Advisory Opinion: Amendment, Assault Weapons

Decision

In a 4-1 decision, the majority ruled the proposed amendment to ban the future sale of semiautomatic assault rifles should not be placed on the ballot. The ruling reads:

"... [the amendment is] misleading because the meaning of the text of the ballot summary does not accurately describe the meaning of the Initiative’s text regarding the exemption."

In the decision, the majority argues that it is misleading to use the phrase "assault weapons" in the proposed amendment's summary and the phrase "the person's possession" in the full text of the amendment. The majority says the summary misleads voters to think the assault weapon itself is exempt, when the details show it is the current owner’s possession of that assault weapon that is exempt. They add that if a lawfully possessed assault weapon changes ownership, the new owner would be in violation of the proposed amendment.

The text in question:

• The summary states: “[e]xempts and requires registration of assault weapons lawfully possessed prior to this provision’s effective date”.
• The full initiative states: "If a person had lawful possession of an assault weapon prior to the effective date ..., the person’s possession of that assault weapon is not unlawful ..."

Dissent: Justice Labarga

"The ballot title clearly communicates the chief purpose of the Initiative, and the ballot summary clearly summarizes the content ... [The proposed amendment] is not affirmatively misleading. In fact, the language is accurate ..."

In his dissent, Labarga argues that the ballot title (Prohibits possession of defined assault weapons) clearly communicates the main purpose for the proposed amendment. He says the summary clearly explains the proposed amendment's content. It is accurate, and the majority's complaint is that the "language is insufficiently narrow".

He reminds this Court the ballot summary meant to be a summary of 75 words or less. This Court has ruled previously that it is not expected or required that the summary reveal the complete details of the proposed amendment. This Court has also previously ruled that when reviewing proposed amendments it should assume voters look at the details of an amendment before voting.

He would have approved this proposed amendment for the 2022 ballot.

No Participation: Justice Couriel

Justice Couriel did not vote. He was sworn June 1, too late to participate.