Oregon Court Halts Mag Ban - from OFF

[Yarome]

To me it's the single most important topic (relating to guns I mean) of our time by far, that's why people are so interested. So I think we need to be a little flexible as people are rightly pissed/concerned about it.

This! Wholeheartedly.

Not just for us, but the single most important anti-gun measure across the nation. Everyone is watching and what's happening in OR is going to ripple far, wide and likely be a key pivoting event in the fight to restore 2A rights nationwide.

I get it!! I agree too though... there is entirely too many "what if" threads. Sometimes free speech sucks, but such as it is.....

I do still think we are best served by breaking down the legal actions and issues down into manageable sized chunks/threads though. There is entirely too much going on to try and capture all relevant info across the board in a single thread. It makes it impossible to track/follow individual aspects when it's all piled in on top of each other.

That said. I ain't got no "fix it" solution to offer... other than bringing in managment to officially organize the threads and actively police them to keep them on track. Might be a big ask though since... as far as I've been able to tell... there doesn't seem to be much organization from the top down. It's tough when they have real lives to lead too, I'm sure. I'm not laying blame... just... "Ideally", it would be helpful to have some structured organization.

 

[Jay Walk]

You could hit this button for the 96 you don't like.


View attachment 1330984

Another new 114 thread just popped up, it's like Whack-a-Mole

 

[Yarome]

Another new 114 thread just popped up, it's like Whack-a-Mole

Is that anything like Smack-an-Antifa? (Keeping the flavor local)

 

[Librarian]

Just sayin... but isn't that the same thing as starting a whole 'nother 114 thread (that everyone can't stop complaining about) to have a clean start on a topic of interest to the person starting it??

Which is pretty much what everyone is doing and why we have so many friggin 114 threads.... right?

I'm guilty for replying to the TRO thread, instead of the 114 litigation thread.. but that was more to keep a seperation between the District court "litigation" and the State court "litigation". They don't exactly meet up and one will undoubtedly confuse the other.

To be successful, we probably need to get the admins and joe involved to post pinned thread. One for general litigtion announcements and one each for the various different lawsuits in subtopics. Then... establish strict posting rules and enforce them.

Otherwise this will be a vicious cycle. Start a thread until it get's too convoluted so someone decides it's time to start a fresh one... etc etc etc.. as we are doing now.

I understand the frustration, but I dunno if just starting up a clean slate is solving anything. Just ONE more 114 thread after another. Each one adding more confusion of what is posted where.

I wonder where such an idea might be encouraged ... https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/collect-114-info-into-fewer-piles.432370/unread

 

[Yarome]

I wonder where such an idea might be encouraged ... https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/collect-114-info-into-fewer-piles.432370/unread

Evidently it didn't take. First time I've seen that one. It was certainly a much better idea THEN... before all the hubbub.

I hope someone that can do something about takes note.

 

[Librarian]

Evidently it didn't take. First time I've seen that one. It was certainly a much better idea THEN... before all the hubbub.

I hope someone that can do something about takes note.

It is still changeable, if (1) that's the way the Boss wants it and (2) there are resources to do it.

I'm very experienced at trying to herd cats.

A couple of things contribute to the numbers of threads and the diversity of discussion in threads:
1 - posting from a phone; there is little screen space to see what might already be posted, and even if one searches for some prior post/thread, there is little space to see the return
2 - civic-minded / 'helpful cub'; kind of 'if I have not heard of this, maybe no one has, and this is important so I'll post.'
3 - the idea that such things could be organized seems unusual.

As to that last, well ... I really am trained as a librarian, and part of my grad program was theoretical information retrieval. One of the perennial problems is indexing and classification - how does one assign catalog descriptors to a work so that folks can find it? Services like Google have attempted to beat a controlled vocabulary approach (like Library of Congress) with 'natural language', index every word and then add some filtering.

Internet forums are almost all 'natural language free-for-all' in form; organizing by detailed topic is, in some sense, trying to impose the controlled vocabulary on part of it, and lots of people just don't think that way.

A reasonable comparison to the overall organization of discussion forums is as a supermarket with different aisles; mods are often lucky just to get the fresh vegetables out of the pet food aisle. In my experience so far, only Marketplace rules have any traction at all in 'controlled vocabulary' usage, and rather grudgingly a lot of the time.

Diversity! That's our strength, right?

