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

[Librarian]

Per FPC, notices of appeal have been filed today:

https://t.co/RxrNOTkPHb - fitz

https://t.co/tggMowLv19 - azzopardi

[tedw]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Per FPC, notices of appeal have been filed today:

https://t.co/RxrNOTkPHb - fitz

https://t.co/tggMowLv19 - azzopardi

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2023...asure-114.html

Attorney James L. Buchal filed the appeal notice in U.S. District Court in Portland on behalf of the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, as well as two federally licensed firearms dealers and a professional shooter.

[natman]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

Not a single one of my home defense guns have magazines that hold fewer than 15 rounds. Only my hunting rifles and concealed carry weapons have capacities lower than 10.

The absolutely ludicrous claim that "large-capacity magazines are not in common use for self-defense" is the biggest pile of bullsh*t of this entire ruling.

I politely beg to differ. Yes, she does only count a magazine is used in self defense if A) the gun is actually fired and B) fired more that 10 times. And as fragrant as that is, she later manages to top it when she argues that "Large Capacity Magazines" are dangerous AND unusual because they were unknown to the founders:

this Court finds that Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant have shown that LCMs represent a ?dramatic technological change? from the technology available at the Founding. The evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly shows that large-capacity repeating firearms - defined as firearms capable of firing more than ten rounds without requiring the shooter to reload - were extremely rare at the adoption of the Second Amendment.

In doing so she somehow manages to ignore the conclusion of Heller, repeated in both Caetano AND Bruen:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. DC v Heller, page 8

Having been told that the "new technology" argument "borders on the frivolous" THREE times in three different cases ought to be enough, but apparently not. Thus it's my nominee for biggest bunch of BS in the ruling, which is impressive given the quantity and quality of contenders.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by natman

Having been told that the "new technology" argument "borders on the frivolous" THREE times in three different cases ought to be enough, but apparently not. Thus it's my nominee for biggest bunch of BS in the ruling, which is impressive given the quantity and quality of contenders.

At the core, at least we certainly agree that Judge Immergut has written an ahistoric, flagrantly dishonest, and dangerously misinformed opinion in open defiance of the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen.

[natman]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

At the core, at least we certainly agree that Judge Immergut has written an ahistoric, flagrantly dishonest, and dangerously misinformed opinion in open defiance of the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen.

No argument there.

[Sgt Raven]

Mark W Smith's 1st video on the ruling...


https://youtu.be/PG3kscBnBCs


ETA: Mark is on fire about Judge "Karen" (Karin). LOL

[Epaphroditus]

Originally Posted by natman

... And as fragrant as that is, she later manages ...

Nomination for best typo/Freudian slip!

Something certainly smells afoul.

[tedw]

https://youtu.be/vks7D0YfWeg

Washington Gun Law

[cline]

how much was she paid to compromise herself? this opens the way to anarchy

[natman]

Originally Posted by cline

how much was she paid to compromise herself? this opens the way to anarchy

I doubt she was paid. She was a Democrat for years and used to work on Project Safe Neighborhoods, a gun "safety" program before she became a judge.

Her anti gun rights bias is blazingly obvious. Her deliberate distortion and purposeful ignoring of Supreme Court decisions undermines the rule of law and guarantees that her decision will be overturned if not rendered moot by another LCM case getting to SCOTUS first.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by natman

I politely beg to differ. Yes, she does only count a magazine is used in self defense if A) the gun is actually fired and B) fired more that 10 times. And as fragrant as that is, she later manages to top it when she argues that "Large Capacity Magazines" are dangerous AND unusual because they were unknown to the founders:

this Court finds that Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant have shown that LCMs represent a ?dramatic technological change? from the technology available at the Founding. The evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly shows that large-capacity repeating firearms - defined as firearms capable of firing more than ten rounds without requiring the shooter to reload - were extremely rare at the adoption of the Second Amendment.

In doing so she somehow manages to ignore the conclusion of Heller, repeated in both Caetano AND Bruen:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. DC v Heller, page 8

Having been told that the "new technology" argument "borders on the frivolous" THREE times in three different cases ought to be enough, but apparently not. Thus it's my nominee for biggest bunch of BS in the ruling, which is impressive given the quantity and quality of contenders.

The problem is the word "borders." It does not border on being frivolous, it is plainly frivolous!

[Sputnik]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

The problem is the word "borders." It does not border on being frivolous, it is plainly frivolous!

