Oregon Documenting Pre-114 10+ Capacity Magazine Ownership

[Koda]

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...

Oregon - Judge Denys motion on 114

https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/06/oregon-gun-safety-law-moves-forward-measure-114-magazine-ban-firearm-permit/ She gave the state a 30 day extension instead of the 60 they requested. I suspect all of these cases will need to go in on appeal up the ninth and beyond as she clearly...

www.northwestfirearms.com

Thats an interesting point, Then why is it in the law?

 

[EHJ]

Thats an interesting point, Then why is it in the law?

This crap was written by very intelligent, albeit evil people.
We already know they are aware of its unconstitutionality - but that didn't stop them either.
They knew the "permit to purchase' bs would cease sales without infrastructure... They knew there wasn't infrastructure funding or agreement either...
This thing is as much a psyop as anything else.

 

[MichaelH]

Thats an interesting point, Then why is it in the law?

I suppose if it somehow came up that one might have brought them into the state. They have to know that current firearms owners have lots of magazines already and they want to avoid a taking argument for making those magazine owners criminals.

 

[EHJ]

Well, there's also date and time stamps created on the files saved to various sources.

To bad we're all anonymous here - we could post up a thread to save uploaded pics here...

 

[Koda]

I suppose if it somehow came up that one might have brought them into the state. They have to know that current firearms owners have lots of magazines already and they want to avoid a taking argument for making those magazine owners criminals.

this makes sense, then now were back to the unconstitutional affirmative defense part.

 

[Koda]

To bad we're all anonymous here - we could post up a thread to save uploaded pics here...

every avatar here has an email attached to a person. Paid members have a media folder....
Not that if anyone wound up in court theyd want to disclose all their discussions on a gun forum.

I would think a saved email to yourself would suffice.

 

[EHJ]

I suppose if it somehow came up that one might have brought them into the state. They have to know that current firearms owners have lots of magazines already and they want to avoid a taking argument for making those magazine owners criminals.

So then - You would also need an affirmative defense - to - your previous, affirmative defense - in case you ever lose or throw away a bad magazine...
ie: pics and statement, "I own 50 30 round AR mags..." Now, lose or destroy one and get caught with less than your initial statement and they would suspect you of an illegal transfer to someone else...


R E D H E R R I N G

 

[pdxgti8v]

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

Hows that gonna be proof? a month from now I can go find a 60 day old newspaper, put my mags in front of it, and take a picture....this isnt proof at all...

 

[Member 53328]

Hows that gonna be proof? a month from now I can go find a 60 day old newspaper, put my mags in front of it, and take a picture....this isnt proof at all...

Obviously….. I posted that because he basically asked the same question and I was linking the thread.

There is no bomb proof way of "documenting" your mags. It's stupid to do anyway.

 

[pdxgti8v]

Buddy of mine said that Colorado gun owners and FFLs are getting around the ban on the sale of full cap mags by bringing the magazine in as "parts", and then the dealer sells you the follower and spring, then the mag body, as "repair parts"....so hi cap mags arent being "sold", but the repair parts are sold........and even the cops know they are doing it, but it follows the letter of the law, so the cops dont do anything about it....again, just a story i "heard"...dont know the accuracy of it, but the guy isnt really a bs story teller........

 

[MichaelH]

I have trouble ascribing evil motives to ministers and moms who have no interest in or knowledge about firearms for the laudable goal of decreasing gun violence. They simply don't believe guns are necessary except for hunting (and some probably don't want that) however misguided that might seem. I have trouble imagining these folks sitting around in dark rooms plotting the takeover of the country once we're all disarmed.

Maybe LEVO's bad drafting was strategic. Bad drafting potentially jeopardizes the law surviving court challenges and decent legal counsel would have pointed that out. My take is that the bad drafting is based on ignorance. Citizen drafted laws normally suck, so this isn't that surprising. Frankly the bad drafting might be the basis to stop it.

 

[ar man]

There was a guy getting around import on Bakelite ak mags by having them sent over by a guy he sent the body's separately from the followers bc then it's parts at that point not complete mags.

