Oregon 114 who is exempt from mag limits?

[solv3nt]

I've decided I'm exempt. @spookshack helped with said decision.

View attachment 1325453

Mines bigger than yours

 

[Cavedweller]

But the whole of 114 has a TRO on it for the next 10 days from a Harney county judge…. How does that play into this?

For one thing it means you can still carry a 10+ round magazine outside your home or transport one from place to place without having it locked in a container separate from your firearm.

 

[arakboss]

But the whole of 114 has a TRO on it for the next 10 days from a Harney county judge…. How does that play into this?

11+ mags should be good to go as long the Harney County judges TRO is in place.

 

[BPS2271]

For one thing it means you can still carry a 10+ round magazine outside your home or transport one from place to place without having it locked in a container separate from your firearm.

You can do that anyway. You MUST be able to prove that you owned the mag before 114 took effect. LOTS of misinformation on this but THAT is what the law says as written.

 

[BluesReds]

You can do that anyway. You MUST be able to prove that you owned the mag before 114 took effect. LOTS of misinformation on this but THAT is what the law says as written.

No. you cannot carry it outside your home/property without it locked in a separate container.

(c) In addition to either (a) or (b) of this subsection the owner has not maintained the large-capacity magazine in a manner other than:

(A) On property owned or immediately controlled by the registered owner;

(B) On the premises of a gun dealer or gunsmith licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 for the purpose of lawful service or repair;

(C) While engaging in the legal use of the large-capacity magazine, at a public or private shooting range or shooting gallery or for recreational activities such as hunting, to the extent permitted under state law; or

(D) While participating in firearms competition or exhibition, display or educational project about firearms sponsored, conducted by, approved or under the auspices of a law enforcement agency or a national or state-recognized entity that fosters proficiency in firearms use or promotes firearms education; and

(E) While transporting any large-capacity magazines in a vehicle to one of the locations authorized in paragraphs (c)(A) to (D) of this subsection, the large-capacity magazine is not inserted into the firearm and is locked in a separate container.

 

[BPS2271]

No. you cannot carry it outside your home/property without it locked in a separate container.

Read the entire law. There is an exception for magazines that you can PROVE you owned before the effective date. Even the news stories are stating that fact.

(5) As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be an affirmative defense, as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that: (a) The large-capacity magazine was owned by the person before the effective date of this 2022 Act and maintained in the person's control or possession; or

 

[BluesReds]

Read the entire law. There is an exception for magazines that you can PROVE you owned before the effective date. Even the news stories are stating that fact.

(5) As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be an affirmative defense, as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that: (a) The large-capacity magazine was owned by the person before the effective date of this 2022 Act and maintained in the person's control or possession; or

No. You get to keep the mag, yes, but CANNOT carry it anywhere that is not outlined in A-D above. You cannot carry any 10+ mags without it being in one of those 4 cases ONLY. Otherwise it must be in a locked in a separate container. You are missing the rest of the text AFTER what you quoted me...

(5) As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be an affirmative defense, as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that:
(a) The large-capacity magazine was owned by the person before the effective date of this 2022 Act and maintained in the person's control or possession; or
(b) The possession of a large-capacity magazine was obtained by a person who, on or after the effective date of this section, acquired possession of the large-capacity magazine by operation of law upon the death of a former owner who was in legal possession of the large-capacity magazine; and
(c) In addition to either (a) or (b) of this subsection the owner has not maintained the large-capacity magazine in a manner other than:

 

[BPS2271]

No. You get to keep the mag, yes, but CANNOT carry it anywhere that is not outlined in A-D above. You cannot carry any 10+ mags without it being in one of those 4 cases ONLY. Otherwise it must be in a locked in a separate container. You are missing the rest of the text AFTER what you quoted me...

You're simply wrong. It says OR. It is an exception. In effect a grandfather clause.

 

[BluesReds]

You're simply wrong.

I am simply not. You must either have part (a) OR part (b), but in either case you MUST follow (c) and all its requirements.

 

[ocarolan]

No. you cannot carry it outside your home/property without it locked in a separate container.

