OR Fed and State suits vs OR mag ban (Measure 114) Enjoined in state ct

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale

Isn’t there a hearing with the judge today?

Yes. It's available on line; I'm going to wait for a competent reporter (not 'MSM reporter'!)

But ... I have to take what I can get. I'd rather have actual documents. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1602723129717297153

[tedw]

Harney County Judge ruled the permit injunction will stay for at least 10 days after federal stay expires. The Magazine part of the law has not been decided yet, further arguments this afternoon, but it looks good for us. A fair constitutional judge I believe.

[Aragorn]

Bruen makes it simple, clear and obvious that ALL of this is bull****...

[Librarian]

A somewhat opinionated summary of today's hearing ... https://www.oregonfirearms.org/114-still-on-hold

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Librarian

A somewhat opinionated summary of today's hearing ... https://www.oregonfirearms.org/114-still-on-hold

Am I correct that the judge did not say, "the mess created by Lift Every Voice Oregon continues to leech across the state like an overflowing septic tank," despite its obvious truth?

[Dan_Eastvale]

The judge decides Friday about the mag ban?
The judge will deny the ban
The OR Supreme Court won’t touch this hot potato
They already refused to intervene
The Feds have no say

[Fyathyrio]

Washington Gun Law video here, he watched the stream off & on plus had a friend in the gallery. He has the upcoming important dates and some analysis of the hearing.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Here's the AP's take on it... Oregon’s new high-capacity magazine ban still in court limbo...

...The lawsuit, filed by Gun Owners of America Inc., the Gun Owners Foundation and several individual gun owners, seeks to have the entire law placed on hold while it works its way through a spate of legal challenges. Unlike other lawsuits filed against Measure 114, this one specifically makes the claims under the Oregon Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. Burns, the Harney County town where the hearing took place, is more than 280 miles (450 kilometers) southeast of Portland in a rural and sparsely populated corner of the state...

The legal focus Tuesday in state court was focused on the historical context when Oregon’s constitution was enacted, and on the firearms landscape at that time. The Oregon Constitution was enacted in 1859, nearly 70 years after the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified...

On Tuesday, Senior Assistant Attorney General Brian Marshall objected to Raschio’s block on the background check provision, saying that part of the law had never been challenged in the Harney County lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs.

Raschio set a Dec. 23 hearing on that question. A hearing on the permit-to-purchase provision will also be scheduled.

Let's hear it for 'rural and sparsely populated' regions of a State. That 'sparse population' has rights too and areas like that tend to get a little more noisy (or Irish Democracy) about having those rights tampered with.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Am I correct that the judge did not say, "the mess created by Lift Every Voice Oregon continues to leech across the state like an overflowing septic tank," despite its obvious truth?

Correct - those are the dulcet tones of Kevin Starrett of OFF.

[Librarian]

Original filing in Arnold, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...vrosenblum.pdf

Scanned, so hard to cut/paste

[Strafer]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Original filing in Arnold, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...vrosenblum.pdf

Scanned, so hard to cut/paste

Thank you for posting the link. A good read IMO.

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

[Librarian]

in Arnold, Judge Raschio releases opinion a day early - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...rneycounty.pdf

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by Librarian

in Arnold, Judge Raschio releases opinion a day early - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...rneycounty.pdf

This is pretty damn amazing. Lots of very interesting bits. So many quotable things I don't even know where to start; suffice it to say, it is worth reading in its entirety.

[tedw]

“The court finds that there is less than a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of a person being a fatality in a mass shooting in Oregon, and even less with an offender who is using large capacity magazines,” Raschio wrote. “The court cannot sustain a restraint on a constitutional right on mere speculation that the restriction could promote public safety.”

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by tedw

“The court finds that there is less than a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of a person being a fatality in a mass shooting in Oregon, and even less with an offender who is using large capacity magazines,” Raschio wrote. “The court cannot sustain a restraint on a constitutional right on mere speculation that the restriction could promote public safety.”

Missed that one.

Seems like they had some level-headed arguments.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Librarian

in Arnold, Judge Raschio releases opinion a day early - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...rneycounty.pdf

From that piece...

...Findings one through 23 are from the pleadings and attached exhibits for the temporary restraining hearing held December 6, 2022. Findings 23 through 37 are from the preliminary injunction hearing and associated exhibits held on December 13, 2022:

All these findings are considered by the court:

1) At the Temporary Restraining Order hearing, Plaintiffs called a credible factual witness, Ben Callaway, Harney County firearms dealer with Federal Firearms License. Mr. Callaway testified most firearms currently sold can be modified to hold more than 10 bullets by readily accessible kits and extenders meaning most commonly owned firearms including shotguns and handguns may not be legal for sale under BM 114...

