Oregon Documenting Pre-114 10+ Capacity Magazine Ownership

[MichaelH]

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.

I imagine pros wouldn't have flubbed execution so bad that the entire purpose of the law might be thwarted by misunderstanding that the state couldn't set up the license process thereby creating clear 2A violations on the first day. That's not purposeful, that's dumb.

 

[Ancalagon]

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!

Mass noncompliance is hard to prosecute effectively. But if that scares you, by all means comply. In either case take only the risks you are willing to pay the consequences for.

This nonsense where we all hoot and holler about laws being illegal then the minute they are passed we trip over each other about how to best comply with it so we don't get in trouble is the exact reason this keeps happening. For myself, no more.

 

[CorvallisOr]

I imagine pros wouldn't have flubbed execution so bad that the entire purpose of the law might be thwarted by misunderstanding that the state couldn't set up the license process thereby creating clear 2A violations on the first day. That's not purposeful, that's dumb.

That is surprising - it makes no sense why they didn't give LE 100 or 180 days before it's effective, so they had a chance to prepare.

 

[MichaelH]

I was actually considering trying to order some 7.62 x 39 30 rd mags today, because of the Harney County stay, and I haven't yet built the rifle/pistol they would feed. I'm not confident the ORSC won't overturn the stay based on the DOJ's application for a writ of mandamus, but I didn't go so far as to see if online retailers would ship.

 

[MichaelH]

That is surprising - it makes no sense why they didn't give LE 100 or 180 days before it's effective, so they had a chance to prepare.

Frankly, citizen sponsored ballot initiatives should be prohibited from causing the state to incur unknown costs if it can't be shown that the law would be self-supporting within a two year budget cycle. Who loses out on state funding for the next two years: DHS, schools, the OHP, DFW?

I studied law. If I'm honest I find it hard to predict where appellate courts might come down on various Constitutional challenges. Clearly some laws controlling firearms are constitutional. The permit system is in place in some form in CT and I think MA, and the Supremes haven't overruled those regulatory schemes, and capacity limits are in place in a bunch of states and haven't been declared unconstitutional yet, so it'd seem foolish to me to scream about the constitutionality of 114. I can say why it's a bad idea, talk about the hit to sellers, concerns about a database flagging me as a possible danger, the financial impact on the poor who might need a firearm to harvest food or protect themself from an abusive ex, the value hit to firearms owners who want to sell a firearm without magazines, etc. and hope voters or legislators hear those concerns. But we don't know. If it stands, is upheld by the 9th circuit, and the Supremes don't review it then it IS Constitutional until another 2A decision is issued by the Supremes.

 

[srxfan]

I was actually considering trying to order some 7.62 x 39 30 rd mags today, because of the Harney County stay, and I haven't yet built the rifle/pistol they would feed. I'm not confident the ORSC won't overturn the stay based on the DOJ's application for a writ of mandamus, but I didn't go so far as to see if online retailers would ship.

ORSC already denied the writ of mandamus, around 5pm today (Wed 7 Dec). They dismissed it without prejudice, so the DOJ can try again though. I would doubt the ORSC would bother reversing itself if they've already denied it, so you are probably good to go, if you can find a retailer that will ship.

 

[cantfixstupid]

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.

I'm guessing it's already been mentioned that AR PMAGs have a date code stamped / formed into the plastic that will at least cover you on those. Not sure if other Magpul mags do the stamp though.

 

[ocarolan]

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.

Interesting, I looked for that yesterday too and saw no such exception. I suspect the AG rep is confused with SB941.

Practically it could matter. I put my mags in my NFA trust, so in theory any future trust officer (family member) can use them anyway.

Overall this measure is fairly faulty. Musing:

1) why does the "locked box" requirement 5(c)(E) only apply to vehicles? Won't that make it hard to enforce this against anyone outside their vehicle?

2) What about new Oregon residents who move to the state? Are their magazines grandfathered in? Does it depend if they purchased them after the ban? What if you move away and return?

3) How does the section 5 exception work for families? It seems incompatible with extended households where goods are shared. What if someone gets married/divorced? Technically, Mom can't transfer a magazine to Dad. They can only store it in a shared space.

4) The part about property you control seems vague. What if you go on sabbatical to Europe for a year? Does a U-Stor-it suffice to stash the mags? A gun safe in Uncle Bob's garage?

 

[pdxglocker9mm]

I mean, it's kind of overkill rocking the Beretta, but it's an FU.

My FU is a VRF14 with a 19 round mag of 2 3/4" 12 gauge.

 

[Member 5605]

And this is why we won't win.

The level of bickering about trivial ways of compliance sickens libertarians.

 

[nehalemguy]

Well, if they insist...

 

[Jay Walk]

How does a time stamp on some picture prove the items in said picture are the items currently in your possession?

 

[Buster1969]

How does a time stamp on some picture prove the items in said picture are the items currently in your possession?

It doesn't, but it won't stop the from tripping over themselves trying to comply. When confiscation starts, several here will set their alarm to make sure they're first in line.

 

[tfbit]

That's cause 1911s are better in 9mm. Haha

No, 1911s are better in .38 Super!!!!!

 

[tfbit]

Didn't know they made that.

Even better is a wide body STI or Para 1911 with a 120mm tube full of .38 Super, which was originally designed for the 1911.

 

[MichaelH]

How does a time stamp on some picture prove the items in said picture are the items currently in your possession?

It's not conclusive proof necessarily, but if I had 30 AR mags, 20 9mm glock mags and five mags that fit a CZ 75 last week and have the same number next year, it's probably decent evidence that the magazines in my possession on that future date are part of the documented bunch. As some people have said, its their burden to prove I violated the law.

 

[Oya]

the affirmative defense part.

This gets a little technical, but here goes. When you raise an affirmative defense, the state still has the burden of proof to prove your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Raising the affirmative defense doesn't require a defendant to prove that the defense applies beyond a reasonable doubt, it requires him or her to provide evidence that more likely applies. This is all statutory in ORS. Case law requires a judge to dismiss a case if the defendant supplies evidence that it's more likely than not that the affirmative defense applies.

 

[MichaelH]

This gets a little technical, but here goes. When you raise an affirmative defense, the state still has the burden of proof to prove your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Raising the affirmative defense doesn't require a defendant to prove that the defense applies beyond a reasonable doubt, it requires him or her to provide evidence that more likely applies. This is all statutory in ORS. Case law requires a judge to dismiss a case if the defendant supplies evidence that it's more likely than not that the affirmative defense applies.

That's right. More importantly having credible evidence of an affirmative defense can help avoid arrest and being charged.

 

[Barefootdog]

With regard to dating the time of possession of the mags......Don't they have to prove you guilty?.....as opposed to you having to prove yourself innocent?

Simple possession of the 30 round mag is not the issue.

If they want to make the charge that a mag was bought after the cut off date. Let them make the charge and back it up with evidence.

Seems like we always come at these things backwards.

But maybe I'm still thinking like a free citizen.

 

[MichaelH]

And this is why we won't win.

The level of bickering about trivial ways of compliance sickens libertarians.

Libertarians are analogous to adults that live in cities and have jobs who claim to be anarchists, that Marxism can work if people try harder or that Santa Claus exists.

(I'm just f-ing with you. I have way more respect for small gov't conservatism that libertarians endorse than the "America was better in 1958" conservatism that's currently in vogue.)