Oregon Documenting Pre-114 10+ Capacity Magazine Ownership

[MichaelH]

How are you documenting magazine ownership prior to enactment of 114? I'm newer to shooting so I can probably access lots of my receipts from online vendors, but not all, and I can't--easily--document purchases from folks on NWFA. I took time-stamped digital photos of all my magazines, labeled by brand, caliber, and capacity (and where witness holes are showing in photos) and upoloaded the files to various storage places so there is no question of what I own before 12/8/22 if enforcement ever asks. I don't ever expect to be asked, but just in case.

Side thought: If you regularly give and ask for feedback on here, isn't this forum a defacto record of what you purchased? Couldn't one cross-reference feedback with classifieds that a seller posted? I'm not worried about it, but I assume some folks might be. I'm not concerned, but subpoenas and the threat of fines or jail for contempt can be pretty compelling.

Read More

 

[solv3nt]

 

[Member 53328]

I'm pretty sure there are a few threads on this for those who want to comply. Photos, email, receipts, engraving……. Blah Blah Blah.

I for one will be doing absolutely nothing.

 

[mikec1703]

Go to Portland police with your magazines and request a permission slip. Or, to be really safe, turn them in.

 

[Member 53328]

Magazines: Proof of date purchased.

You will need proof that you owned your high capacity magazines prior to this new law 114 taking effect, I suggest taking photos of your magazines along with a dated news paper in the photo.

www.northwestfirearms.com

 

[USMC1911]

I am not. They can try to prove I didn't own them prior to 114.

 

[TTSX]

"I'm not worried but here's a thread where I tell you I'm worried"

you're gonna be fine, it's not like the IRS auditing your illegitimate side hustle.

 

[Member 53328]

I am not. They can try to prove I didn't own them prior to 114.

Exactly. I could care less how this little joke of a measure was written.

I don't have to prove my innocence. You gotta prove my guilt.

 

[lichtenauer]

Like this

Thing is, the narrow majority of Oregon voters can enact whatever absurd, unconstitutional laws they want; Governor Brown can sign it into state law. None of that will alter the simple foundation of American jurisprudence:

Innocent until proven guilty.

I'm not a lawyer so don't listen to me, but…ultimately, I believe the state of Oregon would have to affirmatively prove you acquired a given 'high capacity' magazine after the ban, not the other way around.

 

[Buster1969]

 

[Pepe-lepew]

There is no fool proof way to prove you owned any before the measure takes effect. Any prosecutor can "Rittenhouse" you and make up some convoluted story how you lied or cheated to make proof.

 

[Member 53328]

There is no fool proof way to prove you owned any before the measure takes effect. Any prosecutor can "Rittenhouse" you and make up some convoluted story how you lied or cheated to make proof.

So why waist your time….. haha. I still think the "proof" will be used against you if they get the chance.

 

[wavebywave]

Exactly. I could care less how this little joke of a measure was written.

I don't have to prove my innocence. You gotta prove my guilt.

This was my thought as well; however, I read the measure's text related to this topic, and unfortunately, the defined standard is "Affirmative Defense". To summarize, you acknowledge guilt but show proof of your ownership/acquisition of standard capacity mags prior to 114's effective date to pursue a reduction and/or waiver of all corresponding charges. Legal folks, please correct my interpretation/understanding as needed.

 

[Pepe-lepew]

So why waist your time….. haha. I still think the "proof" will be used against you if they get the chance.

There might be some benefit to creating some proof for people that are currently minors. Otherwise they are screwed until someone dies.

I agree proof is probably as risky as no proof. They know there is no chance anyone will go Kill dozer over this so they just keep pushing.

 

[Pepe-lepew]

This was my thought as well; however, I read the measure's text related to this topic, and unfortunately, the defined standard is "Affirmative Defense". To summarize, you acknowledge guilt but show proof of your ownership/acquisition of standard capacity mags prior to 114's effective date to pursue a reduction and/or waiver of all corresponding charges. Legal folks, please correct my interpretation/understanding as needed.

Think of it as a self defense killing of a bad guy. If you are charged with murder, you plead innocent and use affirmative defense to prove your innocence even though you committed the act.

 

[fmvolume86]

How are you documenting magazine ownership prior to enactment of 114? I'm newer to shooting so I can probably access lots of my receipts from online vendors, but not all, and I can't--easily--document purchases from folks on NWFA. I took time-stamped digital photos of all my magazines, labeled by brand, caliber, and capacity (and where witness holes are showing in photos) and upoloaded the files to various storage places so there is no question of what I own before 12/8/22 if enforcement ever asks. I don't ever expect to be asked, but just in case.

Side thought: If you regularly give and ask for feedback on here, isn't this forum a defacto record of what you purchased? Couldn't one cross-reference feedback with classifieds that a seller posted? I'm not worried about it, but I assume some folks might be. I'm not concerned, but subpoenas and the threat of fines or jail for contempt can be pretty compelling.

I"m not , because that would be complying with an illegal law.... same as if i was being told I need a permit to speak freely or that the F word was banned..... why would you comply ???

 

[wavebywave]

Think of it as a self defense killing of a bad guy. If you are charged with murder, you plead innocent and use affirmative defense to prove your innocence even though you committed the act.

Do you have an example that isn't as severe? My point is that the burden of proof is on us and not on the state - besides the state witnessing us being in possession of standard capacity mags.

 

[Member 53328]

This was my thought as well; however, I read the measure's text related to this topic, and unfortunately, the defined standard is "Affirmative Defense". To summarize, you acknowledge guilt but show proof of your ownership/acquisition of standard capacity mags prior to 114's effective date to pursue a reduction and/or waiver of all corresponding charges. Legal folks, please correct my interpretation/understanding as needed.

Which I why I said in my first post that I could care less about how the measure was written.

 

[Aero Denezol]

I for one will be doing absolutely nothing.

I am not. They can try to prove I didn't own them prior to 114.

^^^That's right. We don't need to prove our innocence. If it was in my possession on 12/7 they can f* off and try to prove it wasn't. Then I will bring my own lawsuit.

 

[solv3nt]

Which I why I said in my first post that I could care less about how the measure was written.

Up until 114 passed, I was planing on carrying my new Wilson 1911. After it passed, I ordered some leather for the Beretta so I can have an 18+1 FU.