2) ln Oregon, 593 people died from firearms in 2020... According to the Oregon Health Authority, there were 40,239 deaths that year...

3) The number of rounds commonly needed by individuals to defend themselves has not been systematically tracked, nor has the number of rounds fired by individuals in self-defense...

4) ...there were 179 recorded mass shootings in the country from 1982 until October 13, 2022. Two of those mass shootings occurred within Oregon...

5) The Declaration was prepared for California litigation. California has no state constitutional right to bear arms...

It looks like the argument in favor of 114 was systematically dissected to demonstrate the sheer amount of hyperbole, misdirection, misrepresentation, and the flat out ignoring of the standards set in Heller and Bruen, not to mention a reminder of Oregon's State Constitution. In short, it touches all (or most) of the legal and logical bases for why 114 is unconstitutional. Therefore, I'm sure the Left will gleefully push 114 through.

[Strafer]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

This is pretty damn amazing. Lots of very interesting bits. So many quotable things I don't even know where to start; suffice it to say, it is worth reading in its entirety.

^^This^^ worth reading all 25 pages IMO.

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

[tedw]

The next hearing on this case is Dec. 23 regarding the so-called "Charleston loophole" whereby guns can transfer if not approved or denied within 3 days.

Personally, I can't get too worked up about that. My experience in Oregon is that if you are delayed more than 3 days no gun dealer will transfer to you anyway. They are deathly afraid of the ATF. So closing a loophole that is not much a loophole doesn't really bother me. Yes, there should not be the horrific delays that happen but measure 114 doesn't change the status quo really.

[Dan_Eastvale]

I’ll say again.
Even though I’m not in OR, from what I’ve seen so far in this, I’m sure the OR Supreme Court will continue to not intervene
114 is dead

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale

I’ll say again.
Even though I’m not in OR, from what I’ve seen so far in this, I’m sure the OR Supreme Court will continue to not intervene
114 is dead

Not at this point, no. But we are a good long way from a final judgment. I suspect that if the State ultimately loses both here and in the Court of Appeal that it will be knocking on the door of the Oregon Supreme Court.

[tedw]

The majority of the voters (not necessarily the majority of the people) were for measure 114. 12 of the 13 Judges on the Oregon Court of Appeals were originally appointed by a democratic Governor, only one was elected.

I would not be overly optimistic that the Oregon Court of Appeals upholds the decision.

Unfortunately, there is a whole class of citizenry and Judges to whom the Constitution means very little if it gets in the way of their agenda.

[Librarian]

New Joint Status Report today, Dec 20, 2022. https://t.co/HdotQSbtbX

Parties disagree on what the injunction/TRO should say.

For pre-trial purposes, the 4 Federal cases are/will be combined and OFF will be the the lead case

The parties request that the Court enter an order that: Oregon Firearms Federation, et al. v. Brown, et al., No. 2:22-cv-01815-IM be designated as the lead case (L.R. 42-4(a));
the following cases be designated as trailing cases:
Fitz, et al. v. Rosenblum, et al., No. 3:22-cv-01859-IM
Eyre, et al. v. Rosenblum, et al., No. 3:22-cv-01862-IM
Azzopardi, et al. v. Rosenblum, et al., No. 3:22-cv-01869-IM

all future filings or other docket activities related to any of the cases be filed on the Oregon Firearms Federation docket only; and the case number and designation of the lead case be listed first in the document title of every document filed in any of these cases.

ETA - also, "The parties propose the following schedule for Plaintiffs’ motion(s) for a preliminary injunction: ... Hearing Feb 22-24 2023."

[CurlyDave]

Originally Posted by Librarian

New Joint Status Report today, Dec 20, 2022. https://t.co/HdotQSbtbX...

I will note that on page 3, about in the middle of the page, the term CHL is claimed to mean "Certified Handgun License". (Why this was not written on pleading paper with line numbers is a mystery.)

Throughout most of Oregon law CHL is taken to mean "Concealed Handgun License".

[Librarian]

From Reddit ...

HARNEY COUNTY HEARING SUMMARY

"*A decision will be made no later than 1/3/23 by 5:00pm.

