Oregon 114 who is exempt from mag limits?

[Savage Jav]

I believe someone won an argument that their tent was their abode. If I recall, it was a homeless dude in Oregon with a gun.

Might be the only cool homeless person in portland

 

[GOG]

Q. 114 Who is exempt from mag limits?

A. All American Citizens.

"A free man does not ask permission to bear arms." Thomas Jefferson

 

[pinkbandana]

I was just having this conversation earlier today. Since you are state certified "private" armed security ( a step above Joe Q citizen) you may fall into a loophole area. It will impede your ability to perform your duties to be out gunned, despite people thinking just because there's a law, criminals follow them.
AND
Who is to say where are you going with those? I can't imagine any LE giving you a hard time, especially if you are on the job. on the way or away from...

Inside sources (in local LE and OSP) I have are telling me top brass are leaving the enforcement of the mag limit to officers discretion. Which means, if you're up to no good and you have 11+ rounds in a mag, it's another charge they can levy. However, if you're driving a little fast on the road and get pulled over, the officer isn't going to ask if your tool has a 15 round clipozine in it.

and so we're clear.. I AM NOT A LAWYER, this is not legal advice, you don't know me

 

[Camelfilter]

....Inside sources (in local LE and OSP) I have are telling me top brass are leaving the enforcement of the mag limit to officers discretion. Which means, if you're up to no good and you have 11+ rounds in a mag, it's another charge they can levy. However, if you're driving a little fast on the road and get pulled over, the officer isn't going to ask if your tool has a 15 round clipozine in it.

and so we're clear.. I AM NOT A LAWYER, this is not legal advice, you don't know me

I'd wonder if they COULD ask you (legally)? - The ones that WOULD, anyways...then charge you with a crime?

-Given that CHL's are tied to DMV, in Oregon. They would know if a driver has a CHL. Not that a driver was carrying at the time. Nor if the magazine was legal, if the driver was carrying at all. Oregon has no law prompting a driver to announce such to a LEO. Some states do have such law...

THAT would be interesting for the lawyers on the board to chime in on.

 

[Nosferatu]

I'd wonder if they COULD ask you (legally)? - The ones that WOULD, anyways...then charge you with a crime?

-Given that CHL's are tied to DMV, in Oregon. They would know if a driver has a CHL. Not that a driver was carrying at the time. Nor if the magazine was legal, if the driver was carrying at all. Oregon has no law prompting a driver to announce such to a LEO. Some states do have such law...

THAT would be interesting for the lawyers on the board to chime in on.

JBT: Can I see your magazine?

Citizen: No.

End of conversation.

 

[Member 53328]

I'd wonder if they COULD ask you (legally)? - The ones that WOULD, anyways...then charge you with a crime?

-Given that CHL's are tied to DMV, in Oregon. They would know if a driver has a CHL. Not that a driver was carrying at the time. Nor if the magazine was legal, if the driver was carrying at all. Oregon has no law prompting a driver to announce such to a LEO. Some states do have such law...

THAT would be interesting for the lawyers on the board to chime in on.

Warrant. I'm not showing anything just cause they ask nicely.

 

[farmdaddy]

waiting for food at a local food cart and a couple deputies came up to order, we started talking about 114 and one said that beyond to and from duty if he was caught with mags over ten he could get a felony C charge. Saying that while looking down at the 3 mags on his chest.
He said technically though he's always on duty so he wasn't even clear on the metrics of how it's supposed to work.

Lets be honest here, thats not gonna happen. No DA is going to prosecute that.
Silly that they could, but not gonna happen.
I think at the most, if it holds up, they will ban sales of anything 11+
I remember the federal ban, all it did was make mags way way way mor expensive.
I would bet it would be used as another charge to use against someone who is getting multiple charges but highly doubtful anyone is getting a standalone charge for it.

From what I've read, if you own them before dec 8th you just can't conceal or open carry them.
Beyond that every other use is legal.
I think transportation they are supposed to be separated and unloaded. Like thatll do anything.

The weird part about this, that may have legal merit, guns that do not have any option for lower capacity.
Example would be I have a KelTec pmr30.
They only make 30rnd mags for it.
I looked for 10rnd mags, they dont exists, not on this planet anyways.
If that was the only gun I had for CC and open carry protection, id be forced to buy another gun because of this law.
Id have zero options, reasonably anyways.
There's no $10 mag i can buy to comply with 114.
I would essentially have to buy another hand gun.
Which would be impossible for anyone that had, say this gun, their only gun with a chl or who open carries that is poor.
So as of dec 8th they would be breaking the law by possessing this as they had in the past with zero immediate replacement options available to them.
My thought on that, its absolutely impeding their reasonable right to carry and strips them from the right they have to carry beyond a reasonable solution to do so.
Even if they could afford to replace it they wouldn't be able to in a reasonable time.
How they make that stick, I dunno.
But if you were poor and need to cary and that was the gun you picked, youd have no other options other then leaving it at home to follow the state rules.
I don't understand how the people that wrote this wouldn't see these hurdles and at least prepared for them.

