Messages
13,637
Reactions
41,731
If CA can overturn a 10 round mag ban that’s been there a long time then these stupid bans in OR and WA will only last so long imo.

I’ve got plenty of mags for all of the guns I have or have on my bucket list so whatever.

Other then voting there isn’t anything you can do so why a big thread about it?

No manufacturer is going to date stamp mags over 10 rounds.

Did I miss anything?

Practice mag swaps if you are worried about this stuff - most people with decent coordination and practice will find very little difference in the end.

Just my 2¢
 
Messages
18,883
Reactions
28,973
Take another look.

Section 11 seems to state that it is OK to possess them if you owned them before the law went into effect or inherited them from someone who owned them before the law went into effect. However, it does require "affirmative defense," which as I understand it would mean you would have to have evidence of such ownership. Am I correct @ZigZagZeke?
My opinion is you will not have to prove you owned them prior to enactment date of law. I think what they are saying is that section of the law will provide affirmative defense provided you owned the mags prior. The onus should still be on prosecution to prove you didn't.
 
Messages
18,883
Reactions
28,973
If CA can overturn a 10 round mag ban that’s been there a long time then these stupid bans in OR and WA will only last so long imo.

I’ve got plenty of mags for all of the guns I have or have on my bucket list so whatever.

Other then voting there isn’t anything you can do so why a big thread about it?

No manufacturer is going to date stamp mags over 10 rounds.

Did I miss anything?

Practice mag swaps if you are worried about this stuff - most people with decent coordination and practice will find very little difference in the end.

Just my 2¢
We can raise awareness and potentially sway some voters to vote against it. That makes the M114 threads worthwhile.

IMHO the best bet at swaying non gun owning voters is to push the negative effects it will have on locally owned small businesses. That seems to be a topic that is popular among most people.
 
Messages
1,120
Reactions
2,615
If the law passes and you come in contact with law enforcement while in possession of standard magazines, they can confiscate them as a public nuisance then yoy will have to jump through some hoops to get them back which will include proving you owned them before the ban. That is how the buerocracy works.
 
Messages
13,637
Reactions
41,731
If the law passes and you come in contact with law enforcement while in possession of standard magazines, they can confiscate them as a public nuisance then yoy will have to jump through some hoops to get them back which will include proving you owned them before the ban. That is how the buerocracy works.
I’ve been around LE so many times when CC’ing and never once had them notice or ask if I’m carrying that I’m not worried about something like that.

“Hey! I have a gun.” Is the last thing I want to tell LE during a traffic stop or more likely when I am at work and deal with them often.

I’ll take my chances carrying standard capacity magazines in my firearms and deal with the fall out if my life ever is put in a position where I have to pull my CC.
 
Messages
18,883
Reactions
28,973
I wouldn't worry too much about Measure 114. I am sure the lobbyist orgs for FFLs and firearm parts industry, as well as the FFLs themselves, will be actively organizing opposition to this measure soon. I expect the airwaves and billboards to be blanketing the area anytime now, since they will be the most affected financially by M114 if it passes.
 
Messages
18,883
Reactions
28,973
Of course we will have some of the more opportunistic FFLs who introduce a fee to return firearms for the ignorant who have a firearm delivered to the FFL and then show up to pick it up without a permit to purchase. Those less scrupulous FFLs could make more money doing that than they would on completing a transfer.
 
Messages
16,966
Reactions
40,445
If the law passes and you come in contact with law enforcement while in possession of standard magazines, they can confiscate them as a public nuisance then yoy will have to jump through some hoops to get them back which will include proving you owned them before the ban. That is how the buerocracy works.
Come in contact? Where are you seeing this in the law? LEO's are going to be going around saying "let me see your mag"? People really need to relax a little, this is not going to happen. As I have said if someone is driving in from out of state with a box full of mags sitting on the seat and or they start selling them to people? Sooner or later one of them will get in a spot. LEO's are not going to be going around peeking at your mag.
 
Messages
3,072
Reactions
10,258
Facts matter:

(5) As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be an affirmative defense, as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful
possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that:
(a) The large-capacity magazine was owned by the person before the effective date of this 2022 Act and maintained in the
person's control or possession; or
Affirmative defense. You know, a fancy way of saying guilty until proven innocent. They like to throw that in so some people will think it makes everything okay. Sadly some people believe it does.
 
Messages
18,883
Reactions
28,973
Affirmative defense. You know, a fancy way of saying guilty until proven innocent. They like to throw that in so some people will think it makes everything okay. Sadly some people believe it does.
There is this which I just came across.

