Messages
19,494
Reactions
74,351
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.
I guess the big question now is, Does LEVO do the deed with I.P. 18, or do they somehow leverage ( With Bloomberg, Giffords Bribe Money) the state to bring it to the table? My money is that there will be some super shady back room deal ( Carpet Munchin, Mud Flappin ) to get it to the legislation who will then pass it as an "Emergency" now that Gov'ness K8 has shown the way, you can bet Kotex will lick that up greedy like the Fishy Taco eater she is and sign it into law before daylight the next day!
 
Messages
859
Reactions
1,587
I guess the big question now is, Does LEVO do the deed with I.P. 18, or do they somehow leverage ( With Bloomberg, Giffords Bribe Money) the state to bring it to the table? My money is that there will be some super shady back room deal ( Carpet Munchin, Mud Flappin ) to get it to the legislation who will then pass it as an "Emergency" now that Gov'ness K8 has shown the way, you can bet Kotex will lick that up greedy like the Fishy Taco eater she is and sign it into law before daylight the next day!
Hard to tell really. If we get a injunction for 114 and kotex turns around and passes ip18. That would open her up for us to demand a recall or a lawsuit for passing a unconstitutional with 114 being postponed. I know they don't care but they do have a little strategy. They didn't get where they are if they were not good at playing the game.
 
Messages
19,494
Reactions
74,351
Hard to tell really. If we get a injunction for 114 and kotex turns around and passes ip18. That would open her up for us to demand a recall or a lawsuit for passing a unconstitutional with 114 being postponed. I know they don't care but they do have a little strategy. They didn't get where they are if they were not good at playing the game.
True! It all comes down to the time issue, with an I.P. they now wait 2 years before they can push it on the voters, OR, they get the state to do it, and it goes into effect NOW, like k8's/Kotex's wettest dream!
 
Messages
28
Reactions
46
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.
Do you think the the 30k in bgc will be able to take possession after Dec 8th and grandfathered in or do you think the gun grabbers have enough legal grounds to subject them to the new 114 nonsense?
 
Messages
626
Reactions
319
Do you think the the 30k in bgc will be able to take possession after Dec 8th and grandfathered in or do you think the gun grabbers have enough legal grounds to subject them to the new 114 nonsense?

There is already a reply. It looks like the state is willing to let those go through but an injunction would mean business as usual till 114 is in place.
 
Messages
841
Reactions
792
That’s what lawyers do. That’s her job. Honestly, because it passed, her obligation 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 aren’t 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. Because that’s what 99% of them would think.
True! It all comes down to the time issue, with an I.P. they now wait 2 years before they can push it on the voters, OR, they get the state to do it, and it goes into effect NOW, like k8's/Kotex's wettest dream!
My guess is they can enact a constitutional permitting system, even using a strict scrutiny analysis, as long as it’s not drafted by morons, is “shall issue” if normal BGC clears, it’s not unduly expensive, name and addresses of permit holders are confidential, and the infrastructure to do education and issue a permit is in place before it goes into effect.

There’s pretty strong evidence that a permitting system with an educational requirement is one of the only regulations, that isn’t a ban of some sort, that reduces gun deaths. Apparently a class and applying for a permit gives folks more time to consider the wisdom of capping themselves of killing the person who just broke up with them. I don’t think anyone who knows anything about crime believes a permit system would stop mass shootings, or criminals shooting each other, even though that’s how 114 was sold.
 
Messages
780
Reactions
2,018
There’s pretty strong evidence that a permitting system with an educational requirement is one of the only regulations, that isn’t a ban of some sort, that reduces gun deaths. Apparently a class and applying for a permit gives folks more time to consider the wisdom of capping themselves of killing the person who just broke up with them. I don’t think anyone who knows anything about crime believes a permit system would stop mass shootings, or criminals shooting each other, even though that’s how 114 was sold.
In the effort to reduce suicide by firearm, one of the notable matters is that those that attempt suicide by firearm are by-in-large mostly effective at killing themselves vs. other common suicide methods employed.

The obvious issue at hand is: To what level is restricting a constitutional protected civil right acceptable for what might be the perceived (societal)common good of reducing suicides?

I don't think anyone ought to be ignorant to the ultimate end-goal of groups like LEVO(and the extremely well-funded organizations that sponsor them)... Which is to restrict the civilian legal ownership of firearms in this country to only bolt-action rifles, and low capacity smooth-bores. One also ought to be reasonably sure that there's some vegans among their ranks that would be fine with nixing the ownership of those too.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
1,658
Reactions
2,905
The AG clearly stating this measure is to stop the sale of firearms in the State of Oregon.

The attorney general's office, in its response, argued large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are not "arms" protected by the Second Amendment and the state's new requirement for a permit to purchase a gun will withstand constitutional scrutiny.

In a 42-page court filing Wednesday, a senior assistant attorney general wrote that any move to put the measure on hold while litigation proceeds would likely result in a rush of people buying "tens of thousands" of more guns and ammunition before the regulations could take hold and endanger public safety.

I thought this bill was to stop the sale of Magazines only and did not infringe on your rights.
And why does he mention ammunition?
 
Messages
859
Reactions
1,587
The AG clearly stating this measure is to stop the sale of firearms in the State of Oregon.

The attorney general's office, in its response, argued large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are not "arms" protected by the Second Amendment and the state's new requirement for a permit to purchase a gun will withstand constitutional scrutiny.

In a 42-page court filing Wednesday, a senior assistant attorney general wrote that any move to put the measure on hold while litigation proceeds would likely result in a rush of people buying "tens of thousands" of more guns and ammunition before the regulations could take hold and endanger public safety.

I thought this bill was to stop the sale of Magazines only and did not infringe on your rights.
And why does he mention ammunition ?
start buying more ammo its all coming this is just the start. federal level is next biden is on the offensive with a ban. if 114 does not get a injunction i would start buying all the ammo you can.
 
Messages
7,161
Reactions
12,004
Especially those 8 bullet rounds. That those haven't been outlawed yet and continue to be sold is just sick.....







:s0140:
I know he mixed up the words (his brain needs to be taken out and wharshed) but IMO it shows the anti-gunner's are already thinking about moving the "10 round max" to 8, then it will be 5. The recent comment about how "you would have to be sick to own a semi automatic weapon" shows that his brain just takes in whatever his anti-gun staff tell him and then he just regurgitates it.
 

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top