Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 02-07-2023, 10:39 AM
ritter ritter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 799
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
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 ...
Point one that needs to be hammered: “in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense.” Like is "an example of" lawful purposes, not limited to. The test is "in common use for lawful purposes." Period. There are many, many other lawful purposes, including simple ownership. LCMs are absolutely commonly owned (a lawful purpose). This needs to be pounded on in every one of these 2A cases and put to bed.

Second, pretty ballsey quoting the GVRd Duncan opinion. I'm sure SCOTUS GVRd it because it was perfectly in line with Breun, right?


Third, the analogous laws presented might be relevant. However, none of them banned acquisition or keeping (except gun powder quantity related to fire threat and trap guns that are clearly dangerous and unusual). They were limits on bear so they are not analogous in the restriction. If 114 just limited bearing LCMs rather than banning purchase (depriving future generations of them entirely), they might have an argument. That is, if LCMs weren't "in common use for lawful purposes [period]".

Good luck, Oregon!
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 02-07-2023, 1:56 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

A follow-on, https://t.co/7QHESMRwxI

INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT OREGON
ALLIANCE FOR GUN SAFETY'S
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Remember, this is arguing to Judge Immergut, asserting her original denial was correct.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 02-08-2023, 8:26 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Kevin at OFF posts the same expectation of something from the OR Supremes. I guess watch https://www.courts.oregon.gov/public...s/default.aspx for their opinion.

From a reddit thread, GOA lawyer facebook post

Quote:
Received at 9:55 am. We will most likely have a decision tomorrow on Defendants' Petition for Mandamus. This decision will ultimately determine whether or not the Preliminary Injunction and TRO that Gun Owners of America secured for the people of Oregon will stay in place. It may also determine whether Plaintiffs' or Defendants' interpretation of the Oregon Supreme Court's caselaw on Article I, Section 27 is correct, although the Oregon Supreme Court can deny mandamus without doing so. Be on the lookout for the decision!
So perhaps Something Is Up for tomorrow. All you Oily-boids might see it a few hours before I do.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 02-09-2023, 10:03 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Indeed, OR Supremes seem to be following the law. Court declines to intervene in the state court case, Judge Raschio's order stands to restrain M114.

See twitter thread https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status...32670604738564

ETA better link to doc, https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0011-Bz...XpvMTSg08BWw==

Honest, it really does go to a copy of the per curiam opinion!
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.




Last edited by Librarian; 02-09-2023 at 10:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 02-09-2023, 10:26 AM
ritter ritter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 799
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Congrats, Oregon!
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 02-09-2023, 11:18 AM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,086
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Indeed, OR Supremes seem to be following the law. Court declines to intervene in the state court case, Judge Raschio's order stands to restrain M114.

See twitter thread https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status...32670604738564

ETA better link to doc, https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0011-Bz...XpvMTSg08BWw==

Honest, it really does go to a copy of the per curiam opinion!

In what might be a first, the URL is longer than the opinion. Here is the whole opinion without a URL.

The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied without
prejudice. The motion for stay is dismissed as moot without
prejudice.
__________________
What about the 19th? Can the Commerce Clause be used to make it illegal for voting women to buy shoes from another state?
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 02-09-2023, 12:16 PM
tedw tedw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.opb.org/article/2023/02/...ure-114-block/

I think this is more procedural than substantive. They want it to wind it's way up the court system ladder. Still good though.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 02-09-2023, 1:13 PM
tedw tedw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://ktvl.com/news/local/measure-...t-applications

Also the State Police has announced the FBI wont be doing background checks for measure 114

From measure 114:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall return the fingerprint cards used to conduct the criminal
background check and may not keep any record of the fingerprints. Upon completion of the criminal background check and
determination of whether the permit applicant is qualified or disqualified from purchasing or otherwise acquiring a firearm
the department shall report the results, including the outcome of the fingerprint-based criminal background check, to the
permit agent.*****

Apparently, the FBI thinks that is against the Federal Law

Last edited by Librarian; 02-09-2023 at 3:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 02-09-2023, 11:58 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

In the Federal cases, before Judge Immergut, a status conference today changed dates of things to come.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...desc#entry-134

Quote:
Minutes of Proceeding: Status Conference held on 2/9/2023 regarding the scheduled preliminary injunction hearing.