I think that border was crossed a while ago. We?re two-stepping right into frivolity here. I honestly can?t understand how the judge can justify blindly ignoring Supreme Court precedent in multiple instances to get to this steaming heap of a decision. Shameless.

[natman]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

The problem is the word "borders." It does not border on being frivolous, it is plainly frivolous!

It borders on being frivolous all right - on the far side of the border.

The word "frivolous" has a special meaning in LegalSpeak.

A filing is deemed frivolous if a party or its counsel knew or should have known that a claim or defense was not supported by the facts or application of existing law.

Filing a frivolous claim or defense is seen as a waste of valuable court time and can lead to fines or other sanctions.

Given the THREE times where the "unknown at the time of the founding" argument was rejected by SCOTUS this was indeed a frivolous argument.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by natman

It borders on being frivolous all right - on the far side of the border.

The word "frivolous" has a special meaning in LegalSpeak.

A filing is deemed frivolous if a party or its counsel knew or should have known that a claim or defense was not supported by the facts or application of existing law.

Filing a frivolous claim or defense is seen as a waste of valuable court time and can lead to fines or other sanctions.

Given the THREE times where the "unknown at the time of the founding" argument was rejected by SCOTUS this was indeed a frivolous argument.

The Supreme Court has categorically rejected the idea that the Second Amendment only protects arms which existed at the time of the founding. However, Justice Thomas has added an unfortunate wrinkle.

The "unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes" clause in NYSRPA v. Bruen has given gun control organizations and anti-gun states a powerful line on which to hang their arguments.

I feel extremely negatively about the inclusion of that line in the majority opinion.

[Dan_Eastvale]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

The Supreme Court has categorically rejected the idea that the Second Amendment only protects arms which existed at the time of the founding. However, Justice Thomas has added an unfortunate wrinkle.

The "unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes" clause in NYSRPA v. Bruen has given gun control organizations and anti-gun states a powerful line on which to hang their arguments.

I feel extremely negatively about the inclusion of that line in the majority opinion.

Judge Karin Immergut said:

"Even if LCMs are protected by the Second Amendment, BM 114's restrictions are consistent with this Nation's history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety. "

Public safety overrides the 2A. SCOTUS is being ignored.

[Sputnik]

She’s still using the two step interest balancing approach. “Public safety”, “rational means”, etc., etc. so no soup for you!

[natman]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

The Supreme Court has categorically rejected the idea that the Second Amendment only protects arms which existed at the time of the founding. However, Justice Thomas has added an unfortunate wrinkle.

The "unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes" clause in NYSRPA v. Bruen has given gun control organizations and anti-gun states a powerful line on which to hang their arguments.

I feel extremely negatively about the inclusion of that line in the majority opinion.

You've taken the clause out of context, although your concern is warranted, because anti gunners will do the same. Justice Thomas' quote means something quite different when read in full:

While the historical analogies here and in Heller are relatively simple to draw, other cases implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes may require a more nuanced approach. The regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. Fortunately, the Founders created a Constitution - and a Second Amendment - intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. Although its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it, the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated. NYSRPA v Bruen, pages 18-19 [emphasis mine]

[marcusrn]

If standard cap magazines are never used, how the freak can they be so dangerous?

[natman]

Originally Posted by marcusrn

If standard cap magazines are never used, how the freak can they be so dangerous?

She makes the "argument" that while they are rarely "used" according to her definition in self defense, they are commonly "used" in mass shootings. Therefore they are "dangerous".

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by natman

She makes the "argument" that while they are rarely "used" according to her definition in self defense, they are commonly "used" in mass shootings. Therefore they are "dangerous".

The rank dishonesty and open rejection of reality should make every intellectually honest American furious.

The number of defensive gun uses vastly outnumbers the incidents of mass shootings. No one truly knows whether fewer rounds in the magazine would have meant the difference between life and death in a self-defense shooting. Likewise, no one knows whether reloading more often against unarmed and defenseless victims in a mass shooting would have saved any lives.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by natman

You've taken the clause out of context, although your concern is warranted, because anti gunners will do the same. Justice Thomas' quote means something quite different when read in full:

While the historical analogies here and in Heller are relatively simple to draw, other cases implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes may require a more nuanced approach. The regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. Fortunately, the Founders created a Constitution - and a Second Amendment - intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. Although its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it, the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated. NYSRPA v Bruen, pages 18-19 [emphasis mine]

I fully agree with your contextualized interpretation.