The primary issue Judge Raschio was focused on was severability. In other words, if Sections 6-8 in whole or in part can be severed from the PtP requirement. The issue of whether or not people are currently being delayed is not what he is able to focus on. Can these sections or any part of them be viewed as seperate?

Second to that is IF they can be severed, are the provisions in Sections 6-8 constitutional? Whether or not people are currently being delayed is a seperate issue and would require seperate litigation. Are the sections or parts of the sections, as written, constitutional?

PLANTIFFS ARGUED:* Sections 6-8 are not constitutional because they do not set a time limit in which backgrounds must be complete and offer no remedy for an individual if not completed within a certain timeframe. Additionally, that is why we have safeguards in place in Oregon law and under the federal Brady Act, to prevent indefinite waits.

* That in order to sever all or parts of Sections 6-8 from the PtP requirement, the court would have to rewrite portions of M114 in.

* That the court cannot sever any portions of the measure UNTIL other portions are found to be unconstitutional which would take place during a full trial, not TRO or Preliminary Injunction hearings.

* They quoted, "A right delayed is a right denied"

DEFENDANTS ARGUED:* M114 allows portions to be severed if another portion is found to be unconstitutional so the court can sever Sections 6-8 in part or in whole now.

* That the court can remove words from or parts of Sections 6-8 in order to sever it.

* That the intent of the voters was to require background checks be completed before the transfer of a firearms is complete.

* That Oregon law currently requires under ORS 166.412(3)(a) that the department doing background checks must IMMEDIATELY let a firearms dealer know if a person is disqualified from purchasing a firearm.

* That plantiffs only addressed the magazine ban and the Permit to Purchase in their lawsuit and therefore have no grounds to challenge the background check requirement."

source:https://www.facebook.com/valerie.serafin.96

Actual hearing on Youtube, https://youtu.be/7AuzddmsVz0

[tedw]

You do a good job keeping people up to date.

[tedw]

One interesting part of the hearing was the State admitting their permit to purchase scheme will not be ready until March 7.

[Librarian]

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...&order_by=desc

ORDER: Per the parties' stipulated request included in their Joint Status Report, ECF 61, this Court ORDERS that the following cases are consolidated: Oregon Firearms Federation et al. v. Brown et al., No. 2:22-cv-01815-IM; Fitz, et al. v. Rosenblum, et al., No. 3:22-cv-01859-IM; Eyre, et al. v. Rosenblum, et al., No. 3:22-cv-01862-IM; and Azzopardi, et al. v. Rosenblum, et al., No. 3:22-cv-01869-IM. The above-captioned case is designated as the lead case and with cases 3:22-cv-01859-IM, 3:22-cv-01862-IM, and 3:22-cv-01869-IM designated as trailing cases. This Court ORDERS that future filings and other docket activities be filed on the above-captioned docket only, and that the case number and designation of the lead case be listed first in the document title of every document filed in any of these cases. Ordered on 12/27/2022 by Judge Karin J. Immergut.Associated Cases: 2:22-cv-01815-IM, 3:22-cv-01859-IM, 3:22-cv-01862-IM, 3:22-cv-01869-IM (jy) (Entered: 12/28/2022)

ORDER: This Court is in receipt of the parties' Proposed Scheduling Order included in their Joint Status Report, ECF 61 . This Court adopts the parties' proposed briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Oral argument is set for 2/22/2023, 2/23/2023, and 2/24/2023 at 10:00 AM in Portland Courtroom 13A before Judge Karin J. Immergut. The hearing will be in-person but the Court will allow witnesses to appear remotely with seven days' notice to the Court and all parties. Ordered on 12/27/2022 by Judge Karin J. Immergut.Associated Cases: 2:22-cv-01815-IM, 3:22-cv-01859-IM, 3:22-cv-01862-IM, 3:22-cv-01869-IM (jy) (Entered: 12/28/2022)

[tedw]

https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/...supreme-court/

Lame Duck Kate Brown appoints two new State Supreme Court Justices. I am not optimist that the Oregon Court will support the Harney County Judge ultimately. The victory will have to be in Federal Court.

[Dan_Eastvale]

But Federal Court already said 114 is ok.
And OR Supreme Court refused to intervene

Why would OR Supreme Court suddenly change their mind?

I’m sure 114 is dead

The pro 114 group is in the same position as Kari Lake in AZ

Up against a brick wall

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale

But Federal Court already said 114 is ok.
And OR Supreme Court refused to intervene

Why would OR Supreme Court suddenly change their mind?