As stated on the record, the current deadlines in this case are VACATED. This Court ORDERS the parties to confer and submit a proposed case management schedule by 2/16/2023 which includes the deadline for filing motions to compel (which must be before the close of discovery), discovery deadlines for both fact and expert witnesses, the deadline to file trial memoranda (which must be at least three weeks before trial), and any other deadlines that the parties think would be useful in managing the case. The proposed case management schedule should also include dates for the pretrial conference and trial. Ordered on 2/9/2023 by Judge Karin J. Immergut.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 02-10-2023, 7:28 AM
tedw tedw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Without prejudice

Quote:
Originally Posted by command_liner View Post
In what might be a first, the URL is longer than the opinion. Here is the whole opinion without a URL.

The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied without
prejudice. The motion for stay is dismissed as moot without
prejudice.
Even though it is the second time without prejudice means they can come back again , and they will after the Harney County drama plays out.
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 02-10-2023, 7:42 AM
ritter ritter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 799
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I continue to be confused by the need for "expert witness" in these cases. "Is the proposed regulation consistent with text, history and tradition" doesn't need an expert. Anybody should be qualified to identify analogous laws, especially states saying the restriction is consistent with Bruen because they should have already done said research to pronounce that conclusion. Just because such laws don't exist doesn't require an expert to fabricate reasons.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 02-10-2023, 1:42 PM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 252
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
In the Federal cases, before Judge Immergut, a status conference today changed dates of things to come.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...desc#entry-134
This seems like a slow walk to me. Immergut has already denied a PI (maybe it was a TRO), and is no friend of the 2A.

For right now we have the state courts preventing 114 from being enforced, but Immergut has already said that early large capacity magazines were rare and unreliable and therefore do not serve as proof that the technology was known at the proper time period.

I think she needs to spend some time with Justice Thomas...
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 02-11-2023, 7:26 PM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: West Jordan, Utah
Posts: 7,308
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think there will be a shift to pro 2A support nationwide.
I think the issue in OR is dead
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 02-12-2023, 7:36 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale View Post
I think there will be a shift to pro 2A support nationwide.
I do not see a shift; libtards will be libtards.
Quote:
I think the issue in OR is dead
I agree. IMHO NYRPA v Buren is fatal to Measure 114.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 02-28-2023, 12:23 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Bah! Not having the correct link messed me up.

This is the Consolidated Federal cases list, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dHb...zdb9nyhuDQpJIE

Trial June 5-9

Apologies for my error.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.




Last edited by Librarian; 02-28-2023 at 4:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 03-01-2023, 7:10 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

And, while the courts are doing their things, the Legislature has now dipped in its oar. Here's a new bill, that seems to be the 'fix up' bill for Measure 114.

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/l...ndments/HB3511

Quote:
CHANGES TO PERMITTING PROCESS

SECTION 1. Section 3, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023 (Ballot Measure 114 (2022)), is amended to read:
As submitted, changes this

Quote:
(5) ?Permit agent? [Agent?] means [a county sheriff or police chief with jurisdiction over the residence of the person making an application for a permit-to-purchase, or their designees] the Department of Transportation.
Which, IMVHO, is not insane in itself.

Also would add

Quote:
(c) The Department of State Police shall annually complete a criminal background check on each permit holder that includes a check of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and a determination of whether the permit applicant is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing or receiving a firearm.
Still nothing about funding.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 03-01-2023, 8:18 PM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 252
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

No matter how much lipstick they put on that pig, a permit to purchase is never going to pass a THT test.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 03-02-2023, 5:31 AM
GetMeCoffee's Avatar
GetMeCoffee GetMeCoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 416
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
... Here's a new bill, that seems to be the 'fix up' bill for Measure 114.
...
Wasn't Ballot Measure 114 an initiative measure? Perhaps it's just a California thing, but I thought that the legislature either cannot change or is very limited in changing anything instituted by initiative.

