Oregon First Measure 114 lawsuit filed!!

[Pete F]

Question of the decade but as of the current time I've seen notices from FPC and SAF that they are printing up lawsuits right now. I'm guessing we won't see much until after the law takes effect. If BGC's cease with thousands in purgatory that will make things really interesting and I'm sure the lawyers are waiting to see as well. The NRA has not acknowledged our situation since weeks before the election. No surprise there. GOA is surprisingly silent at the moment. Time will tell. Sorry for all the acronyms.

View attachment 1315853

GOA is concentrating on the national picture right now. Stick with FPC and OFF.

The only reason that it appears that OFF jumped the gun is the magazine ban is already affecting Oregonians. There are several online vendors that will not sell/ship to Oregon. That creates plaintiffs and allows for the suit to move forward. This is just my take on it and may not hold up.

Normally you need an infringement of rights and a victim before you can sue. Since it hasn't been formally made into law, Dec 9th, it is odd that they wouldn't wait.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[SonicBlue03]

I got called a troll by a Fudd for calling out NRA for being absent in the fight on 114. I didn't bother to point out their 20 second comment on the racial disparity committee was the least sincere effort ever, and the rest of us actually put in effort for the public record.

 

[156256Hunter]

GOA is concentrating on the national picture right now. Stick with FPC and OFF.

The only reason that it appears that OFF jumped the gun is the magazine ban is already affecting Oregonians. There are several online vendors that will not sell/ship to Oregon. That creates plaintiffs and allows for the suit to move forward. This is just my take on it and may not hold up.

Normally you need an infringement of rights and a victim before you can sue. Since it hasn't been formally made into law, Dec 9th, it is odd that they wouldn't wait.

Back in late October I'd seen an online firearms seller (company) state they would not ship any "high cap" firearms to Oregon.

 

[ronin223]

For those who have not seen the news, the first lawsuit against Measure 114 was filed yesterday. Having just 'thumbed' through it, it appears to primarily be against the magazine limitations, but I will read through the 18 pages and get back to you.

Do you know who filed it so i can donate to them

 

[SonicBlue03]

Back in late October I'd seen an online firearms seller (company) state they would not ship any "high cap" firearms to Oregon.

Name and shame is appropriate in these cases.

 

[PiratePast40]

GOA is concentrating on the national picture right now. Stick with FPC and OFF.

The only reason that it appears that OFF jumped the gun is the magazine ban is already affecting Oregonians. There are several online vendors that will not sell/ship to Oregon. That creates plaintiffs and allows for the suit to move forward. This is just my take on it and may not hold up.

Normally you need an infringement of rights and a victim before you can sue. Since it hasn't been formally made into law, Dec 9th, it is odd that they wouldn't wait.

What was filed is a complaint asking for an injunction on the whole measure. The magazine ban is just one reason given to issue an injunction to stop implementation.

As Kevin Starrett, Director of OFF, has said multiple times, it doesn't matter which group you choose to receive your donations. In fact, Kevin stressed that point again at yesterdays rally at the Capitol. Many of these groups are talking to each other and coordinating efforts. Some are going different directions. Some choose not to wait for others to make decisions. Some complaints will be thrown out and some will stick. There is nothing to say that any group cannot file multiple claims for an injunction citing different parts of the measure. The point is that we need to be taking action instead of arguing.

 

[PiratePast40]

Do you know who filed it so i can donate to them

Here's the link to the complaint asking for an injunction. OFF is named as the first plaintiff.

 

[156256Hunter]

What was filed is a complaint asking for an injunction on the whole measure. The magazine ban is just one reason given to issue an injunction to stop implementation.

True Friday's lawsuit does technically ask for that, but the actual claims alleged are focused primarily on the high cap magazine ban. So I think at best a judge would give them a preliminary injunction for the high cap mage ban only -- there may not be enough harm alleged, to enjoin the entire measure.

My guess is they filed first to hit one of the "easier" provisions that may be rendered unconstitutional. And one or more other groups will go after other parts of the measure.

 

[tkdguy]

LET'S SUPPORT OFF AND HOPE THAT OTHER LAW SUITS WILL JOIN IN IN SUPPORT!

 

[fmvolume86]

Who are the heavy hitter coalitions we are hoping to step in?

I noticed I've had multiple calls from what looks to be the NRA. Could be a scam. But they are probably wanting donations. But it sounds like from my limited research and knowledge, they have not done much yet.

I hope this is only the beginning of the lawsuits

But what organizations do we support?

NRA hasn't done anything except ask for money. FUND THE FPC !!!!

