Oregon AG Response to OFF lawsuit

[Uberdillo]

Since folks never pass on a chance to sew division amongst people not represented here, things you oughta know: Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum went to University of Oregon and went on to study law at the University of Oregon School of Law.

Reed College is well known for their left leaning, but much less known for the fact that they regularly had a shooting sports club for a number of years that drew a lot of student interest, had close ties with the Clackamas Public Safety Training Center, and have allowed the NRA to conduct a series of classes on their campus that happened to meet the training standards for the CHL requirement in Oregon.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Here is a great breakdown of the A.G's flawed arguments!

 

[sed]

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.

Agreed!
Nor does it have anything to do with hunting. I hear this from time to time as well...ummm...no! It's to defend our freedoms and constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic...

 

[MichaelH]

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!

That's what lawyers do. That's her job. Honestly, because it passed, her obligation is to her clients, the majority of voters who approved the law. If she had a rack of guns at home that'd still be her job description. Whether I agree with any part of the law or not, it's a damn good argument that there are existing magazine bans that haven't been found unconstitutional in many other circuits (assuming folks even bothered to challenge them), and the USSC hasn't overturned them. Heller even seems to suggest that magazine capacity limits might be constitutional.

What's interesting though is that the law isn't settled in our Circuit. It could be that the limits are not unconstitutional now, but in a month or two they are under 9th Circuit law.

Honestly the best argument to stop the law for now is that on 12/8, no one can get a permit to buy a firearm. That may not invalidate it outright, but it should be unconstitutional as applied.

IMO the argument that the 2A is intended to permit citizens to fight government tyrrany is a loser. Regardless of what the founders thought, the Supremes are NOT going to hold that it's purpose is to ensure citizens have the power to take up arms against any level of government because some citizens believe certain laws are tyranical. Self defense is reason enough, and avoids Federal judges looking at plaintiffs and their counsel as tin foil hat wearing loons, which is what 99% of them would think.

 

[Librarian]

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

While I agree Rosenblum should be kicked out of office, and Fagan from SOS, the conundrum is 'who would replace her/them?'

The politics are such that only a candidate with similar policies and devotion to D goals could be elected/appointed as a replacement.

See section 22 of the OR Constitution, https://ballotpedia.org/Article_II,_Oregon_Constitution#Section_18 (I find I like Ballotpedia more and more as I read it more often)

(5) On the ballot at the election shall be printed in not more than 200 words the reasons for demanding the recall of the officer as set forth in the recall petition, and, in not more than 200 words, the officer's justification of the officer's course in office. The officer shall continue to perform the duties of office until the result of the special election is officially declared. If an officer is recalled from any public office the vacancy shall be filled immediately in the manner provided by law for filling a vacancy in that office arising from any other cause.

(6) The recall petition shall be filed with the officer with whom a petition for nomination to such office should be filed, and the same officer shall order the special election when it is required.

We've already seen how Fagan manipulated M114; imagine what she would do to a recall petition.

I watched 2 recalls in CA - one gave us Ahhhhhnold as the Governator, and recently the other could not get rid of Gavin.

CA has a larger quantity of foolish voters, but evidently not more devotedly so than much of the OR electorate.

 

[washagonian]

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!

Thanks for posting this, @Ura-Ki.

I like William Kirk, he's great.

Did you catch the coining of the new term, "historically standard magazines" at time stamp 20:37. Gotta love it.

 

[Jay Walk]

You can't argue it both ways.

In the Ninth Circuit's decision, it explained that "large-capacity magazines provide significant benefit to soldiers and criminals who wish to kill many people rapidly" but have "little to no usefulness in self-defense."

Okay... which is it?

 

[Ura-Ki]

While I agree Rosenblum should be kicked out of office, and Fagan from SOS, the conundrum is 'who would replace her/them?'

The politics are such that only a candidate with similar policies and devotion to D goals could be elected/appointed as a replacement.