It raises an interesting question. If 114 superseded some other existing gun restrictions laws, and then 114 is ruled unenforceable, would that have the effect of rendering the prior laws unenforceable? By that I mean, would 114 still have the effect of superseding those laws, but being unenforceable it would take them down with it?
__________________

NRA Patriot Life Member, Benefactor
CRPA: Life Member
FPC: Member

It's 2025. Mickey Mouse is in the public domain and Goofy has left the White House.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 03-02-2023, 11:50 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee View Post
(1) Wasn't Ballot Measure 114 an initiative measure? Perhaps it's just a California thing, but I thought that the legislature either cannot change or is very limited in changing anything instituted by initiative.

(2) It raises an interesting question. If 114 superseded some other existing gun restrictions laws, and then 114 is ruled unenforceable, would that have the effect of rendering the prior laws unenforceable? By that I mean, would 114 still have the effect of superseding those laws, but being unenforceable it would take them down with it?
(1) yes, it was. And, if you have had the misfortune to read it, you would quickly see it was poorly drawn up. A similar problem initiative was 2020's Measure 110, about drugs, and the Legislature passed a fix-up bill for that in 2021, SB755

So, evidently, this is an Oregon thing. Can't repeal it in its entirety, I believe; need a new initiative for that.

As to (2), I dunno.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 03-03-2023, 3:41 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Status conference for Arnold before Judge Raschio today (3-3-23)

Trial set for September 18-22.

So we have the Federal cases, OFF et al in June, and the State case in September.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 03-05-2023, 8:57 AM
tedw tedw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Oregon legislature amending an initiative

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee View Post
Wasn't Ballot Measure 114 an initiative measure? Perhaps it's just a California thing, but I thought that the legislature either cannot change or is very limited in changing anything instituted by initiative.

It raises an interesting question. If 114 superseded some other existing gun restrictions laws, and then 114 is ruled unenforceable, would that have the effect of rendering the prior laws unenforceable? By that I mean, would 114 still have the effect of superseding those laws, but being unenforceable it would take them down with it?
There are two kinds of Oregon initiatives. 1) a statutory initiative that changes existing Oregon law and 2)a consititutional initiative that changes the Oregon Constitution.

Measure 114 was a statutory initiative. They chose that route as they did not have the votes among the people to support changing the Constitution. It requires more signatures to get a constitutional initiative on the ballot.They also chose the initiative process instead of the legislative process because Oregon Republican said they would walk out if they tampered with Gun rights. Whether the Republican will really do that again is anybody's guess. I would not count on it.

I do not know of any case law on this point (there may be but I don't know) but I don't see why they could not change existing State Law even if it was enacted by initiative.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 03-05-2023, 9:34 AM
tedw tedw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Also, I have scanned the Oregon "fix up " bill. They are proposing to change the permitting agent to the State Department of Transportation. Why?

1) The money for the permit process would come out of the State Department of Transportation budget (as well as the $65 permit fee which is not enough to cover costs)

2) A handful of Oregon Sheriffs said they won't enforce the law. By removing them as the permit agent it solves two problems: a)funding b)resistance by Sheriffs.

They are crafty devils.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 03-05-2023, 9:40 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedw View Post
They also chose the initiative process instead of the legislative process because Oregon Republican said they would walk out if they tampered with Gun rights. Whether the Republican will really do that again is anybody's guess. I would not count on it.
The OR Republicans have the spines of nudibranchs. Last session, they wouldn't even walk out to prevent a law that penalizes them walking out, and last election the voters passed Measure 113, 68/32, which will "Exclude state legislators from reelection for unexcused legislative absenteeism". Also "Oregon's Ballot Measure 113 looks to amend the state Constitution to say failure to attend 10 or more legislative floor sessions would be deemed "disorderly behavior" and disqualify a lawmaker from holding office the following term."