I meant my original reply to focus on how the clause, taken out of context and presented alone, has given "gun safety" organizations and liberal state legal representatives a powerful line to utilize to defend the constitutionality of gun control laws. This attack has already appeared in several briefs presented to lower courts by defense counsel in gun rights cases.

Therefore, I wish Justice Thomas had written the passage much more carefully.

[WithinReason]

Originally Posted by Sputnik

She?s still using the two step interest balancing approach...

Agreed.

[natman]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

I fully agree with your contextualized interpretation.

I meant my original reply to focus on how the clause, taken out of context and presented alone, has given "gun safety" organizations and liberal state legal representatives a powerful line to utilize to defend the constitutionality of gun control laws. This attack has already appeared in several briefs presented to lower courts by defense counsel in gun rights cases.

Therefore, I wish Justice Thomas had written the passage much more carefully.

Certainly care is required, but there is no way to write a meaningful sentence that a sufficiently dishonest anti-gunner won't distort, take out of context or flat out lie about.

[Librarian]

Article from Stephen Halbrook at Volokh - https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/25...-magazine-ban/

While the reasoning in the opinion is similar to like decisions by some other district courts, what I found remarkable was the disparate treatment of the expert witnesses for the parties.

[Librarian]

Short hearing today before Judge Raschio - https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/202...outputType=amp

Note some folks find a paywall there, but I have never seen one at the Oregonian, so I dunno.

A Harney County judge ruled Thursday that he will consider only whether Oregon?s gun control Measure 114 is lawful as written under the state constitution and not how it might be put into practice in the future.

?I?m just not going to guess what the program is going to look like,? Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio said.

?I find it persuasive that the case law says that you can?t speculate how a law is going to be applied,? he said, ?and this law has never been applied to anyone.?

The judge issued his ruling after he heard nearly two hours of argument on multiple pretrial motions from lawyers for gun owners moving to invalidate Measure 114 and the state?s attorney general defending the voter-approved regulations.

A trial on whether the measure violates Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution, which establishes a right to bear arms, is set to begin Sept. 18. Raschio has set aside six days for the trial but said it might last fewer days based on his rulings limiting testimony.

Raschio gave the state a victory in restricting his analysis to the text of the measure.

But he also granted the gun owners? motions to bar testimony from the state on the lethality of large-capacity magazines, physician testimony on the severity of treating multiple gunshot wounds, victim testimony on the traumatic loss of loved ones from gun violence and the effectiveness of other states? permit-to-purchase gun programs in reducing shootings.

[AlmostHeaven]

I am glad the judge threw out at least some of the nakedly forbidden interest-balancing and emotionally driven testimony. I lean pessimistic on the outcome of this case due to the forum but remain hopeful for a fair pro-constitutional ruling.

[tedw]

Judge Raschio will give a fair trial and then rule the measure unconstitutional. There is little doubt in my mind that will happen.

There is also little doubt in my mind that the higher courts in Oregon will over rule him and the law will eventually go into effect.

The arena will shift to the federal circus-oops circuit. Oregonians should prepare for temporary restriction on their God given rights, i.e, buy the guns and magazine you want now while you can.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by tedw

Judge Raschio will give a fair trial and then rule the measure unconstitutional. There is little doubt in my mind that will happen.

There is also little doubt in my mind that the higher courts in Oregon will over rule him and the law will eventually go into effect.

The arena will shift to the federal circus-oops circuit. Oregonians should prepare for temporary restriction on their God given rights, i.e, buy the guns and magazine you want now while you can.

To live in the Ninth Circuit as a gun owner is to suffer. Every gun rights case goes up to the appellate court to die, and the Supreme Court acts very slowly, if at all, to resurrect.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

To live in the Ninth Circuit as a gun owner is to suffer. Every gun rights case goes up to the appellate court to die, and the Supreme Court acts very slowly, if at all, to resurrect.

You are neglecting the fact that the Ninth Circuit includes Idaho, Montana and Arizona that all have permitless carry, no restrictions on NFA items, no roster, no mag capacity limits, no AW bans, no waiting periods, no BG checks with a carry permit which are shall issue and no red flag laws.

[darkwater34]

Gun Safety Laws are all bull manure propaganda crap made up to soften gun controllers real agendas which are to rip your guns away from you. Gun Safety B.S. needs to be addressed for what it really is. And yes the 9th circuit should take notice what the other states under their control find as Unconstitutional. And to adhere to the laws of those states.
Those Californians whom want to be different let them move to the U.K. or New Zealand.

