Oregon Dec 13 M114 hearing burden of proof is on OR state, not plaintiffs

[ilikegunspdx]

Interesting twist here (to me anyway) that the state has to prove their case for judge to lift the m114 injunction. We are so used to it being the other way around where GOA/FPC etc has to prove their case. Seems to me this is very encouraging (for the short term anyway).

Sorry to start another m114 thread but it may get lost if buried in another thread and it is actually a positive, not a negative, which is rare when talking about m114 BS).

Kudos to the WA gun law guy for pointing this out.

I may be wrong but I'm thinking right now that in the short term GOA is being very effective to get this enjoined (stopped) at the state level. Long term the NSSA/OSSA/NRA team that has the Bruen lawyers has the best chance to kill it when they eventually get it to SCOTUS (assumed).

Read More

 

[Yarome]

Thats exactly how the district court petition failed. The judge applied Bruen backwards and tried to put it on our side to prove that the freedom was allowed according to text and history. That's not the way it works. The burden has always been on the state.

Of course, she also failed to recognize multiple SC cases when it's been upheld multiple times that mags are "arms" and protected by the 2A. And again, the burden on the state to show they were restricted.... instead of making us prove that more than 10 rounds are "reasonably required" for SD... as if the sole purpose of keeping and bearing arms is solely for SD.

Ask Brandon! He knows!! They are only for hunting!