See section 22 of the OR Constitution, https://ballotpedia.org/Article_II,_Oregon_Constitution#Section_18 (I find I like Ballotpedia more and more as I read it more often)


We've already seen how Fagan manipulated M114; imagine what she would do to a recall petition.

I watched 2 recalls in CA - one gave us Ahhhhhnold as the Governator, and recently the other could not get rid of Gavin.

CA has a larger quantity of foolish voters, but evidently not more devotedly so than much of the OR electorate.

I know! I agree with what you are saying here, but ai would still rather take our chances with the replacements, who knows, not all Dems are bad, some actually follow the laws!

It's also something we should challenge, how Oregon selects it's replacements for offices, that's something to change so we don't keep getting stuck in the rince cycle on repete with the same same!

 

[Ura-Ki]

You can't argue it both ways.

In the Ninth Circuit's decision, it explained that "large-capacity magazines provide significant benefit to soldiers and criminals who wish to kill many people rapidly" but have "little to no usefulness in self-defense."

Okay... which is it?

Heller specifically mentions magazines as integral to bearable arms in common use, and didn't state capacity limits, not did they suggest limits were possible! Remember what the Heller case established, SCOTUS left the door open specifically so that standard could be challenged later!

 

[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.

There are cases with similar on magazine capacity and a few other similarities. They already have higher court rulings and it set a presidance on 114. Going after the magazine ban is the best chance to get a injunction. Once the injunction happens they will have years in court and it won't be law. At this point you can't just take the magazine part out as people voted on it and the measure changes. The lawsuit is to pin point the weakest link to stop the whole measure.

 

[156256Hunter]

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)

Then someone at AG's office provided it to someone before filing it I guess

 

[Jay Walk]

Is the standard capacity magazine a significant benefit for criminals who wish to kill?
or
No benefit for victims who need to defend themself?

The reply said both about the same magazines.

 

[Ura-Ki]

That's what lawyers do. That's her job. Honestly, because it passed, her obligation is to her clients, the majority of voters who approved the law. If she had a rack of guns at home that'd still be her job description. Whether I agree with any part of the law or not, it's a damn good argument that there are existing magazine bans that haven't been found unconstitutional in many other circuits (assuming folks even bothered to challenge them), and the USSC hasn't overturned them. Heller even seems to suggest that magazine capacity limits might be constitutional.

What's interesting though is that the law isn't settled in our Circuit. It could be that the limits are not unconstitutional now, but in a month or two they are under 9th Circuit law.

Honestly the best argument to stop the law for now is that on 12/8, no one can get a permit to buy a firearm. That may not invalidate it outright, but it should be unconstitutional as applied.

IMO the argument that the 2A is intended to permit citizens to fight government tyrrany is a loser. Regardless of what the founders thought, the Supremes are NOT going to hold that it's purpose is to ensure citizens have the power to take up arms against any level of government because some citizens believe certain laws are tyranical. Self defense is reason enough, and avoids Federal judges looking at plaintiffs and their counsel as tin foil hat wearing loons, which is what 99% of them would think.

It all comes down to how one frames the arguments! The 2nd is very specific in what it protects, and the 5 cases ruled on by SCOTUS largely removed the need for the "Tyrannical Government" argument, which remains clear and unchallenged within the Federalist Papers as written! Besides, we have not had a case that would pose such a challenge, pretty much all our challenges have revolved around ether the limits of Gov Powers, or Citizens Rights! We are gaining just with the cases we now have, and ince the ATF gets it's dick slapped around hard, the Tyrannical issue largely goes away as it is!

 

[Ura-Ki]

Is the standard capacity magazine a significant benefit for criminals who wish to kill?
or
No benefit for victims who need to defend themself?

The reply said both about the same magazines.

This shows just how stupid and weak sauce our A.G. is, that she couldn't come up with any relevant or original issue that hasn't already been challenged, she proves only that she isn't capable of thinking and breathing at the same time, and this is the beauty of Bruen, the burden is squarely in her court, and the best she can do is that rubbish that any halfarse attorney can tear apart with out so much as blinking! Bruen, the gift that will keep in giving for a very long time to come!