What I find hilarious is the law is designed to slow gun sales and those guns getting into the hands of criminals, at the same time it made more gun sales happen in the state of oregon EVER!
If 114s aim was to add an immediate 20% increase to gun owners in oregon, it did that for sure.

It's hilarious that a gun safety measure actually increased the amount of guns out there.
By a huge margin, like the most ever.

 

[Jade Falcon]

I don't understand how the people that wrote this wouldn't see these hurdles and at least prepared for them.

They don't care. That's what a lot of people don't seem to understand here. Many keep trying to approach this with some semblance that LEVO had best intentions at heart. They don't. And they never did. This has nothing to do with safety or keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

They are SNOBS who are utterly convinced that they know what's best for you. They HATE guns and they don't care about the intricacies of owning, carrying, or buying them. They are trying to make the process of owning one as difficult and as arduous as humanly possible so that people just give up. They know they can't CALL it a ban, so they're doing everything to skirt that word and make it difficult instead.

Going forward, the gun rights movement needs to meet these people on their own level. We're never going to get ahead waving flags and holding up signs about the constitution. We need to counter them by helping voters understand that they are victimizing poor people and "people of color". Because they don't care about the Constitution, the 2A, or legalese speak. The only thing that gets through to them are Leftist buzzwords and emotion. So plan accordingly and get with the times.

 

[Member 53328]

They don't care. That's what a lot of people don't seem to understand here. Many keep trying to approach this with some semblance that LEVO had best intentions at heart. They don't. And they never did. This has nothing to do with safety or keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

They are SNOBS who are utterly convinced that they know what's best for you. They HATE guns and they don't care about the intricacies of owning, carrying, or buying them. They are trying to make the process of owning one as difficult and as arduous as humanly possible so that people just give up. They know they can't CALL it a ban, so they're doing everything to skirt that word and make it difficult instead.

Going forward, the gun rights movement needs to meet these people on their own level. We're never going to get ahead waving flags and holding up signs about the constitution. We need to counter them by helping voters understand that they are victimizing poor people and "people of color". Because they don't care about the Constitution, the 2A, or legalese speak. The only thing that gets through to them are Leftist buzzwords and emotion. So plan accordingly and get with the times.

It's not that they don't like guns. It's that they don't like US having guns. They are more than thrilled and support their security teams carrying guns to protect them. In their eyes we don't qualify/deserve the same right. We are just misguided little peasants in their eyes.

Rules for THEE not for ME. #APAC

 

[jackrv]

Most likely they didn't write this, they got it from the anti gun groups like Moms demand action, giffords, bloomberg, brady etc.

they just stuck their names on it and got it passed illegally.

Jack

 

[BuckWallace]

Does anyone know how 114 affects ordering ordering magazines online? Palmetto State Armory posted a notice stating Dec 4th was the final day for Oregonians to purchase >10 rd mags from them, so on the 2nd I bought some more assuming they would get here before the 8th. However, they just shipped today with an estimated delivery date of Dec 12th. Is it illegal for me to take possession if they're delivered after the 8th?

 

[Member 53328]

Does anyone know how 114 affects ordering ordering magazines online? Palmetto State Armory posted a notice stating Dec 4th was the final day for Oregonians to purchase >10 rd mags from them, so on the 2nd I bought some more assuming they would get here before the 8th. However, they just shipped today with an estimated delivery date of Dec 12th. Is it illegal for me to take possession if they're delivered after the 8th?

If they show up to your door on the 12th are you gunna walk them in to the police department?

If they shipped and they show up then who cares.

I'll come get them from you if you're really that worried about it. I'll personally take the liability.

 

[Pepe-lepew]

Does anyone know how 114 affects ordering ordering magazines online? Palmetto State Armory posted a notice stating Dec 4th was the final day for Oregonians to purchase >10 rd mags from them, so on the 2nd I bought some more assuming they would get here before the 8th. However, they just shipped today with an estimated delivery date of Dec 12th. Is it illegal for me to take possession if they're delivered after the 8th?

You really should read the measure. Your answer is in there. It really is not a good idea to post questions like this on the internet.

It will be a crime to posses any 10+ magazine. However there is affirmative defense if you can prove you "owned" it before the implementation date. You bought it and owned it before the date. You should be good to go.

