Oregon Interesting new case law from the 114 devision

[Vinnie]

This excerpt is particularly interesting to me.
Can't wait for a lawyer to read it and comment as to the practical meaning of this new bit of Oregon case law.
See in the context the sentence, making reference to the Oregon definition of a firearm, that says in the Judge's words, "Without a magazine, the remaining components of a gun are not a firearm".

Read More

 

[JRuby]

On a single shot rifle is the chamber a magazine according to the law? How is a single shot viewed in the above terms?

 

[CamoDeafie]

On a single shot rifle is the chamber a magazine according to the law? How is a single shot viewed in the above terms?

It specifies that the ammunition in Boyce is separate from "a chamber, cylinder, clip or magazine. Not that a magazine is separate from a firearm."

 

[The Heretic]

Mystifying.

It seems that what they are referring to as a "magazine" is actually a cartridge.

A magazine's actual function is to contain one or more cartridges, and to facilitate feeding of the cartridge into the chamber of the firearm. A "bolt" or slide, also (along with the magazine) facilitates the feeding of the cartridge into the chamber.

I don't know what Oregon law defines as a magazine, but the text in the excerpt would be confusing to any knowledgeable gun person.

 

[rhollister71]

Mystifying.

It seems that what they are referring to as a "magazine" is actually a cartridge.

A magazine's actual function is to contain one or more cartridges, and to facilitate feeding of the cartridge into the chamber of the firearm. A "bolt" or slide, also (along with the magazine) facilitates the feeding of the cartridge into the chamber.

I don't know what Oregon law defines as a magazine, but the text in the excerpt would be confusing to any knowledgeable gun person.

i think you have to read top paragraph slower, it states the projectile and powder are contained in a magazine in the form of ammunition.

then further defines previous case law as separating ammo from the magazine but NOT the magazine from the firearm. hence firearm needs the magazine to operate

 

[ilikegunspdx]

This excerpt is particularly interesting to me.
Can't wait for a lawyer to read it and comment as to the practical meaning of this new bit of Oregon case law.
See in the context the sentence, making reference to the Oregon definition of a firearm, that says in the Judge's words, "Without a magazine, the remaining components of a gun are not a firearm".

View attachment 1767657

Eh, quit nitpicking I would say. Raschio also said lack of magazine effectively bans whole classes of firearms and he is right about that.

 

[CamoDeafie]

This excerpt is particularly interesting to me.
Can't wait for a lawyer to read it and comment as to the practical meaning of this new bit of Oregon case law.
See in the context the sentence, making reference to the Oregon definition of a firearm, that says in the Judge's words, "Without a magazine, the remaining components of a gun are not a firearm".

View attachment 1767657

Based on Boyce set in 1983; well before the proliferation of ARs..

Once again..

Ammunition by case law is separate from firearms but magazines are not separate from firearms.

This also includes "chamber, cylinder, clips".

The definition seems to be specific to the act of unloaded or loaded carry.

 

[Ura-Ki]

In Judge Raschio's ruling here, even the cylinder of a Revolver is absolutely Needed to make a firearm functional, otherwise it's just a collection of assembled parts!

 

[Vinnie]

I am no lawyer, but I can read.
When a Circuit Judge says that a gun without its magazine fails the definition of "Firearm" under the ORS, I reckon a lot of Oregon laws which refer to that same definition - perhaps laws regarding transfer, or ownership, or prohibited persons, and so forth - might now be in limbo.
If you know a criminal lawyer or a Deputy D.A., please run this past them. Let's find out.

Of course, an Oregon decision regarding an Oregon state law and constitution has no bearing on federal law, so even if my opinion is correct, this would not generate a firearms free-for-all while Oregon scrambles to undo this (which seems to be required by the Prime Directive when "their" laws fall on their faces).

 

[CamoDeafie]

I am no lawyer, but I can read.
When a Circuit Judge says that a gun without its magazine fails the definition of "Firearm" under the ORS, I reckon a lot of Oregon laws which refer to that same definition - perhaps laws regarding transfer, or ownership, or prohibited persons, and so forth - might now be in limbo.
If you know a criminal lawyer or a Deputy D.A., please run this past them. Let's find out.

Of course, an Oregon decision regarding an Oregon state law and constitution has no bearing on federal law, so even if my opinion is correct, this would not generate a firearms free-for-all while Oregon scrambles to undo this (which seems to be required by the Prime Directive when "their" laws fall on their faces).

You could.. I don't know.. look up the actual ORS 166 definitions?

Like..

ORS 166.210 – Definitions

As used in ORS 166.250 (Unlawful possession of firearms) to 166.270 (Possession of weapons by certain felons), 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun…

oregon.public.law

And then refer to the Boyce case of 1983...?

State v. Boyce, 61 Or. App. 662 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read State v. Boyce, 61 Or. App. 662, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[Vinnie]

Great CamDeafie...Thanks for the rude implication.

If you read the Court Order you will see that the Judge saved you the trouble. Too, HE supplied the definition of a firearm from the ORS., which I don't find in your reply
What I supplied in the post, stated clearly as an excerpt, can be found in the order at the bottom of page 24 and top of 25.
The rest of the second part of the order (high capacity magazines) revolves around this remarkable comment the judge made.


