SALEM, Ore. -- In the largest public response to a ballot title in recent memory, the state received more than 1,000 comments decrying the description of an initiative to restrict the sale, production and ownership of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
"No one can remember anywhere near the number of comments being received for any other (initiative petition)," said Deb Royal, chief of staff in the Secretary of State's office.
According to the Secretary of State, 1,060 comments on Initiative Petition 43 were submitted in the two-week open comment period that ended May 8. Another 35 were received after the comment period closed.
The most comments any other petition received this cycle was 10, Royal said.
The state Attorney General's office is responsible for drafting ballot titles. IP 43's reads: "Criminalizes possession or transfer of 'assault weapons' (defined) or 'large capacity magazines' (defined), with exceptions."
Commenters wrote that the ballot title is unclear, misleading, incomplete, politicized and shouldn't use the term "assault weapon" for various reasons.
Others wrote about the initiative more broadly, saying the concept is unconstitutional, unnecessary, unenforceable, an attack on civil liberties and would turn law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight.
The initiative was submitted by an interfaith group of religious leaders from Portland in March, relatively late for a petition intended for this year's ballot.
The petitioners were aiming for the 2020 ballot with this initiative, but they said the surge of youth activism surrounding gun violence after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February caused them to move up their plans.
Pastor Mark Knutson of the Augustana Lutheran Church in Portland, one of the chief petitioners, said he is not surprised there was so much response to the ballot title. He himself has received more than 100 calls and countless emails about IP 43, though he said the vast majority are supportive of the cause.
He said he hopes the state can have a debate on the merits of the proposal if it qualifies for the ballot.
"This is the right time to move this forward," Knutson said.
Oregon Firearms Federation Director Kevin Starrett speculated that the incredible response originated when Oregonians read the initiative more closely.
"Maybe when people find out that a collection of hate-filled bigots are attempting to use a ballot measure to steal their property, liberty, heritage and ability to protect their family, they get a little testy," he said in an email.
Starrett said the petitioners are "liars" because the ban would apply to more firearms than they are leading people to believe because of the definition included in the initiative.
State Sen. Brian Boquist, R-Dallas, was among those who submitted comment, and echoed many commenters' concerns about the included definition of "assault weapon."
He pointed out that the definition of "assault weapon" includes semi-automatic pistols that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition — which he said would effectively make the initiative a "pistol ban."
"IP 43's ballot title is both incorrect and misleading which is not surprising from the present Attorney General who clearly supports firearms confiscation and registration in this measure," Boquist wrote.
It's unclear exactly how many people submitted comments — some commenters sent multiple letters or one letter multiple times, others didn't sign their emails. At least a couple dozen of the letters contain duplicate wording sent by different people.
At least five of the comments were focused on Initiative Petition 44, a separate ballot initiative that would place certain storage, safety and supervision requirements on gun owners.
But it appears that at least one comment was written in support of the ballot title. A man who signed his email as "David" simply wrote: "I would like to see this on the ballot."
IP 43's petitioners are required to submit 88,184 valid signatures by July 6 to qualify for the November ballot. A certified ballot title from the Attorney General is due May 23, at which point commenters have 10 business days to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Some commenters have already pledged to appeal the ballot title. Resolution of these cases often take between two and six months, and petitioners cannot begin gathering signatures until an appeal is complete.
Knutson said they are preparing a signature gathering campaign that will launch statewide as soon as they are legally allowed to do so. They aren't expecting to have much time.
"It would be a miracle," Knutson said.
Contact the reporter at cradnovich@statesmanjournal.com or 503-399-6864, or follow him on Twitter at @CDRadnovich