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

[ritter]

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 ...

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!

[Librarian]

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.

[Librarian]

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

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.

[Librarian]

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!

[ritter]

Congrats, Oregon!

[command_liner]

Originally Posted by Librarian

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.

[tedw]

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.

[tedw]

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

[Librarian]

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

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.

[tedw]

Originally Posted by command_liner

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.

[ritter]

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.

[CurlyDave]

Originally Posted by Librarian

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...

[Dan_Eastvale]

I think there will be a shift to pro 2A support nationwide.
I think the issue in OR is dead

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale

I think there will be a shift to pro 2A support nationwide.

I do not see a shift; libtards will be libtards.

I think the issue in OR is dead

I agree. IMHO NYRPA v Buren is fatal to Measure 114.

[Librarian]

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.

[Librarian]

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

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

(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

(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.

[CurlyDave]

No matter how much lipstick they put on that pig, a permit to purchase is never going to pass a THT test.

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by Librarian

... 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?

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee

(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.

[Librarian]

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.

[tedw]

Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee

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.

[tedw]

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.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by tedw

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."

[tedw]

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?

[Dan_Eastvale]

Even though legislators are banana spined, what about their Supreme Court?

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale

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

[Dan_Eastvale]

And yet I remember, in the 90s , seeing all those bumper stickers in OR saying “Don’t Californicate Oregon”

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale

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!'

?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.?

[Librarian]

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

[Dan_Eastvale]

So AKs, ARs, et al won’t be banned.
Just their mags!
At least no fin grips, heehee