Shawn Poe

Again... I am a Ms. ;) Check my profile pic LOL The information you provided .. the link does not allow me to surf around and find application/submitter information. I concur that to strip away any background checks, would be ..Ummm... Crazy? ;) Fixing the system we have now will solve many ills. I am going to have to do a bit of research on this IP from the beginning. As it is not either of the 2 issues I am currently active in in regards to 2a Rights :) I think we both agree that Complete and Clear, Non Emotional Information on 2a Rights is the only way to achieve the goal of everyone's safety.

Again, I am a Ms..... ;) LOL check out my profile pic :D Would you please provide me the entirty of where you found that Clerks acceptance letter. I would like to research who submitted this ?? Proposal?? And read the proposal. As you may deduce, I am up on most current 2a processes and involved but what you provided me, and it's information, is not part of what even I would support. Links would be awesome :) I believe, as I deduce you do as well, Clarity on such an important issue as 2a Rights is vital. Thanks for the dialogue

First of all, I am a Ms. ;) LOL Unless, you have read IP 43, which is precisely Why this SAPO is being filed, our conversation is a moot point. I say this because IP 43 makes no mention of Background check..nor does it mention Mental Health provisions. The sole purpose of IP 43 is to remove Legal firearms from legal Background checked owners. Semi auto rifles and pistols. Firearms that are designed and Legally sold with a Standard 10 round or more magazine. With that established, we can move on to Sec 27 of the Oregon State Constitution, which the SAPO would protect and keep in place. You see, IP 43 would Rewrite Sec 27 of the Oregon State Constitution. In IP 43.. it also calls for Firearm and Firearm parts manufacturers, we have many here in Central Oregon, to cease production unless they have a Govt. contract. None of the regulations they are now beholden to "go away". The SAPO keeps things just as they are. Another thing to consider is why the ODFW is Opposed to IP 43..in their statement they could stand to lose 20 million dollars a year that are generated off of Firearms and Ammo sales. Now, not that many hunters purchase hoardes of Ammo.. but, who does? Sport Shooters. They blow through rounds at the range training for competitions. Why bring this up? Conservation and ground crews are supported by those dollars gleaned. Trails closed? No new research on the newest favored animal/fowl? Legal Gun Ownership works hand in hand with Conservation. Back to the Sheriff ;) He swore to uphold the Oregon state Constitution. IP 43 looks to rewrite Sec 27. And, if you have ever purchased a firearm the background check is thorough. I might contend that the Govt Dept overseeing adjudication entry into NICS may be what you have issue with. :)

The SAPO keeps the Oregon State Consitution Sec 27 exactly as it is now. Protecting Deschutes Co from having to comply with IP 43 WHICH changes Sec 27 of the Oregon State Constitution. Ask ODFW why they oppose IP 43. ODFW stands to lose 20 Million in proceeds from firearm and ammo sales which they use for Conservation. Conservation. Remember 3 mornings ago? When someone broke into a 79 year old mans home? Did he subdue the attacker with a fireplace poker? Nope. Probably a firearm that would be deemed Illegal by IP 43. Step back for a minute and think about what your world will look like when what you Chose to do has resulted in the criminal breaking into your home has in their hands what you voted to take out of your own.