments that could be responsible for offering training courses.
Firing ranges are hard to come by, he said, with, for example, several police departments utilizing his private gun club because they have no other options. These lacking options and associated costs also are likely to have a disproportionate impact on communities of color, he said.
"Where do you suppose all the smaller towns who rely on private gun clubs for training are going to go for the live fire portion of the class? How often will they provide it? What costs will be created? How do those increased costs and barriers affect Black folks in inner-city Portland?" Starrett asked rhetorically in an email conversation.
How the permit process would work
The permit agent for a permit-to-purchase would be the police chief or county sheriff or their designee. Grounds for granting a permit would include ensuring an individual is not a threat to themselves or others, is not barred from owning a firearm, and that they have completed a firearm safety course which includes live fire and classroom training. A fee of no more than $65 also would be required.
The applicant would have to submit to fingerprinting and photographing by the permit agent, who would then request Oregon State Police conduct a background check on the applicant.
If it was determined an individual who is barred from owning a firearm applied for a permit, that information would be required to be shared with relevant authorities. Permit denials would be subject to appeal. If the applicant was qualified to own a firearm, the permit would be issued within 30 days.
Permits would be valid for five years and there would be no limit to the number of firearms an individual could purchase while the permit was valid. Permits could be renewed without the need for repeated fingerprinting or completion of a firearms safety course.
How the data on permits would be used
Using the permit data, the Oregon State Police would publish an annual report: "indicating for each county the number of applications made to any permit agent, the number of permits-to-purchase issued and the number of permits-to-purchase denied and the reasons for denial."
State Police "may" include any additional information that it "determines would be helpful to ensuring the permit-to-purchase process was being administered in a consistent and equitable manner.
Another petition would punish lawmakers who walkout
IP 17 is expected to join Initiative Petition 14 as the only two initiatives on the ballot this November.
IP 14 would punish lawmakers for unexcused absences from floor sessions by disqualifying a lawmaker from holding office the following term if they have 10 or more in one regular or special legislative session. The measure comes in response to a handful of Republican walkouts in the 2019, 2020 and 2021 legislative sessions, which denied or slowed the passage of many Democratic priority bills.
Most notably was a lengthy walkout in 2019 that drew national attention as Senate Republicans effectively stymied Democrats from passing a greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade bill. Republicans in the Senate and House walked out again in 2020 over a similar bill, which froze the legislative process and resulted in only three bills passing out of 258 introduced.
They also have walked out over K-12 education funding, COVID-19 restrictions and the speed of the legislative process.
Oregon is one of few states with a two-thirds legislative quorum requirement for floor sessions. So while Democrats have been in the supermajority in recent legislative sessions — meaning they can pass most bills without Republican support — they have still needed Republicans in the chamber to conduct any legislative businesses.
Republican lawmakers contend that quorum denial is a legitimate tactic, particularly when a party is in the super minority and has little power to begin with.
A left-leaning coalition of labor unions and progressive groups proposed several initiative petitions to dissuade walkouts this year, including concepts to levy fines or extend the legislative session. But those ideas were dropped with only IP 14 making it to the ballot this year.
“This ballot measure is common sense," said Reed Scott-Schwalbach, a chief petitioner of IP 14 and an educator from the Centennial School District. "Oregonians expect the people we elect to show up to work every day. We’re confident that Oregon voters will be voting yes this November.”
Constitutional referrals, initiatives that came up short
Two constitutional referrals from the Legislature also will be on the ballot.
The first would add to the constitution that health care is a fundamental right and require the state to provide residents with access to affordable and appropriate health care, balanced against the public interest in funding public schools and other essential services.
The second would remove language in the constitution that allows for slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for crime.
Several other ballot measures were approved to circulate signature sheets, but they either were dropped by petitioners or did not submit the needed signatures:
IP 1 — Would have amended the constitution to require a two-thirds legislative vote to pass bills with "emergency clauses," which take effect earlier than the constitutionally set 90 days after a session ends.
IP 3 — Would have changed the membership of the Environmental Quality Commission to fill the commission with members from natural resource industries.
IP 6 — Would have provided an estimated $750 to each Oregonian by taxing certain large corporations a 3% tax on gross annual sales of goods and services in Oregon above $25 million.
IP 13 — Would have criminalized injuring or killing animals, including for food, hunting and fishing. Also would have added most animal breeding practices to the crime of "sexual assault of an animal."
IP 35 — Would have allowed wholesalers and large retailers licensed to sell beer, wine and hard cider to sell distilled liquor and "low-proof spirit beverages."
Reporter Connor Radnovich covers the Oregon Legislature and state government. Contact him at cradnovich@statesmanjournal.com or 503-508-6131, or follow him on Twitter at @CDRadnovich.
This article originally appeared on Salem Statesman Journal: Gun control initiative submits signatures to be second on ballot