[Librarian]

TODAY, Monday September 18, the trial before Judge Raschio begins.

OFF posts

Harney County Trial video today

Monday, Sept. 18th @ 9:00am!!!

VIDEO:
https://signin.webex.com/join

Meeting # (access code): 2484 177 5578
Meeting password: Harney23

PHONE:

1-408-418-9388
Access code: 2484 177 5578 ##

No, I'm not watching.

[AlmostHeaven]

I wonder if anyone listened in and could provide a summary of the hearing, especially the disposition of the judge and general mood of the proceedings. Unfortunately, the scheduled timing did not work for me, so I could not participate.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

I wonder if anyone listened in and could provide a summary of the hearing, especially the disposition of the judge and general mood of the proceedings. Unfortunately, the scheduled timing did not work for me, so I could not participate.

Northwest Firearms has some reports; start at https://www.northwestfirearms.com/th...6/post-3676254

I'm a member there; don't know if you need to be a member to read that thread.

[big jim]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Northwest Firearms has some reports; start at https://www.northwestfirearms.com/th...6/post-3676254

I'm a member there; don't know if you need to be a member to read that thread.

I?m not a member and had no trouble reading the thread

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by big jim

I?m not a member and had no trouble reading the thread

Thank you; good to know.

[Dan_Eastvale]

"Northwest Firearms Maintenance
We're currently performing an update. Please check back in a few minutes."

lol

[tedw]

Lots of testimony today from local gun store owner. He is doing a good job in my opinion.

[command_liner]

Lots of bitching from the state on the idea that there were no large capacity magazines 150 years ago. I think there is an excellent counter to this -- the standard response was to use a large bore firearm with lots of projectiles.

Think blunderbus and punt gun. These were *not* unusual or unusually dangerous. Similarly, the whole tie-in with the Letters of Marque and Reprisal has not been brought up. On order for Congress to grant such, the people needed to have weapons of mass destruction! EG warships, cannon and mortars. Colonial-era cannons are still around -- and one of those filled with grape shot would be logically equal to a multi-round magazine.

As a sort of side-project, I have produced a 1" bore blunderbus which mounts to an AR-15 lower. It is blackpowder and based on an old design, so federally it is not a firearm. Would 20 #1 buckshot be less problematic from one powder discharge than from 20 separate .223 shots?

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by command_liner

Lots of bitching from the state on the idea that there were no large capacity magazines 150 years ago. I think there is an excellent counter to this -- the standard response was to use a large bore firearm with lots of projectiles.

Think blunderbus and punt gun. These were *not* unusual or unusually dangerous. Similarly, the whole tie-in with the Letters of Marque and Reprisal has not been brought up. On order for Congress to grant such, the people needed to have weapons of mass destruction! EG warships, cannon and mortars. Colonial-era cannons are still around -- and one of those filled with grape shot would be logically equal to a multi-round magazine.

As a sort of side-project, I have produced a 1" bore blunderbus which mounts to an AR-15 lower. It is blackpowder and based on an old design, so federally it is not a firearm. Would 20 #1 buckshot be less problematic from one powder discharge than from 20 separate .223 shots?

I reckon discharging 20 pellets at once qualifies as more dangerous than 20 separate rifle shots because the shooter cannot adjust his aim in the middle of the string, cease firing the weapon when circumstances change, or engage a different higher-priority target.

[Librarian]

Oregonian summary of Wednesday, Sep 20 https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/202...114-trial.html

Although police are exempt from Measure 114′s gun control restrictions, Harney County Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio ruled Wednesday that testimony from law enforcement about the number of rounds they use for self defense is relevant for his judgment on whether Oregon?s gun control Measure 114 violates the state constitution.
...
They also had called gunsmith Scott Springer, owner of Redmond?s Springer Precision, who testified about the mechanics of gun magazines in pistols, rifles and shotguns.

Through video exhibits, he demonstrated how easy it is to extend magazine capacity with a drill. In one video, he used a drill to remove so-called ?dimples? in a magazine that limit the number of rounds that can be inserted into a pistol and turned a typical 10-round magazine into one that could hold 17 bullets. Altering the magazine could impact the function, Springer testified.

The gun owners argue that the measure?s language makes any magazine that ?can be readily restored, changed or converted? to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition unlawful.