Oregon AG Response to OFF lawsuit

[dinky450]

Bunch of crap

AG Response to OFF

Read More

 

[156256Hunter]

Bunch of crap

AG Response to OFF

Where did this come from? It doesn't show it was filed yet in federal court

 

[Zingularity]

For those in the back... THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE. The self-defense language needs to disappear from all our arguments, period. As patriots we fight to preserve and defend the Constitution in its entirety, because it is the law of the land - appealing to self-defense just weakens that effort.

 

[dinky450]

Where did this come from? It doesn't show it was filed yet in federal court

it was off a group on Facebook but is listed on the top of the address bar where is came from. this is just a response from the AG so we still wont know anything till tomorrow.

Contributed by Maxine Bernstein (The Oregonian)

 

[rurallife]

Same AG that stuck up for the rioters.

 

[ronin223]

Looks like purchase permits will be upheld after an injunction till process is in place. The license is now a shall issue with 30 day limit on approval.

Thier aurguement on mags is pretty weak and even states arguement is pre bruen.

 

[dinky450]

For those in the back... THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE. The self-defense language needs to disappear from all our arguments, period. As patriots we fight to preserve and defend the Constitution in its entirety, because it is the law of the land - appealing to self-defense just weakens that effort.

Seems like you should become a lawyer and file some lawsuits. They are the ones with experience at least a little. They might have a better idea what will work to get a injunction?

 

[zomie]

such laws have held large-capacity magazine restrictions are consistent with the Second Amendment. Although the decisions upholding these laws predate Bruen, that case does not undermine their conclusions.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

such laws have held large-capacity magazine restrictions are consistent with the Second Amendment. Although the decisions upholding these laws predate Bruen, that case does not undermine their conclusions.

 

[Yarome]

Looks like purchase permits will be upheld after an injunction till process is in place. The license is now a shall issue with 30 day limit on approval.

Thier aurguement on mags is pretty weak and even states arguement is pre bruen.

They are trying to claim the permit is "shall issue" in their argument, but that is not at all what the measure provisions say.

"Does not present reasonable grounds for a permit agent to conclude...."

In the course of what an agent deems appropriate to investigate, which is not limited, that allows for an agent to use subjective cause to deny a permit. That makes it "may issue".

It seems some folks forget that an argument is meant to sway a judge and, in and of itself, may not be factual and what the law actually provides for.

 

[Yarome]

such laws have held large-capacity magazine restrictions are consistent with the Second Amendment. Although the decisions upholding these laws predate Bruen, that case does not undermine their conclusions.

Case in point from my #12....

They LIE...!!

 

[washagonian]

For those in the back... THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE. The self-defense language needs to disappear from all our arguments, period. As patriots we fight to preserve and defend the Constitution in its entirety, because it is the law of the land - appealing to self-defense just weakens that effort.

On the contrary, a rationalization for self-defense was a foundational component of the second amendment in Justice Thomas' arguments put forth in the SCOTUS finding in favor of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association in the Bruen case. He spends a great deal of time on the issue of self-defense in the historical analysis.

The decision is a lengthy read, (took me several hours) but it is something that people interested in 2A issues might want to consider actually reading.

Here is a link to the decision.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

 

[Yarome]

On the contrary, a rationalization for self-defense was a foundational component of the second amendment in Justice Thomas' arguments put forth in the SCOTUS finding in favor of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association in the Bruen case. He spends a great deal of time on the issue of self-defense in the historical analysis.

The decision is a lengthy read, (took me several hours) but it is something that people interested in 2A issues might want to consider actually reading.

It's an important element inclusive of the right to bear arms, but I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the point @Zingularity was making is that we should maintain focus on the bigger picture of what the 2A actually protects... which is not "exclusive" to self-defense.

The opposition tries to limit the discussion to self-defense since they can argue and employ what "common sense" might dictate is "reasonably" necessary for a person to defend themselves under "reasonable" conditions.

Focusing on that element of the discussion boxes us into the narrative the opposition is trying to advance when it's not actually germane to the 2A argument in whole.

Kind of like trying to argue what constitutes an "assault weapon"... which isn't actually a real thing, anyway. The 2A relates to "arms" in totality.

 

[kenboy]

Our tax dollars at work against us……

 

[washagonian]

It's an important element inclusive of the right to bear arms, but I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the point @Zingularity was making is that we should maintain focus on the bigger picture of what the 2A actually protects... which is not "exclusive" to self-defense.

The opposition tries to limit the discussion to self-defense since they can argue and employ what "common sense" might dictate is "reasonably" necessary for a person to defend themselves under "reasonable" conditions.

Focusing on that element of the discussion boxes us into the narrative the opposition is trying to advance when it's not actually germane to the 2A argument in whole.

Kind of like trying to argue what constitutes an "assault weapon"... which isn't actually a real thing, anyway. The 2A relates to "arms" in totality.

@Yarome, I appreciate your comments and I agree with you that focusing only on "self-defense" as "our" argument is flawed.

But I'm not in agreement with the suggestion that we should not include "self-defense" as a key component of our challenge to any anti-2A legislation, which was the point I was trying to get across.