__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 03-05-2023, 9:50 AM
tedw tedw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That would not stop a legislator who loves the country and the Constitution more than his personal ambitions. But, alas, are there any like that in Oregon?
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 03-05-2023, 7:22 PM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: West Jordan, Utah
Posts: 7,308
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Even though legislators are banana spined, what about their Supreme Court?
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 03-05-2023, 8:45 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale View Post
Even though legislators are banana spined, what about their Supreme Court?
Let's just say they don't lean conservative.

Mostly (all?) appointed by former governor Brown, then re-elected - kind of a scam, a sitting justice retires before the end of his/her term, new justice is appointed, then gets to run for re-election as incumbent.

https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts.../justices.aspx
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 03-07-2023, 6:09 PM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: West Jordan, Utah
Posts: 7,308
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

And yet I remember, in the 90s , seeing all those bumper stickers in OR saying “Don’t Californicate Oregon”
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 03-07-2023, 7:03 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale View Post
And yet I remember, in the 90s , seeing all those bumper stickers in OR saying ?Don?t Californicate Oregon?
60s, too. I recall a greeting card depicting Gov Tom McCall welcoming folks to Oregon; when you opened the card, it showed a map with I5 skewed over past the border into Idaho, and saying something like 'Now, enjoy Washington!'

Quote:
?We want you to visit our State of Excitement often. Come again and again. But for heaven's sake, don't move here to live. Or if you do have to move in to live, don't tell any of your neighbors where you are going.?
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 03-25-2023, 10:32 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default Gut and amend isn't just for California

A new 'fix-up' bill, more likely to be passed as this version is offered by Floyd 'The Robot' Prozanski.

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/l...mendment/23695

Appears to be the 65-page product of the Floyd the Robot.

In the .pdf, BOLD is added. [bracket italic is deleted], plain text is existing law.

Quick look ...

Raises the fee for permits from $65 to $150 (renewal, $50 to $110)

Moves the permit requirement date to July 1 2024

Adds a 72 hour wait required between approval of background check and delivery

Makes the magazine ban effective December 8 2022

Here's an interesting bit ...
"(15) A valid permit to purchase a firearm issued under section 4,
chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023 (Ballot Measure 114 (2022)), is not required
for a firearm purchase from a gun dealer under this section if:
"(a) The purchaser can demonstrate proof of completion of a
firearm safety course as defined in section 4 (8), chapter 1, Oregon
Laws 2023 (Ballot Measure 114 (2022)), and is purchasing:
"(A) A single-shot rifle, whether centerfire or rimfire;
"(B) A double-barreled shotgun;
"(C) A repeating rifle, whether centerfire or rimfire, that has a bolt,
lever, pump, straight-pull or revolving action;
"(D) A rifle with an attached tubular magazine designed to accept,
and capable of operating only with, 0.22 caliber rimfire ammunition;
"(E) A muzzleloader rifle; or
"(F) A shotgun with a pump, break, level or revolving action; or
"(b) The purchaser is:
"(A) An active duty state, federal or tribal police officer as defined
in ORS 181A.355 and presents valid identification and an identification
number issued to the purchaser by the Department of Public Safety
Standards and Training; or
"(B) An active duty member of the Armed Forces of the United
States as defined in ORS 352.313 and presents valid identification.
Part (a) gets deleted for July 1, 2026.

And of course, this is an 'emergency', so the act would take effect on passage.


h/t to OFF, https://www.oregonfirearms.org/the-b...rned-you-about
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 03-25-2023, 5:51 PM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: West Jordan, Utah
Posts: 7,308
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So AKs, ARs, et al won’t be banned.
Just their mags!
At least no fin grips, heehee
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 04-05-2023, 4:23 AM
tedw tedw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default They are crafty devils

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
A new 'fix-up' bill, more likely to be passed as this version is offered by Floyd 'The Robot' Prozanski.

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/l...mendment/23695

Appears to be the 65-page product of the Floyd the Robot.

In the .pdf, BOLD is added. [bracket italic is deleted], plain text is existing law.