 

[BuckWallace]

If they show up to your door on the 12th are you gunna walk them in to the police department?

If they shipped and they show up then who cares.

I'll come get them from you if you're really that worried about it. I'll personally take the liability.

No, I won't walk them into the police department, but I might return them. I've done everything legally so far, and I don't want to start dipping into grey areas now. You're right in that nothing will probably ever come of it, but I'm just asking the question.

You really should read the measure. Your answer is in there. It really is not a good idea to post questions like this on the internet.

It will be a crime to posses any 10+ magazine. However there is affirmative defense if you can prove you "owned" it before the implementation date. You bought it and owned it before the date. You should be good to go.

Thanks. Yeah, I did read the measure. Things are just open to different interpretation, which is why I threw out the question here. I'm not planning on screenshotting internet forums and using that as a legal defense, if that's what you're implying. As written, it sounds like it's probably illegal if it doesn't show up by the 8th:

"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"

I could argue that it was, in fact, owned by me prior to the 8th, but it was not "maintained in my control or possession". UPS will be in control/possession until the 12th.

 

[solv3nt]

No, I won't walk them into the police department, but I might return them. I've done everything legally so far, and I don't want to start dipping into grey areas now. You're right in that nothing will probably ever come of it, but I'm just asking the question.

Thanks. Yeah, I did read the measure. Things are just open to different interpretation, which is why I threw out the question here. I'm not planning on screenshotting internet forums and using that as a legal defense, if that's what you're implying. As written, it sounds like it's probably illegal if it doesn't show up by the 8th:

"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"

I could argue that it was, in fact, owned by me prior to the 8th, but it was not "maintained in my control or possession". UPS will be in control/possession until the 12th.

It's bringing into the state, so once your package crosses state lines.

 

[Pepe-lepew]

No, I won't walk them into the police department, but I might return them. I've done everything legally so far, and I don't want to start dipping into grey areas now. You're right in that nothing will probably ever come of it, but I'm just asking the question.

Thanks. Yeah, I did read the measure. Things are just open to different interpretation, which is why I threw out the question here. I'm not planning on screenshotting internet forums and using that as a legal defense, if that's what you're implying. As written, it sounds like it's probably illegal if it doesn't show up by the 8th:

"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"

I could argue that it was, in fact, owned by me prior to the 8th, but it was not "maintained in my control or possession". UPS will be in control/possession until the 12th.

The law is very poorly written. It however says own not transfer. You bought and own the mag and paid for it to be shipped to you. You are in control of the magazines being shipped to you when you completed the order and they shipped them.

The constitution says we have the right to bear arms. That means we also have the right to acquire and maintain those arms. Shipping is required to do both. And yes magazines are arms and essential for a firearm to function. That can be proven by any firearm with a mag disconnect or that can damaged by feeding a round without using a magazine.

The issue with posting questions for clarification is it may give people bent on taking our rights either arguments against us or allow them to use the poorly written law in ways against us from the information they gather. I have not mentioned several important points on this topic because of this.

 

[voluble]

So on the point of concealed carrying with mags over 10 rounds, the bill says you can have the mags "On property owned or immediately controlled by the registered owner". Could one not argue that their car is their property? Or their waistband, or jacket pocket?

I just wanted to play devil's advocate and ask this question as I'm half stupid when it comes to these bills that aren't written in plain English.

 

[solv3nt]

So on the point of concealed carrying with mags over 10 rounds, the bill says you can have the mags "On property owned or immediately controlled by the registered owner". Could one not argue that their car is their property? Or their waistband, or jacket pocket?

I just wanted to play devil's advocate and ask this question as I'm half stupid when it comes to these bills that aren't written in plain English.

Illegal out and about.

 

[Kruel J]

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

 

[kselkhunter]

Does anyone know how 114 affects ordering ordering magazines online? Palmetto State Armory posted a notice stating Dec 4th was the final day for Oregonians to purchase >10 rd mags from them, so on the 2nd I bought some more assuming they would get here before the 8th. However, they just shipped today with an estimated delivery date of Dec 12th. Is it illegal for me to take possession if they're delivered after the 8th?

I'm actually arguing with PSA right now on this topic. I bought some >10 round mags on Sunday December 4th before the cutoff time, and they let the order go through. As it was before midnight on the 4th as the website said. They notified me yesterday (12/5) they were shipping the magazines. Then today notified me they no longer could ship the magazines because it would violate the Oregon law. I told them the law doesn't kick in until December 8th, then followed it up with a link to the Oregonlive article that the Harney County judge has now staid the law going into effect until further review. No dice. PSA won't budge. They cancelled my order.