Oregon AG Response to OFF lawsuit

[dinky450]

My ammo purchasing never stops.

Either has mine. I never walk out of a store without at least 1 box of ammo

 

[ilikegunspdx]

HTH does the human mind become so distorted and twisted like that?

Agree. It's pages and pages of horse sh!t. One example is they say it meets historical tradition. No one anywhere has yet provided any evidence of similar restrictions present in 1791, the time of drafting the second amendment.

I hope the OFF lawyers don't screw this up. They need to be thorough and stay focused on the legal arguments needed and not drift. I didn't read that much of it but this one argument that Oregon makes, which is completely false, should be enough to prove "it will succeed on its merits" (which is only one of the criteria needed for an injunction). We've seen case after case almost exactly the same where gov claims "it meets historical tradition" and then there is zero evidence of that.

So Imo this case is won, unless either OFF screws or up OR it fails one of the other criteria for an injunction such as "harm", but based on the likely to succeed on its merit, that one criteria is a slam dunk. Don't know about the other criteria as I haven't read it all.

 

[Yarome]

Agree. It's pages and pages of horse sh!t. One example is they say it meets historical tradition. No one anywhere has yet provided any evidence of similar restrictions present in 1791, the time of drafting the second amendment.

I hope the OFF lawyers don't screw this up. They need to be thorough and stay focused on the legal arguments needed and not drift. I didn't read that much of it but this one argument that Oregon makes, which is completely false, should be enough to prove "it will succeed on its merits" (which is only one of the criteria needed for an injunction. We've seen case after case almost exactly the same "it meets historical tradition" and then there is zero evidence of that.

So Imo this case is won, unless either OFF screws or up OR it fails one of the other criteria for an injunction such as "harm", but based on the likely to succeed on its merit, that one criteria is a slam dunk. Don't know about the other criteria as I haven't read it all.

It's well established that any ammendment right that is infringed, in and of itself, constitues and satisfies the "harm" aspect when suit is brought. IOW, there is no burden to prove tangible damages/harm.

The only way the challenge fails really is if some judge decides to throw the finger at the SC or get creative with a line of BS that only makes sense on shrooms.

Which has been known to happen

 

[Jay Walk]

Mag bans and permits do not infringe.

This cannot be delayed, or the citizens of Oregon will continue purchase guns.

Oregon AG

 

[jackrv]

Any permit to utilize a constitutional guaranteed right effectively turns said right into a privilege that can be taken away at will.

I don't care if it is shall issue, it still turns the right into a privilege.

Jack

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Mag bans and permits do not infringe.

This cannot be delayed, or the citizens of Oregon will continue purchase guns.

Oregon AG

Yea that whole "people legally purchasing guns will risk public safety" is explicitly stated in the AG toilet-wipe filing. That is some fundamentally screwed up thinking there. He is explicitly saying that people buying more guns (a second amendment right) risks public safety. This shows that the fundamental thinking of all anti-gunners is reducing the # of guns. That is their real goal, eventually getting rid of all guns.

 

[Yarome]

Yea that whole "people legally purchasing guns will risk public safety" is explicitly stated in the AG toilet-wipe filing. That is some fundamentally screwed up thinking there. He is explicitly saying that people buying more guns (a second amendment right) risks public safety. This shows that the fundamental thinking of all anti-gunners is reducing the # of guns. That is their real goal, eventually getting rid of all guns.

...and she said the fine print out loud... the intention of 114 was to stop all gun sales in OR... under the guise of a purchase permit they never provided a means for and had no intention of it being put in place.

Probably a stop gap stoppage on sales until they can get another measure on the ballot to shut it down permanently before permits would ever actually be issued.

 

[Stomper]

Yea that whole "people legally purchasing guns will risk public safety" is explicitly stated in the AG toilet-wipe filing. That is some fundamentally screwed up thinking there. He is explicitly saying that people buying more guns (a second amendment right) risks public safety. This shows that the fundamental thinking of all anti-gunners is reducing the # of guns. That is their real goal, eventually getting rid of all guns.

They even threw in the hyperbole of "preventing a massacre in Oregon".

Attempting the typical progressive appeal to "emotions".