The self-defense language needs to disappear from all our arguments

NOT incorporating "self-defense" as a key component of any legal attack on BM 114 (and other anti-2A measures) ignores one of the major reasons SCOTUS sided with NY Rifle & Pistol Association.

Thomas makes quite a big deal emphasizing that one of the historical INTENTS of the 2A, as well as the historical PRACTICE of the 2A, is the keeping and bearing of arms for self-defense.

SCOTUS reaffirmed in Bruen the long accepted argument that the 2A is NOT just about keeping and bearing arms in regard to "a well regulated Militia."

SCOTUS reaffirmed, as well as expanded and provided very detailed instructions and analysis, that an historical and textual analysis is the appropriate way to analyze the constitutionality of 2A legislation. In the context of history, Thomas asserted quite strongly that it was always the intention of the framers that the keeping and bearing of arms was also intended for self-protection / self-defense and in the context of history, that is how citizens have kept, borne and used arms.

If I were an attorney I'd be sure and use every tool the SCOTUS gave me in the Bruen decision, which includes that self-defense IS a KEY component of the 2A, in my arguments that BM 114 is unconstitutional. "Self-defense" as an argument against anti-2A legislation may not play out well in social media, but in a courtroom it speaks directly to the directives provided by the SCOTUS in the Bruen decision.

I really do appreciate these discussions. I always learn a lot and have opportunities to see other perspectives.

Cheers.

 

[Yarome]

@Yarome, I appreciate your comments and I agree with you that focusing only on "self-defense" as "our" argument is flawed.

But I'm not in agreement with the suggestion that we should not include "self-defense" as a key component of our challenge to any anti-2A legislation, which was the point I was trying to get across.

I fully agree with that. I was more just attempting to clarify what I thought he meant by it and how I took his meaning. Which, I agree is valid, too.

The reality is that we can't get away from not fighting within the frameworks the anti 2A arguments put us. Entirely valid or not... which I think Thomas addressed very well and rightly included in the opinion.

We just dont want to loose focus and get pigeonholed into confining the argument strictly within the confines they want to dictate.

If it were up to Brandon... the whole 2A argument is only about hunting and the fact that animals are "soft targets".

 

[Ura-Ki]

I see our Esteemed Attorney General is Selectively Cherrie Picking parts of Heller, McDonald, and now Bruen, which she claims is inconsistent with the states right to enact and enforce 114, while she conviently leaves out EVERY SINGLE case she points to has or is in the process of being struck the phuck down! How Smarmy of her to obfuscate the actual law, and insert her own realities in place of actual law!

See, THIS is why we must start the Recall process on her as soon as possible, it's clowns like her that are causing all the heartache here in this state!

 

[Ura-Ki]

@Yarome, I appreciate your comments and I agree with you that focusing only on "self-defense" as "our" argument is flawed.

But I'm not in agreement with the suggestion that we should not include "self-defense" as a key component of our challenge to any anti-2A legislation, which was the point I was trying to get across.



NOT incorporating "self-defense" as a key component of any legal attack on BM 114 (and other anti-2A measures) ignores one of the major reasons SCOTUS sided with NY Rifle & Pistol Association.

Thomas makes quite a big deal emphasizing that one of the historical INTENTS of the 2A, as well as the historical PRACTICE of the 2A, is the keeping and bearing of arms for self-defense.

SCOTUS reaffirmed in Bruen the long accepted argument that the 2A is NOT just about keeping and bearing arms in regard to "a well regulated Militia."

SCOTUS reaffirmed, as well as expanded and provided very detailed instructions and analysis, that an historical and textual analysis is the appropriate way to analyze the constitutionality of 2A legislation. In the context of history, Thomas asserted quite strongly that it was always the intention of the framers that the keeping and bearing of arms was also intended for self-protection / self-defense and in the context of history, that is how citizens have kept, borne and used arms.

If I were an attorney I'd be sure and use every tool the SCOTUS gave me in the Bruen decision, which includes that self-defense IS a KEY component of the 2A, in my arguments that BM 114 is unconstitutional. "Self-defense" as an argument against anti-2A legislation may not play out well in social media, but in a courtroom it speaks directly to the directives provided by the SCOTUS in the Bruen decision.

I really do appreciate these discussions. I always learn a lot and have opportunities to see other perspectives.

Cheers.

Defense is a CORE issue within the 2nd, as it was written SPECIFFICALLY to allow our abilities to DEFEND All aspects of the BoR, the state and Nation, in part from a standing army, and all enemies both foreign and domestic, not to mention ourselves both in the home and in public at large, One CANNOT separate the Defense aspect of the 2nd from any other parts, and thusly, it should also form a CORE part of any and all claims defending the 2nd in ALL court challenges!

 

[Ura-Ki]

You guys REALLY should give this a watch, it absolutely Covers everything about to happen here in Oregon, and this really covers a lot of what will likely go down in the court, especially with the Oregon A.G. arguing things on behalf of the state, something the lawyers absolutely must take and use against her!
It also covers a lot of what the Judge may be like in court and how she handles things!

 

[titsonritz]

For those in the back... THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE. The self-defense language needs to disappear from all our arguments, period. As patriots we fight to preserve and defend the Constitution in its entirety, because it is the law of the land - appealing to self-defense just weakens that effort.

Same goes the sporting clause, bunch o' bullchit.