Quick look ...

Raises the fee for permits from $65 to $150 (renewal, $50 to $110)

Moves the permit requirement date to July 1 2024

Adds a 72 hour wait required between approval of background check and delivery

Makes the magazine ban effective December 8 2022

Here's an interesting bit ...
"(15) A valid permit to purchase a firearm issued under section 4,
chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023 (Ballot Measure 114 (2022)), is not required
for a firearm purchase from a gun dealer under this section if:
"(a) The purchaser can demonstrate proof of completion of a
firearm safety course as defined in section 4 (8), chapter 1, Oregon
Laws 2023 (Ballot Measure 114 (2022)), and is purchasing:
"(A) A single-shot rifle, whether centerfire or rimfire;
"(B) A double-barreled shotgun;
"(C) A repeating rifle, whether centerfire or rimfire, that has a bolt,
lever, pump, straight-pull or revolving action;
"(D) A rifle with an attached tubular magazine designed to accept,
and capable of operating only with, 0.22 caliber rimfire ammunition;
"(E) A muzzleloader rifle; or
"(F) A shotgun with a pump, break, level or revolving action; or
"(b) The purchaser is:
"(A) An active duty state, federal or tribal police officer as defined
in ORS 181A.355 and presents valid identification and an identification
number issued to the purchaser by the Department of Public Safety
Standards and Training; or
"(B) An active duty member of the Armed Forces of the United
States as defined in ORS 352.313 and presents valid identification.
Part (a) gets deleted for July 1, 2026.

And of course, this is an 'emergency', so the act would take effect on passage.


h/t to OFF, https://www.oregonfirearms.org/the-b...rned-you-about
This gets worse. SB 348 has a new amendment that restricts court challenges to Marion County only. They want to restrict court challenges to a liberal county where the state capitol (Salem) is located. Fidel would like this.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 04-05-2023, 7:00 AM
ritter ritter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 799
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedw View Post
This gets worse. SB 348 has a new amendment that restricts court challenges to Marion County only. They want to restrict court challenges to a liberal county where the state capitol (Salem) is located. Fidel would like this.
How is that legal?
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 04-09-2023, 12:17 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default Just to summarize ...

OR has 2 Senate bills in progress:

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/l...verview/SB0348

and the -2 amendment of https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/l...Overview/SB393

and a 2 House Bills

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/l...verview/HB3511
which seems to be from a less-insane splinter of the Ds and so is doomed.

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/l...verview/HB2005

The HB2005 -11 amendment includes this, as described by OFF
Quote:
The bill will also effectively turn all AR-15 rifles into contraband. There are no exceptions for previously owned rifles or law enforcement.

This is because of the new definition of ?receiver? that was crafted by the drafter of the bill. And here it is:
Receiver? means the part of a rifle, shotgun or projectile weapon other than a handgun, or a variant of a rifle, shotgun or projectile weapon other than a handgun, that provides housing or a structure for the primary component designed to block or seal the breech prior to initiation of the firing sequence, even if pins or other attachments are required to connect the component to the housing or structure.
While this is an attempt to copy the more recent federal definition, it does not recognize any exceptions. And obviously, this is NOT a description of an AR-15 lower, which has always been the regulated part.

Under this definition, previously unregulated uppers will be required to have serial numbers. It?s not clear how the many thousands of these rifles currently in the possession of Oregonians can comply.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.




Last edited by Librarian; 04-09-2023 at 12:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 04-10-2023, 2:00 PM
Oxnard_Montalvo's Avatar
Oxnard_Montalvo Oxnard_Montalvo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: NorCal
Posts: 1,061
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
A new 'fix-up' bill, more likely to be passed as this version is offered by Floyd 'The Robot' Prozanski.

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/l...mendment/23695

Appears to be the 65-page product of the Floyd the Robot.

In the .pdf, BOLD is added. [bracket italic is deleted], plain text is existing law.

Quick look ...

