Beyer v. Rosenblum

421 P.3d 360, 363 Or. 157
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedJune 27, 2018
DocketSC S065981 (Control, S065989, S065990, S065992, S065993)
StatusPublished

This text of 421 P.3d 360 (Beyer v. Rosenblum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beyer v. Rosenblum, 421 P.3d 360, 363 Or. 157 (Or. 2018).

Opinion

"Summary: Measure prohibits 'assault weapons' (defined), 'large capacity magazines' (defined), unless registered with State Police after background check. Criminal penalties.
" 'Assault weapons' definition includes:
"• Semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazine and certain additional features;
"• 'Semiautomatic, centerfire or rimfire rifles,' or semiautomatic pistol, capable of holding more than ten bullets with fixed magazine;
"• Semiautomatic centerfire rifles under thirty inches;
**164"• Semiautomatic handguns with certain additional features;
"• Semiautomatic shotguns with certain additional features;
"• Shotguns with revolving cylinders.
" 'Large capacity magazines' defined as capable of holding over 10 rounds, excluding tubular magazines in .22 caliber or lever-action firearms.
"Covered items not registered must be sold/surrendered/ destroyed. State Police must maintain registry. Acquisition mostly prohibited after effective date, January 1, 2019. Measure may limit uses of covered items. Other provisions."

Petitioners are electors who timely submitted comments about the Attorney General's draft ballot title and who now are dissatisfied with all parts of the certified ballot title, including material that the Attorney General added after the comment period ended. See ORS 250.085(2) (describing who may challenge *365certified ballot title); ORS 250.085(6) (Supreme Court may consider arguments about material added after comment period ended). We address their arguments below.5

II. ANALYSIS

A. Caption

We begin with the caption, which must, in 15 or fewer words, "reasonably identif[y] the subject matter" of the proposed measure. ORS 250.035(2)(a). Petitioners raise several challenges to the caption, and we agree that the caption must be modified in certain respects, as explained below.

**165First, petitioners challenge the wording that refers to the registration requirements described in IP 43, sections 4(3)(e) and 4(4)(d)-that is, that the proposed measure would prohibit assault weapons and large capacity magazines "unless registered with state police." They argue that that quoted phrase is misleading because it implies that the registration exception would apply to future acquisitions, but, under IP 43, only inherited items are subject to such an exception after the effective date.

As an initial matter, we agree with the parties that the "subject matter" of IP 43, which the caption must identify, includes both the prohibition on assault weapons and large capacity magazines, and the accompanying registration exception. See Parrish v. Rosenblum , 362 Or. 96, 102, 403 P.3d 786 (2017) ("subject matter" refers to the "actual major effect" of a proposed measure or, "if the measure has more than one major effect, all such effects within [the] applicable word limit" (internal quotation marks omitted) ); Rasmussen v. Kroger , 350 Or. 281, 285, 253 P.3d 1031 (2011) (to identify the actual major effect, the Attorney General must consider the "changes that the proposed measure would enact in the context of existing law"). The central major effect of IP 43 is the criminal prohibition on the possession or transfer of the covered weapons and magazines. IP 43, § 4(1).6 The registration exception is another effect that flows from that prohibition, as do many other of the measure's effects. Unlike other effects, however, the registration exception is subject to extensive additional requirements. IP 43, § 5. And the registration exception is the only means by which a current owner of a covered, operable weapon or magazine may retain ownership, with continuing possession in Oregon, after the effective date. Given those considerations, the registration **166exception is a major effect that is appropriately mentioned in the caption. See Swanson v. Rosenblum , 362 Or. 143, 146-47, 404 P.3d 949 (2017) (concluding that, to accurately convey the scope of a term limits measure, the caption must mention both the new limits and how they would be calculated; distinguishing that scenario from a ballot title that appropriately mentions the details of a complex measure in the result statements or the summary, instead of in the caption).

We agree with petitioners, however, that the caption inaccurately describes the registration exception. By stating that assault weapons and large capacity magazines *366are prohibited "unless registered with state police," the caption implies that the exception generally permits registered ownership after IP 43 goes into effect. But, unless a covered weapon or magazine is inherited later, the exception applies only at the outset-that is, to any person who possesses a prohibited weapon or magazine prior to the proposed measure becoming effective (who then has 120 days to either register the weapon or magazine, or take a different required, alternative step). IP 43, § 4(3). (For inherited items, the registration exception applies for 120 days after the owner acquires title, id. at § 4(4)(d).) No other person is permitted to register a covered item, at any time. The caption must be modified accordingly.

Petitioners raise another challenge to the caption that merits discussion. They argue that the terms "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" do not reasonably identify the subject matter of IP 43, and, instead, are impermissibly deceptive, confusing, and underinclusive. They assert that voters would share no common understanding of either term, except perhaps in reference to military-style weapons and their magazines (e.g. , automatic weapons, such as machine guns; or military-style semiautomatic weapons, such as AR-15s or AK-47s).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lavey v. Kroger
258 P.3d 1194 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2011)
Berman v. Kroger
225 P.3d 32 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2009)
Carley/Towers v. Myers
132 P.3d 651 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2006)
Novick/Crew v. Myers
100 P.3d 1064 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2004)
Kain/Waller v. Myers
93 P.3d 62 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2004)
Sager v. Myers
982 P.2d 1104 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1999)
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Roberts
777 P.2d 406 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1989)
Hamilton v. Myers
943 P.2d 214 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1997)
Witt v. Kulongoski
872 P.2d 14 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1994)
Rasmussen v. Kroger
253 P.3d 1031 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2011)
Chamberlain v. Myers
188 P.3d 240 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2008)
Greene v. Kulongoski
903 P.2d 366 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1995)
McCann / Harmon v. Rosenblum
320 P.3d 548 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2014)
Conroy v. Rosenblum
380 P.3d 299 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2016)
Tauman v. Myers
170 P.3d 556 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
421 P.3d 360, 363 Or. 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beyer-v-rosenblum-or-2018.