How to Prove you Owned "High Capacity" Magazines?

[arakboss]

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"

Well put.

 

[Cavedweller]

I dunno what ORS 166.055 says. It doesn't exist anywhere on the books and maybe a typo(?).

That is addressed in the NRA announcement posted in #72. It does not exist and is an error that would have to be fixed by legislative action. There is no statement as to what the correct reference is supposed to be.

 

[arakboss]

That is addressed in the NRA announcement posted in #72. It does not exist and is an error that would have to be fixed by legislative action. There is no statement as to what the correct reference is supposed to be.

It was typo should have been 161.055

ORS 161.055 – Burden of proof as to defenses

When a “defense,” other than an “affirmative defense” as defined in subsection (2) of this section, is raised at a trial, the…

oregon.public.law

 

[Yarome]

That is addressed in the NRA announcement posted in #72. It does not exist and is an error that would have to be fixed by legislative action. There is no statement as to what the correct reference is supposed to be.

Ahhh. Makes sense. I couldn't find it. Taking the reference in context though, I would imagine it's just OR's legal definition.

On Edit: 161.055. Gotcha!

That's the burden of proof statue. Which does say a bit different in section (2) "When a defense, declared to be an "affirmative defense" by chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, is raised at a trial, the defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence."

It changes the flavor "sightly", but it's basically the same animal. A defense is only necessary againt reasonable proof against you. A sworn affidavit would still be considered evidence in your favor.

 

[Meaty]

Sorry, I'm not going to go above and beyond to prove that I am complying with their unconstitutional bullbubblegum. I will obey the law, but that's about the extent of what I'm willing to do.

 

[arakboss]

It was typo should have been 161.055

ORS 161.055 – Burden of proof as to defenses

When a “defense,” other than an “affirmative defense” as defined in subsection (2) of this section, is raised at a trial, the…

oregon.public.law

That is addressed in the NRA announcement posted in #72. It does not exist and is an error that would have to be fixed by legislative action. There is no statement as to what the correct reference is supposed to be.

I can see where it could be viewed either way. Where is our resident Atty?

 

[uberguy]

There is a survivability clause. If any one part of the BM is deemed unconstitutional, the other parts survive.

It will be determined that most if not all parts will be ruled unconstitutional, eventually.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

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?

That is how I understand the language, however, that does not mean that I agree that the language is actually constitutional. I would argue that it's up to the authorities to prove that you acquired the magazines after the ban went into effect.

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

The way things are you just "IDENTIFY" as you had them before and you should be good but you have to yell " No take backs and Bidey touched my pickle ! " you should be golden

 

[Jay Walk]

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



Edit: it appears ORS 166.055 doesn't exist in OR law.

NRA-ILA | Oregon: Faulty Gun Control Ballot Measure Summary Approved

This week, the Explanatory Statement Committee approved Ballot Measure 114’s (formerly IP 17) summary that will appear in the voter pamphlet.

www.nraila.org

Meaning you have to go and defend yourself against this new law?

 

[arakboss]

Meaning you have to go and defend yourself against this new law?

I read it this way, if you owned the mags prior to the law taking effect that is your affirmative defense. If prosecution can prove to a jury that you illegally acquired mags after the law prohibited them then you will be having problems.

 

[Jay Walk]

I visited Sportsmans on 82nd Saturday when the doors opened.
Not many mags for handguns and nobody looking.

 

[Lethal Defense]

I read it this way, if you owned the mags prior to the law taking effect that is your affirmative defense. If prosecution can prove to a jury that you illegally acquired mags after the law prohibited them then you will be having problems.

As the current bill is written, this is correct. I would add that yes the initial burden of proof and of production of evidence of the crime (here being purchase of 10+ mags post ban) IS on the D.A., beyond a reasonable doubt (high threshold).

IF the DA can achieve this, the burden shifts to you/deft but you only have to prove you were legal under the affirmative defense by a preponderance of evidence (51% or more). A paper receipt, photo as suggested above etc will suffice to meet this burden. IF the DA wants to argue the photo or meta data is faked or altered, the DA will have to prove THAT beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Xaevian]

As the current bill is written, this is correct. I would add that yes the initial burden of proof and of production of evidence of the crime (here being purchase of 10+ mags post ban) IS on the D.A., beyond a reasonable doubt (high threshold).

IF the DA can achieve this, the burden shifts to you/deft but you only have to prove you were legal under the affirmative defense by a preponderance of evidence (51% or more). A paper receipt, photo as suggested above etc will suffice to meet this burden. IF the DA wants to argue the photo or meta data is faked or altered, the DA will have to prove THAT beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, exactly

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I visited Sportsmans on 82nd Saturday when the doors opened.
Not many mags for handguns and nobody looking.

Most folks already have enough...

 

[Sxsnuf]

If I ever had any >10 rd magazines, I'd have gifted them to my unborn grandchildren prior to 7/1/22.

 

[lcb97269]

We're having a discussion elsewhere about how to prove you owned "High Capacity" magazines prior to Measure 114's passage, if it ends up passing. I have some thoughts, but I'd like to hear some other brilliant ideas.

I've already thought or heard about taking them to your lawyer and having an affidavit filled out and signed by witnesses. I wonder about how solid the proof would be if you just uploaded photos of them here or to some other forum, where the upload date and time are recorded, or maybe just to any cloud server?

I don't have no stinking magazines

 

[lcb97269]

We're having a discussion elsewhere about how to prove you owned "High Capacity" magazines prior to Measure 114's passage, if it ends up passing. I have some thoughts, but I'd like to hear some other brilliant ideas.

I've already thought or heard about taking them to your lawyer and having an affidavit filled out and signed by witnesses. I wonder about how solid the proof would be if you just uploaded photos of them here or to some other forum, where the upload date and time are recorded, or maybe just to any cloud server?

Just say bullets come first.

 

[Xmark1]

I buy almost all my firearms NEW.
The government has a record of that.
New Glocks I bought were/are sold with three Hi-cap mag's.
There's your proof for Glocks.

 

[gryghin]

Outlaws don't care about mag restrictions.