Raises the fee for permits from $65 to $150 (renewal, $50 to $110)

Moves the permit requirement date to July 1 2024

Adds a 72 hour wait required between approval of background check and delivery

Makes the magazine ban effective December 8 2022

Here's an interesting bit ...
"(15) A valid permit to purchase a firearm issued under section 4,
chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2023 (Ballot Measure 114 (2022)), is not required
for a firearm purchase from a gun dealer under this section if:
"(a) The purchaser can demonstrate proof of completion of a
firearm safety course as defined in section 4 (8), chapter 1, Oregon
Laws 2023 (Ballot Measure 114 (2022)), and is purchasing:
"(A) A single-shot rifle, whether centerfire or rimfire;
"(B) A double-barreled shotgun;
"(C) A repeating rifle, whether centerfire or rimfire, that has a bolt,
lever, pump, straight-pull or revolving action;
"(D) A rifle with an attached tubular magazine designed to accept,
and capable of operating only with, 0.22 caliber rimfire ammunition;
"(E) A muzzleloader rifle; or
"(F) A shotgun with a pump, break, level or revolving action; or
"(b) The purchaser is:
"(A) An active duty state, federal or tribal police officer as defined
in ORS 181A.355 and presents valid identification and an identification
number issued to the purchaser by the Department of Public Safety
Standards and Training; or
"(B) An active duty member of the Armed Forces of the United
States as defined in ORS 352.313 and presents valid identification.
Part (a) gets deleted for July 1, 2026.

And of course, this is an 'emergency', so the act would take effect on passage.


h/t to OFF, https://www.oregonfirearms.org/the-b...rned-you-about
Um, did you name this progressive anti firearm piece of trash after a robot in a text based video game or was it someone else?

For the younger crowd before video games computer games were text based and were pretty linear - floyd the robot comes from infocom's planetfall where it was both the comic relief and a plot device.

I'd rather have him named him after Floyd the barber from the andy griffith show since he came across as a not the sharpest knife in the drawer type, but that's just me...
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 05-03-2023, 2:48 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

So, development on the Oregon legislative front.

We have
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/l...verview/HB3511
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/l...Overview/SB393
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/l...verview/HB2005
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/l...verview/SB0348
for gun bills. 3511 is effectively dead, but could be revived in worse form.

House bills have moved on to the Senate.

Oregon Ds have 17 out of 20 members required for a Senate quorum; they need that absolute number to conduct business, according to the Oregon Constitution.

Last year, idiot voters passed Measure 113, to penalize (R) members for unexcused absences.

Today, the Rs did not show up. See https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05/...ffirming-care/, a surprisingly (to me) comprehensive article, and reasonably accurate as of 15:46 May 3; I saved a copy
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.




Last edited by Librarian; 05-06-2023 at 12:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 05-06-2023, 11:08 AM
tedw tedw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That is a good article, especially for Oregon Public Broadcasting. Maybe Republicans are going to put their personal ambitions aside and stand up for what is right. Maybe
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 05-09-2023, 2:35 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Some lawsuit updates today:

OFF v Brown/Kotek, third amended complaint, https://t.co/rg0H9Sn8vz

First amended complaint in Azzopardi, https://t.co/ltN27vGqhA
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 05-12-2023, 7:21 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

12 May 2023 State moves for summary judgement in Federal case
Quote:
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFFS’ FACIAL CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURE 114 AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AS-APPLIED CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURE 114
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1683943907
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 05-26-2023, 5:02 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Judge Immergut rejects both petitions for summary judgement, case will go to trial as scheduled.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1685140302

Quote:
Finding that this case implicates important and unsettled questions of law, this Court exercises its discretion to deny both Defendants? and Plaintiffs? motions. This Court additionally finds that the record contains genuine disputes of material fact, which would benefit from full development through trial. Accordingly, Defendants? and Plaintiffs? Motions are DENIED.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 05-29-2023, 9:44 AM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: West Jordan, Utah
Posts: 7,308
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Don't understand what going to trial means here.
Thought it was all up to the courts.

Trial with a jury ??? Who's the jury?
Who against who?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:35 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy