Messages
841
Reactions
792
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.
Nah. IPhones have pretty bullet-proof documentation of when that image originated. if you change formats that might reset the date though.
 
Messages
841
Reactions
792
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.
Sort of. An affirmative defense might stop the police from arresting, referring to the prosecution for potential charging, the prosecutor from charging and if produced after all that but before trial might get your case dismissed before trial. At trial, the prosecution would have a difficult time proving you acquired the magazine after the law went into effect, unless there was a paper-trail showing a purchase or you couldn't legally own a firearm when the law went into effect and can't show you've inherited the magazines. You could stupidly admit to someone you bought a box of magazines in Idaho. Etc. Honestly I've never encountered law enforcement while shooting, and I'm a respectable citizen white guy so I don't get pulled over, and again doubt this would ever be an issue.
 
Messages
3,480
Reactions
9,559
The BM states itself - that possession of 10+ mags is legal if owned prior to 114 going into effect.
It even states where they are allowed to be used - and not used - with examples given.
Private property, ranges, etc.
Just can't carry in public. (chl, etc.)
That 'affirmative defense' bs is a red herring - it isn't needed - at all.
The language in the measure (the above 'allowances') negates any necessity for me to prove anything.

Getting 'caught' in public carrying heavy - ok.
Getting 'caught' selling or transferring 10+ mags to someone else - sure.
Getting 'caught' acquiring or bringing them into the state - yup.

But that's it.
 
Messages
8,733
Reactions
14,903
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.
You just did it.
The law says you have to prove it, people will say photos can be edited... so what, its up to the state then to prove you edited the photos.

this is how Paul Harrell is documenting his mags.... that guy owns a lot of guns.

 
  • Like
Reactions: EHJ
Messages
615
Reactions
540
Honestly, a notarized blurry photo of a (say) a hundred mags is likely more persuasive in the legal sphere than a precise, timestamped image, or even Paul's videos.

So for us, we just printed a "bill of a sale" to the gun trust listing the overall quantity of magazines. It includes two color photos with a notarial certificate of acknowledgment.

In the near future, I'll have our signatures formally acknowledged and have the notary emboss the photos. If you do the same, note this non-jurat notarization need not happen by Dec 8, only the signature.
 
Messages
3,480
Reactions
9,559
"Possession" of 10+ mags is not a crime.


Using them on private property is legal.

Carrying them loaded and un-secured is illegal.
Using them in public carry is illegal.
Transferring them to another person - or bringing them into the state is illegal.

What am I missing here that makes everyone so fearfully intent on all this, "Affirmative Defense" stuff?
The only way to get in trouble will be the three examples above.
 
Messages
5,377
Reactions
10,679
"Possession" of 10+ mags is not a crime.


Using them on private property is legal.

Carrying them loaded and un-secured is illegal.
Using them in public carry is illegal.
Transferring them to another person - or bringing them into the state is illegal.

What am I missing here that makes everyone so fearfully intent on all this, "Affirmative Defense" stuff?

A550848D-1666-484F-B037-A5E5EEB5D897.jpeg
 
Messages
5,377
Reactions
10,679
Can you provide any other law that you have to prove you innocents and the government doesn't have to prove your guilty? Acting like this law is well written or even legally enforceable is nuts. This law was not written by lawyers or politicians but zealots who put a "wish" list together, tossed it at the wall and is going to see what sticks.

View attachment 1326107
Sadly the fear tactics/unknown works on a magnitude of gun owners in Oregon. So they are getting exactly what they wished for. Minus the tens of thousands of guns that went into circulation in a few short weeks.

Good job LEVO. Bunch of dumba$$es.
 
Messages
99
Reactions
127
Can you provide any other law that you have to prove you innocents and the government doesn't have to prove your guilty? Acting like this law is well written or even legally enforceable is nuts. This law was not written by lawyers or politicians but zealots who put a "wish" list together, tossed it at the wall and is going to see what sticks.

View attachment 1326107
From the case State v. Wolf: Under ORS 161.055(3), a criminal defendant may raise the defense of self-defense in one of two ways: (1) by giving the state written notice of the defense before the start of trial; or (2) by presenting "affirmative evidence by a defense witness in the defendant's case in chief." ORS 161.055(3); State v. Boyce, 120 Or. App. 299, 305-06, 852 P.2d 276 (1993). Once a defendant has properly raised the defense, either by notice or affirmative evidence, the state must disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. ORS 161.055(3)
 
Messages
3,480
Reactions
9,559
the affirmative defense part.
For what?
I know what it is - and I know its in the language of the bill - BUT the only crime I see mentioned is if one of the three examples above are acted on...

Carrying them loaded and un-secured is illegal.
Using them in public carry is illegal.
Transferring them to another person - or bringing them into the state is illegal.

The rest are exceptions to the rule - because it doesn't say, "Possession Is Illegal." - "unless..."

Like I said - that whole "Affirmative Defense" wording inclusion is just there as a red herring and obfuscation...
There can be no affirmative defense in the 3 cited examples.
Hell - even the judge mentioned that "Inheriting" 10+ magazines was legal...


Red herring
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion. A red herring may be used intentionally, as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies, or may be used in argumentation inadvertently.
 
Messages
626
Reactions
319
You could be a michaelH or you can be a man. Affirmative defense is unconstitutional. You are innocent till proven guilty.
 

Upcoming Events

collectors west gun & knife show
Grants Pass, OR
Road Trip: Marysville, WA 98270 to JBLM (tacoma, WA 98433)
Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top