I’m sure 114 is dead

The pro 114 group is in the same position as Kari Lake in AZ

Up against a brick wall

The Federal court is holding oral arguments in February - two months out. Immergut chose not to issue a preliminary injunction, hardly "said 114 is ok."

OR Supreme Court was not asked about the Federal suits, but about the State court suit, and whether ORSC would do something about it.

[tedw]

The Oregon Supreme Court will have two new liberal Justices that's why. Eventually, it will be appealed to them. I don't think 114 is dead although I wish it would be. The State Police are proceeding with their preparation for permit procedures. I have no confidence the higher courts will back up the Harney Court Judge.

[Librarian]

He will not separate the so-called 'Charleston loophole' language from the rest of the measure.

See https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/202...-by-judge.html

On Tuesday, Raschio said he wouldn’t treat the background check change separate from Measure 114′s permitting requirement, finding that the two are “inexorably linked.”

Only if he finds that the permit requirement to buy a gun is unconstitutional as the case proceeds will he evaluate and rule on the completed background check independently, Raschio wrote.

The state has said it won’t be ready to support a permitting program until March 7.

Raschio said he would hold a hearing on a preliminary injunction regarding the permitting requirement within 10 days of the state informing him that a permitting process is in place and ready to operate.

[Librarian]

MOTION
Defendants move the Court to continue its stay (Case No. 2:22-cv-01815-IM, ECF #39; Case No. 3:22-cv-1859-IM, ECF #26; Case No. 3:22-cv-1862-IM, ECF #27; Case No. 3:22-cv-1869-IM, ECF #17) of enforcement of Measure 114’s permitting requirement by entering an order temporarily restraining defendants from taking any act to prohibit the transfer of a firearm without a permit or to punish any person for transferring or receiving a firearm without a permit until 11:59 p.m. on March 7, 2023. (See ECF #61-1 (defendants’ proposed order).)

As set forth in the parties’ Joint Status Reports (ECF #612), plaintiffs “agree that this Court’s stay of the enforcement of Measure 114’s permit-to-purchase requirement should be extended to 11:59 p.m. on March 7, 2023.”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...70622.38.0.pdf

[Librarian]

OFF is the lead case, but

Eyre - https://t.co/LwYdNElJnK

Fitz - https://t.co/j4ArrfS4Ri

Azzopardi - https://t.co/z2gkMAYsDH

Links go to Court Listener

[tedw]

https://www.opb.org/article/2023/01/...tment-justice/

The Oregon Department of Justice is going for a second bite at the apple. Bear in mind, there are two new liberal Oregon Supreme Court Justices on the bench since the last time.

We shall see.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...dum-of-law.pdf

[Librarian]

It's February!

Time for a fantasy doc from Oregon ... responding to the OFF et all cases request for an injunction.

Actual court event - OR replies to Federal Court (OFF et al) motions for preliminary injunction. https://t.co/coNBu2N94x

Let's see what their fever dreams have produced ...

Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims.
A. Measure 114's restrictions on LCMs are consistent with the Second Amendment.
1. LCMs are not "arms" protected by the Second Amendment.
2. LCMs are not "in common use" for self-defense.
3. Restrictions on LCMs are consistent with this country's "historical tradition" of arms regulation.
a. LCMs are a dramatic technological change and implicate new societal concerns.
b. Restrictions on LCMs are consistent with this country's historical tradition of regulating dangerous weapons.
(1) Restrictions on LCMs are comparable to historic restrictions on other dangerous weapons.
(2) Restrictions on LCMs pose a comparable burden as other historic arms regulations.
B. Measure 114's restrictions on LCMs do not violate the Takings Clause.
D. Measure 114's restrictions on LCMs are not impermissibly retroactive.
E. Measure 114's permit-to-purchase requirement complies with the Second Amendment.

[Sputnik]

Reading that I’m almost surprised they didn’t claim that firearms aren’t protected by the 2A so their restrictions are a-ok

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Librarian

It's February!

Time for a fantasy doc from Oregon ... responding to the OFF et all cases request for an injunction.

Actual court event - OR replies to Federal Court (OFF et al) motions for preliminary injunction. https://t.co/coNBu2N94x

Let's see what their fever dreams have produced ...

Looks like the State's attorneys are on Oregon's legalized drugs!

[ARFrog]

You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead—your next stop, the Gun-Free Zone!

[green grunt]

Originally Posted by ARFrog

You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead—your next stop, the Gun-Free Zone!

good one... man I miss that show... and the outer limits also...