Hubbub over court cases comes in waves. While nothing is actually happening, we usually get complaints over how long this is all taking and lots of speculation on arguments which should be presented to the court(s). Then, some opinion is released and we get a burst of posts about that. So, a new tranche of kitties joins the population, and some of us wish for the kitty-prods.

 

[brw2]

Is that anything like Smack-an-Antifa? (Keeping the flavor local)

What's the difference between ANTIFA members and the American Flag?

It's considered poor form to urinate on the American Flag.

 

[brw2]

In all of these posts, I haven't seen any mention of the SCOTUS rulings in June and how it applies to M114. (then again, I haven't bothered to read them all). It nullified ALL of M114 before it was even voted on. The SCOTUS ruling wasn't just about Concealed Carry restrictions being unconstitutional. It was a VERY broad based ruling that resulted in SCOTUS remanding a large number of 2A cases back to the states and ORDERED their courts to revisit their anti-2A rulings in light of the new SCOTUS' rulings. Among them were Maryland's >10 round ban AND their ban on "Assault Weapons", effectively telling Maryland to go pound sand. The SCOTUS ruling also deals with onerous and unworkable rules and permitting processes that unduly burden citizens trying to exercise their 2A rights. So, M114 is pretty much DRT.

 

[Librarian]

In all of these posts, I haven't seen any mention of the SCOTUS rulings in June and how it applies to M114. (then again, I haven't bothered to read them all). It nullified ALL of M114 before it was even voted on. The SCOTUS ruling wasn't just about Concealed Carry restrictions being unconstitutional. It was a VERY broad based ruling that resulted in SCOTUS remanding a large number of 2A cases back to the states and ORDERED their courts to revisit their anti-2A rulings in light of the new SCOTUS' rulings. Among them were Maryland's >10 round ban AND their ban on "Assault Weapons", effectively telling Maryland to go pound sand. The SCOTUS ruling also deals with onerous and unworkable rules and permitting processes that unduly burden citizens trying to exercise their 2A rights. So, M114 is pretty much DRT.

We would like to think so - but rulings from SCOTUS are not automatic; every picayune little difference will have to be argued out in court.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Federal judge immergut is on an anti-gun crusade just like her colleagues in CA 9th circuit. She chose to blatantly ignore the SCOTUS ruling and the directive to stop using a 2 step balancing process from SCOTUS. Instead she went right back to the arguments CA 9th has been using in the past, which is of course very clearly unconstitutional (as stated in Heller, Macdonald, and Bruen SCOTUS rulings). I think immergut is the test case for the CA 9th. They (immergut -and ca 9th I assume) are basically saying to SCOTUS, "we are going to ignore you, what are you going to do about it?"

It's no different than a little kid when they are told to do something they don't want to do. They test their boundaries.

Immergut and her Ilk think, "why do you need these guns?", vs those that have used guns, like Benitez, "get it". She is in the former camp and openly defying SCOTUS, something she said in her confirmation hearings that she would not do. She said "I will follow SCOTUS precedent... (paraphrasing)". She has now changed her mind. It makes one wonder why. Perhaps she has been promised something from the 9th like a future place on the 9th? (100% wAG on that one, but it is logical).

 

[2506]

I think it is the people that amend the Constitution, not the legislature. At least one of the methods is to get a constitutional initiative on the ballot, which needs signatures of only 8% of the total votes cast for governor at the last election. If it gets on the ballot, majority wins. Scary possibilities.

Any amendments to the constitution may be proposed in either branch of the legislature, must be passed by a majority in both houses and then referred to the Secretary of State, who will then refer such amendment to the people for approval or rejection at the next general election or special election.

 

[PiratePast40]

Any amendments to the constitution may be proposed in either branch of the legislature, must be passed by a majority in both houses and then referred to the Secretary of State, who will then refer such amendment to the people for approval or rejection at the next general election or special election.

Unfortunately, all of the protections of a representative republic go out the window if the change is in a ballot measure. Pure democracy rules in that case and all it takes is >50% of the votes.

 

[brw2]

Unfortunately, all of the protections of a representative republic go out the window if the change is in a ballot measure. Pure democracy rules in that case and all it takes is >50% of the votes.

Just because people vote on a ballot measure doesn't mean it is immune from constitutional scrutiny. The whole reason of having a Constitutional Republic such as ours is to reign in "The Tyranny of the Masses", which is what what destroyed the Greek's early experiments with "Democracy".