 
Messages
3,579
Reactions
5,239
If CA can overturn a 10 round mag ban that’s been there a long time then these stupid bans in OR and WA will only last so long imo.

I’ve got plenty of mags for all of the guns I have or have on my bucket list so whatever.

Other then voting there isn’t anything you can do so why a big thread about it?

No manufacturer is going to date stamp mags over 10 rounds.

Did I miss anything?

Practice mag swaps if you are worried about this stuff - most people with decent coordination and practice will find very little difference in the end.

Just my 2¢
<snip>
There is plenty you can do. Find out everything you can about the effects of 114 and let others know. Print handouts or ask others here for copies that you can hand out. Tell others wat it will mean to them. Be clear about the implications of taking a written test to exercise a constitutional right. Join others in finding places to post signs in areas that will get the most exposure.

You can also authorize funding to OFF-PAC so they can pay for radio time, signs, and other methods of getting the message out. The authorization is simple and only takes a few minutes. Here's the explanation of how you get the money back in the form of a tax credit, and here's the online form.

There is no guarantee that we'll be successful in this fight. but it would be a disservice to all Oregonians to roll over without giving it everything we can.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
3,120
Reactions
6,150
My opinion is you will not have to prove you owned them prior to enactment date of law. I think what they are saying is that section of the law will provide affirmative defense provided you owned the mags prior. The onus should still be on prosecution to prove you didn't.
Agreed. Since there has never been a law requiring private citizens to keep purchase records of any firearm related purchases it would be considered an unreasonable requirement to provide such proof. Not that it might not prove to be a benefit to do so, but it isn't a legal requirement.

It's quite common that a sworn affidavit (under penalty) be accepted as "proof" for such things.

As a recent and related example... just like they are doing with forced reset triggers that were sold or disposed of long before they got a bug up their nethers over them.

I know our society had devolved to where a persons word is typically not accepted as any kind of proof if it's not backed up with concrete evidence, but in the eyes of the law, it's still a "thing". Statements have meaning both to incriminate as well as exonerate and even things like the intangible "intent" of a person can have legal ramifications. Ie., making a PMF with the intent for personal use is perfectly legal and requires no big brother oversight... while making a PMF with the intent to sell is a completely different matter.

Yup! The powers that be are often bound to simply accept you at your word. :s0155:

Believe it or not... once upon a time... your word used to be just as binding as a contract. Crazy-town.... Hu!?? ;)
 
Messages
3,120
Reactions
6,150
"An affirmative defense is a defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal liability or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The party raising the affirmative defense has the burden of proof on establishing that it applies."

That's all fine and dandy when you are talking the active commission of a crime against persons or property, but I doubt my mags will ever be in the position to have to defend their actions and simple possession is a victimless crime without the same legal requirements of proofs or evidence that would be met with affirmative defense.

In legal realms, some examples of "affirmative defense" would be self-defense, entrapment, insanity, necessity, respondeat superior, etc.

In terms of mag possession, both conditions can not be true. IE., It's proven that I purchased mags post-ban, but my mags where purchased pre-ban. Unlike manslaughter... "I killed the guy, but it was self-defense". KWIM?

The primary burden of proof of a crime though, in any type of proceedings, still rests on the State in the first place. If it can not be proven, then either way you slice it, "affirmitie defense" would not be necessary.
 
Messages
4,127
Reactions
10,091
So then what does Subsection 5(a) of Section 11 mean? I didn't go to law school so it's a bit confusing.

(5) As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be an affirmative defense, as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that:
(a) The large-capacity magazine was owned by the person before the effective date of this 2022 Act and maintained in the person's control or possession;


If Section 11 covers exceptions to the law, and prior ownership is an exception, how would possession under such circumstances be unlawful? Sounds a bit circular.
 
Messages
3,120
Reactions
6,150
So then what does Subsection 5(a) of Section 11 mean? I didn't go to law school so it's a bit confusing.

(5) As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be an affirmative defense, as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that:
(a) The large-capacity magazine was owned by the person before the effective date of this 2022 Act and maintained in the person's control or possession;


If Section 11 covers exceptions to the law, and prior ownership is an exception, how would possession under such circumstances be unlawful? Sounds a bit circular.
Exactly as it's stated. "Affirmative defense"... or in other words, an exception to the possession ban... if (5)(a) "...was owned by the person before the effective date.." Other provisions are outlined, but that's the one that would apply to near all of us.

I dunno what ORS 166.055 says. It doesn't exist anywhere on the books and maybe a typo(?). I would imagine though it's just defining OR law as it pertains to "affirmative defense"
 

Upcoming Events

Rickreall Winter Gun Show December 10th & 11th
Rickreall, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top