 

[dinky450]

Then someone at AG's office provided it to someone before filing it I guess

Maybe idk. I hope she is stupid/arrogant enough to release any info on the argument she is going to use lol

 

[Ura-Ki]

Here's another argument our A.G. has gotten flat wrong, her claims of several other states with standing magazine bans convientienly leaves out the fact that in every case she cites, there is ether active or pending litigation against those bans, ether at the state or district level ( I checked) including the 9th, which she actually pointed out, BUT omitted the whole part about it being G.V.R.'ed back down to the 9th to be reviewed in light of the Bruen decision, and that she incorrectly pointed out that it hasn't failed, but that it is in fact about to be struck down for the 4th time by Judge St. Roger T. Benitias and then it's on the state to ether accept the loss, or bounce it back up to the 9th, who now in light of Bruen, MUST act accordingly, or risk the wrath or SCOTUS, AGAIN!

 

[dinky450]

Here's another argument our A.G. has gotten flat wrong, her claims of several other states with standing magazine bans convientienly leaves out the fact that in every case she cites, there is ether active or pending litigation against those bans, ether at the state or district level ( I checked) including the 9th, which she actually pointed out, BUT omitted the whole part about it being G.V.R.'ed back down to the 9th to be reviewed in light of the Bruen decision, and that she incorrectly pointed out that it hasn't failed, but that it is in fact about to be struck down for the 4th time by Judge St. Roger T. Benitias and then it's on the state to ether accept the loss, or bounce it back up to the 9th, who now in light of Bruen, MUST act accordingly, or risk the wrath or SCOTUS, AGAIN!

They need to slap her in the face with a kotex

 

[Ura-Ki]

One of the big things I have been looking at is the states arguments specifically in light of Bruen now, how they MUST find a Relevant Historical Text or Tradition from 1791! I thought it would be a major challenge, until I realized it is actually Stupid simple, ONLY CONGRESS SHALL MAKE ANY LAWS, and through a few months of digging, I have found ZERO instances where congress had written ANY laws abridging the 2nd Amendment, not until 1934 with the NFA did Congress pass ANY law restricting the rights of citizens, and even then, it was a TAX, not a restriction! So, basically, the states are phucked by their own hand, as there is ZERO to turn to! I also reserched local and state laws, and specific claims using the 10th as justification, they do not hold any water, again, any laws challenging the 2nd MUST come from congress, and now, even they must apply the Bruen standard!

 

[Paul2ball]

I just read this whole report. One of the biggest question for me this whole time is what will happen with the 30k pending background checks when law goes into place. This quote from page 38 looks promising. Albeit, this defense attorney isn't making the rules but appears they are willing to concede and grandfather the back log in.


54 Before November 8, Oregon averaged 849 background check requests for new firearms transfers per day; since November 8, the daily average has quadrupled to 4,092.55 Any firearms purchased before Measure 114 becomes effective can be retained, even by individuals who never obtain a permit-to-purchase.

 

[dinky450]

One of the big things I have been looking at is the states arguments specifically in light of Bruen now, how they MUST find a Relevant Historical Text or Tradition from 1791! I thought it would be a major challenge, until I realized it is actually Stupid simple, ONLY CONGRESS SHALL MAKE ANY LAWS, and through a few months of digging, I have found ZERO instances where congress had written ANY laws abridging the 2nd Amendment, not until 1934 with the NFA did Congress pass ANY law restricting the rights of citizens, and even then, it was a TAX, not a restriction! So, basically, the states are phucked by their own hand, as there is ZERO to turn to! I also reserched local and state laws, and specific claims using the 10th as justification, they do not hold any water, again, any laws challenging the 2nd MUST come from congress, and now, even they must apply the Bruen standard!

It's her last ditch effort. She is just throwing her poop at the wall and hoping something sticks. If it gets a injunction it will be done. Ip18 is next on their list and this will set the presidance for that to fail as well.