 

[PiratePast40]

Just because people vote on a ballot measure doesn't mean it is immune from constitutional scrutiny. The whole reason of having a Constitutional Republic such as ours is to reign in "The Tyranny of the Masses", which is what what destroyed the Greek's early experiments with "Democracy".

We just had two ballot measures pass that changed the constitution. Are you suggesting that the legislature needs to do something for them to go into effect?

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

Would the wording in the above, if allowed to stand, make it possible for me to be arrested for robbing the 7-11 just down the road from me if I was found to have TWO 24OZ cans of of Steel Reserve in my fridge? If I had not taken a picture with time stamp, or had a receipt?

What kind of country, state, municipality, has "Discretion" to accuses a citizen of a crime and require the citizen to prove his innocence!!!! How is it possible the elected PUBLIC SERVANTS can let this become law?!?!?!??! Who the "F" are these people!?!?!


I found the ignore featureto be too much trouble. I use the little wheel on the mouse, or jump from page three to page seven, (or whatever page suits me). Or, use the back button. On ifish they locked all but ONE BM114 thread. With a stern warning that anyone starting another 114 thread would have it removed! And, of course, get the stern warning from a mod in your conversations!
Count your blessings here at NWFA and don't whine!

Steel Reserve you sir are fancy and probably use Dapper Dan hair products .

 

[brw2]

We just had two ballot measures pass that changed the constitution. Are you suggesting that the legislature needs to do something for them to go into effect?

No legislation or State Constitutional amendments are valid if they violate the US Constitution.

 

[E4mafia]

State of Oregon: Crafting the Oregon Constitution - Forging the Oregon Constitutional Amendment Process

The official website of the Oregon Secretary of State

sos.oregon.gov

The current requirements were established by a vote of the people in 1968. To place an initiative or referendum on the ballot, supporters must obtain a specified number of signatures from registered voters. The number required is determined by a fixed percentage of the votes cast for all candidates for governor at the general election preceding the filing of the petition. In the 2014 general election, 1,381,772 votes were cast for governor.

• Referendum petitions require 4%, or 58,789 signatures.
• Initiative petitions for statutory enactments require 6%, or 88,184 signatures.
• Initiative petitions for constitutional amendments require 8%, or 117,578 signatures. Footnote 7​

Oregon Methods for Amending the State Constitution, Measure 5 (June 1906)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

​The Oregon Methods for Amending the State Constitution Amendment, also known as Measure 5, was on the June 4, 1906 ballot in Oregon as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure provided rules for amending the Oregon Constitution. These rules included:[1]​

• Any amendments to the constitution may be proposed in either branch of the legislature, must be passed by a majority in both houses and then referred to the Secretary of State, who will then refer such amendment to the people for approval or rejection at the next general election or special election.
• Votes shall be counted by the Secretary of State in the presence of the Governor. It's the governor's responsibility to declare the measure as an amendment to the constitution upon approval by voters.
• When two or more amendments are being voted upon in a given election, the amendments shall be submitted separately.
• No constitutional convention shall be called upon unless first approved by the people via a referendum vote at a regular general election.

Measure 5 created Section 1 of Article XVII of the Oregon Constitution.[2]​

 

[PiratePast40]

No legislation or State Constitutional amendments are valid if they violate the US Constitution.

And yet, here we are.

 

[Cavedweller]

Just because people vote on a ballot measure doesn't mean it is immune from constitutional scrutiny. The whole reason of having a Constitutional Republic such as ours is to reign in "The Tyranny of the Masses", which is what what destroyed the Greek's early experiments with "Democracy".

How does a ballot measure that amends the constitution come under constitutional scrutiny? That is a non sequitur.

No legislation or State Constitutional amendments are valid if they violate the US Constitution.

Yes, but the US Constitution limits the powers of the federal government (theoretically) and reserves powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the states or the people (10th Amendment). So, if a change is made to the state constitution by initiative with respect to a power not granted to the federal government by the US Constitution, e.g. health care, there is no federal restraint on such a change. Hence, the will of the majority applies, does it not?

 

[Cavedweller]

A couple of things contribute to the numbers of threads and the diversity of discussion in threads:

2 - civic-minded / 'helpful cub'; kind of 'if I have not heard of this, maybe no one has, and this is important so I'll post.'

You could be right.

In all of these posts, I haven't seen any mention of the SCOTUS rulings in June and how it applies to M114. (then again, I haven't bothered to read them all).