 

[Ancalagon]

If I were going to do it the only way I can think of that might stand a chance in court would be to take pictures, print them out and mail them to myself. Even then, how do you prove the magazine in your hand is the one in the photo? Anything you put on it like a serial number can be faked. There is no bulletproof way to prove it.

I do not follow illegal orders.

FYI for those of you taking digital photos as proof: Never, and I cannot stress this enough, NEVER hand your unlocked phone to law enforcement for any reason. I believe the Armed Attorney's YouTube channel covers this in more depth.

Also, the data on a digital photo that includes date and time is so easy to strip and spoof it is not even funny.

 

[EHJ]

Here's another twist to think about...

Family member transfers.
You can do firearms transfers with no bgc or 4473 - legit.
But can you transfer a firearm with 10+ magazine?

Bonus Question: Why can't people buy firearms without a magazine if they so desire...?

 

[MichaelH]

I'm pretty sure magazines can be transferred to any family member you can transfer a firearm to without a background check, but that's based on what the AG's special counsel said on the radio today, I don't specifically remember it from my last read.

 

[EHJ]

I have trouble ascribing evil motives to ministers and moms who have no interest in or knowledge about firearms for the laudable goal of decreasing gun violence. They simply don't believe guns are necessary except for hunting (and some probably don't want that) however misguided that might seem. I have trouble imagining these folks sitting around in dark rooms plotting the takeover of the country once we're all disarmed.

Maybe LEVO's bad drafting was strategic. Bad drafting potentially jeopardizes the law surviving court challenges and decent legal counsel would have pointed that out. My take is that the bad drafting is based on ignorance. Citizen drafted laws normally suck, so this isn't that surprising. Frankly the bad drafting might be the basis to stop it.

Trust me - Ministers and Moms did not write this. They were window dressing and props.
Have you seen the money and people funding this???
The drafting was as intended... They side stepped in all the right places to appear - on the surface anyway - not to 'infringe' blatantly. They wordsmithed the thing to appeal to the simple uninformed voter for effect. This wasn't just written for Oregon - this is showpiece stuff. "The Strictest Gun Bill Ever" is how MSM is playing it. (It is.) It's a template - even if it's quashed here.

They did as intended - they got it voted on and passed. People 'think' it's law - and that all the TRO's and injunctions are a push-back to what 'people' voted for. We are seen as (and are) on the defense. They put us exactly where they wanted us.

It's all optics and PR. Facts be damned.

And trust me - Evil exists.

 

[EHJ]

I'm pretty sure magazines can be transferred to any family member you can transfer a firearm to without a background check, but that's based on what the AG's special counsel said on the radio today, I don't specifically remember it from my last read.

She was mentioning "inheriting" magazines...

But then again... they are admitting possession is legal. No AD necessary.

 

[Koda]

Here is one sheriff thats stating he will enforce the magazine restriction...
"Lincoln County Sheriff Curtis Landers says his office plans on enforcing the law."

Lincoln Co. Sheriff will enforce new Oregon gun control measure 'regardless of my opinion'

As voters narrowly passBallot Measure 114, which looks to implement several changes to the state's firearm laws, Lincoln County Sheriff Curtis Landers says his

katu.com

 

[EHJ]

Here is one sheriff thats stating he will enforce the magazine restriction...
"Lincoln County Sheriff Curtis Landers says his office plans on enforcing the law."

Lincoln Co. Sheriff will enforce new Oregon gun control measure 'regardless of my opinion'

As voters narrowly passBallot Measure 114, which looks to implement several changes to the state's firearm laws, Lincoln County Sheriff Curtis Landers says his

katu.com

Political Aspirations.

 

[MichaelH]

Saying one won't comply with illegal orders or unconstitutional laws won't keep you out of jail if a law was properly enacted, hasn't been stayed by a court, or hasn't been overturned. Each of our subjective beliefs of what the constitution says and means and how a particular law we don't like violates it is irrelevant until a federal judge says the law is unconstitutional. The language of the Constitution rarely means exactly what it says in modern English usage and almost all of the rights, which are limits on government power over people, have some exceptions. For example, we have strong freedom of speech protections, but plenty of speech is fairly regulated (e.g. fraud, defamation, solicitation of crime, etc.).

You can test it if you want, and if you're right maybe your conviction will be overturned on appeal!