 

[MichaelH]

Whether you think permitting isn't so terrible or that it's the start of the slippery slope to facism, the fact that the law will take effect before there is a permitting process denies the right to bear arms to those citizens who don't have firearms yet. Whether the 114 permitting process is constitutional once it's fully running or not is one thing, but, unless there's some miracle where the state and law enforcement become super efficient by 12/8, if one can't get a permit that day and for the indefinite future it's unconstitutional as applied. Frankly I think that's the more important thing to stop, at least if we want our LGSs to stay in business.

My guess is the magazine capacity limit restriction was a less complicated suit to file because a successful complaint is already in the public record to be copied and altered, and there is a 9th circuit order in effect striking CA's ban.

 

[arakboss]

Anyone have a link to the actual lawsuit; not just the Oregonian article? Didn't see it on OFF website yet.
Thanks

FIRST LAWSUIT FILED – Oregon Firearms Federation

 

[joshp3]

Can someone explain the argument that has been established that somehow accepts the idea that a "may issue" permit to exercise a constitutional right, is not only NOT an infringement but legal at all? How did the idea ever get accepted anywhere?

 

[Librarian]

Can someone explain the argument that has been established that somehow accepts the idea that a "may issue" permit to exercise a constitutional right, is not only NOT an infringement but legal at all? How did the idea ever get accepted anywhere?

Pre-exists Heller v DC 2008 ; before then (and in some quarters, still) 2A was thought to apply only to militia service, not individuals.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Whether you think permitting isn't so terrible or that it's the start of the slippery slope to facism, the fact that the law will take effect before there is a permitting process denies the right to bear arms to those citizens who don't have firearms yet. Whether the 114 permitting process is constitutional once it's fully running or not is one thing, but, unless there's some miracle where the state and law enforcement become super efficient by 12/8, if one can't get a permit that day and for the indefinite future it's unconstitutional as applied. Frankly I think that's the more important thing to stop, at least if we want our LGSs to stay in business.

My guess is the magazine capacity limit restriction was a less complicated suit to file because a successful complaint is already in the public record to be copied and altered, and there is a 9th circuit order in effect striking CA's ban.

I absolutely agree with this sentiment across the board.

 

[joshp3]

So after reading this, and searching for this idea of "may-issue" firearm ownership, It seems to me this Bruen case says that "means-end scrutiny" is rejected by the court via the Heller decision. Maybe im miss-understanding? If the bruen case applies to concealed firearms outside the home, that sort of assumes that having said firearm concealed pre-supposes that one owns the damn firearm being concealed. This is an excerpt from that text;

Held: New York's proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. Pp. 8–63. (a) In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, the Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Under Heller, when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Pp. 8–22. (1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a "two-step" framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller's methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

 

[Librarian]

So after reading this, and searching for this idea of "may-issue" firearm ownership, It seems to me this Bruen case says that "means-end scrutiny" is rejected by the court via the Heller decision. Maybe im miss-understanding? If the bruen case applies to concealed firearms outside the home, that sort of assumes that having said firearm concealed pre-supposes that one owns the damn firearm being concealed.

For this thread, that's kind of getting off into the tall corn (not weeds, it is on-point).

I think that is a fair conclusion; State of New York is still trying to re-litigate over its post-Bruen 'replacement law' but so far is getting shutdown, piece by piece.

See SCOTUSBlog on Bruen -- links to non-specialist articles, and to the briefs and amicus submissions where all this is developed more fully. You, too, can become a law-nerd!

But, to concentrate specifically on magazines, see also the SCOTUSBlog page on Duncan v Bonta, CA's case, and read those docs, and compare to OFF v Brown, and to the State's response when that is filed. (I'm waiting for the State reply to lie about the Johns Hopkins research; pity the courts usually don't pull them up short when they do that, but an OFF reply brief or amicus brief (when appropriate) can do that.)

 

[Hooyah DeepSea]

Pre-exists Heller v DC 2008 ; before then (and in some quarters, still) 2A was thought to apply only to militia service, not individuals.

Unfortunately there is no constitutional guarantee for concealed carry, only "keep and bear".

 

[CamoDeafie]

Umm some people are indeed conflating the permit thing in 114 with conceal carry permit thing...


114 is permit to purchase 1+ firearm ; good for 5 years, to be issued by the OSP, after the applicant pays a $65 permit fee and completes a training program provided by either chief LEO local, Sheriff, or OSP; and this included the entry and registration of the permit holder's personal information (residence, # of firearms, what firearms, phone numbers, etc?) Into a public database that can be searched by anyone who wants that info.


In no other State does such a permit exist, not one that has a public registry and public database. In a few States there are firearms purchase permits/licenses.