Yes overall, but the 5(c)(E) requirement only applies to "transport in a vehicle". On foot presumably, you could transfer them in an inserted condition:

(5) (c) In addition to either (a) or (b) of this subsection the owner has not maintained the large-capacity magazine in a manner other than:
[...]
(E) While transporting any large-capacity magazines IN A VEHICLE to one of the locations authorized in paragraphs (c)(A) to (D) of this subsection, the large-capacity magazine is not inserted into the firearm and is locked in a separate container.

(emphasis added)

Note ORS defines vehicle rather broadly. A bicycle or even a shopping cart might qualify:
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_801.590

Presumably a judge could also distinguish between "carrying" (with the intent to use them for self-defense) and a legal transport under 5(c). So "carrying" on foot might not technically satisfy 5(c) - eg a woman out jogging with an extended Glock 42 (locked or otherwise) might still be prosecuted.

Overall this is fairly complicated and could need case law to interpret, not sure.

 

[BPS2271]

I am simply not. You must either have part (a) OR part (b), but in either case you MUST follow (c) and all its requirements.

The OR modifies what you are saying. Sorry. The state says what it says, not what someone THINKS it says.

 

[BPS2271]

Not quite true. The 5(c)(E) requirement only applies to "transport in a vehicle". On foot presumably, you could transfer them in an inserted condition:

(5) (c) In addition to either (a) or (b) of this subsection the owner has not maintained the large-capacity magazine in a manner other than:
[...]
(E) While transporting any large-capacity magazines IN A VEHICLE to one of the locations authorized in paragraphs (c)(A) to (D) of this subsection, the large-capacity magazine is not inserted into the firearm and is locked in a separate container.

(emphasis added)

Note ORS defines vehicle rather broadly. A bicycle or even a shopping cart might qualify:
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_801.590

Good. You win. I'll do what the law says. NOT what someone thinks it says.

 

[ronin223]

You're simply wrong. It says OR. It is an exception. In effect a grandfather clause.

BPS you are wrong. You did not read the law. Nevermind. Seems you now know your mistake

 

[BluesReds]

Not quite true. The 5(c)(E) requirement only applies to "transport in a vehicle". On foot presumably, you could transfer them in an inserted condition:

(5) (c) In addition to either (a) or (b) of this subsection the owner has not maintained the large-capacity magazine in a manner other than:
[...]
(E) While transporting any large-capacity magazines IN A VEHICLE to one of the locations authorized in paragraphs (c)(A) to (D) of this subsection, the large-capacity magazine is not inserted into the firearm and is locked in a separate container.

(emphasis added)

Note ORS defines vehicle rather broadly. A bicycle or even a shopping cart might qualify:
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_801.590

No, if you are on foot and not in a vehicle you are carrying it in a manner other than one of the cases listed in A-D (presuming you are not meeting one of the cases A-D, eg. just on foot out for a lovely stroll through the homeless encampments downtown...).

 

[BPS2271]

BPS you are wrong. You did not read the law.

I quoted DIRECTLY from it above. Clearly I read it. Have a nice night.

 

[BluesReds]

The OR modifies what you are saying. Sorry. The state says what it says, not what someone THINKS it says.

I don't know how else to explain it to you honestly. It says you must do (a) OR (b) but in either case you must also do (c). In other words you can either have owned the mags before the ban or inherited them, but in either case must use them as described in part (c).

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

The whole darn thing is on hold until further notice.

 

[ocarolan]

No, if you are on foot and not in a vehicle you are carrying it in a manner other than one of the cases listed in A-D (presuming you are not meeting one of the cases A-D, eg. just on foot out for a lovely stroll through the homeless encampments downtown...).

Agreed, most walking trips would not qualify under A-D. But you could (say) walk to an urban shooting range with the magazine inserted/loaded. At minimum, it could be troublesome if trying to prosecute anyone on foot.

 

[Koda]

Im just glad the bad guys are just as confused about this law as we are.......

 

[BDA.45]

I WILL NOT COMPLY!!!!!!!
If this bubbleguming state isint doing anything about drugs and whatnot, I WILL NOT COMPLY!!!! I'll take my chances.....just sayn......