Look here:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

BTW, when seeking Oregon law, the best place is the actual legislative web site. This site not only enumerates the laws of the state, but all legislation passed after. The later entries come long with a monograph referencing every statute affected.

Bills and Laws Oregon Revised Statutes

www.oregonlegislature.gov

 

[OgDog73]

Harmonica pistol...
Ball patch and powder all loaded without cartridges in the magazine.
This gun cannot be a gun without the magazine

 

[OgDog73]

maybe this is a better example

 

[CamoDeafie]

Great CamDeafie...Thanks for the rude implication.

If you read the Court Order you will see that the Judge saved you the trouble. Too, HE supplied the definition of a firearm from the ORS., which I don't find in your reply
What I supplied in the post, stated clearly as an excerpt, can be found in the order at the bottom of page 24 and top of 25.
The rest of the second part of the order (high capacity magazines) revolves around this remarkable comment the judge made.


Look here:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

BTW, when seeking Oregon law, the best place is the actual legislative web site. This site not only enumerates the laws of the state, but all legislation passed after. The later entries come long with a monograph referencing every statute affected.

Bills and Laws Oregon Revised Statutes

www.oregonlegislature.gov

Yes. I downloaded the .pdf. take things into context. Relating to the Portland ordinance, and the subject of State versus Boyce 1983; Raschio makes the distinction here that the Court at that time said ammunition is separate from magazine; not that the magazine is separate from the firearm. Using the historical analysis found throughout the order; based on the time of Statehood (1850s); most magazines were an integral part of firearms (tube magazines, box magazines, cylinders), and not long after too; clips (as in stripper clips) as well. Indeed there are several references in the historical analysis to "detachable magazines". Why the distinction? Because a magazine may be fixed or detachable and that technology was around at the time of Statehood and not long afterwards.

The Portland case regarding ammunition, stipulated that ammunition be separated from magazine, or firearm, to be legal to carry openly, without a license regarding Portland's restriction on open carry. So from that, I can see where Raschio is coming from, that without a magazine or a chamber, or a cylinder or a clip, a firearm isn't a functional firearm, just a collection of parts.

Edit.

A revolver needs a cylinder to function.

A pump action shotgun needs a tube magazine to function.

A lever action needs a magazine or clip

A bolt action needs a magazine or clip

A single shot needs a chamber.

Otherwise they're just piles of parts.

 

[MichaelH]

Stumbled across this whilst procrastinating. Raschio's decision, reasoning and conclusions are not "caselaw". He's a trial judge, and the findings, reasoning, conclusions and orders of trial judges aren't authority in future cases. He relies on State v Boyce, which is caselaw, and unless otherwise altered or overturned, shows part of Immurgut's opinion in the Federal 114 case is wrong. It's sort of a no brainer that a magazine is a necessary part of most modern firearms and if a firearm doesn't have a fixed internal magazine then removable magazines are part of a firearm. Whether the Court of Appeals or Oregon Supremes agree is TBD (the COA could find a way to distinguish the question in State v Boyce from the 114 state case), and THAT would be caselaw.

 

[arakboss]

If the magazine is a necessary part of a firearm, that would mean the firearm could not fire a cartridge without it. Many modern and old firearms can fire a cartridge without a magazine. If the magazine housed the bolt, firing pin, barrel, etc, then a strong argument could be made that it's a necessary part.

The dovetail sights on a pistol are more of a permanent part than a detachable magazine but the sights aren't necessary to fire a cartridge.

 

[arakboss]

Yes. I downloaded the .pdf. take things into context. Relating to the Portland ordinance, and the subject of State versus Boyce 1983; Raschio makes the distinction here that the Court at that time said ammunition is separate from magazine; not that the magazine is separate from the firearm. Using the historical analysis found throughout the order; based on the time of Statehood (1850s); most magazines were an integral part of firearms (tube magazines, box magazines, cylinders), and not long after too; clips (as in stripper clips) as well. Indeed there are several references in the historical analysis to "detachable magazines". Why the distinction? Because a magazine may be fixed or detachable and that technology was around at the time of Statehood and not long afterwards.

The Portland case regarding ammunition, stipulated that ammunition be separated from magazine, or firearm, to be legal to carry openly, without a license regarding Portland's restriction on open carry. So from that, I can see where Raschio is coming from, that without a magazine or a chamber, or a cylinder or a clip, a firearm isn't a functional firearm, just a collection of parts.

Edit.

A revolver needs a cylinder to function.

A pump action shotgun needs a tube magazine to function.

A lever action needs a magazine or clip

A bolt action needs a magazine or clip

A single shot needs a chamber.

Otherwise they're just piles of parts.

I will give you the revolver example as the cylinder is a magazine in addition to being the chamber. Nearly all firearms need a chamber. But the other firearms you listed can fire a cartridge without a magazine.

 

[Xaevian]

If the magazine is a necessary part of a firearm, that would mean the firearm could not fire a cartridge without it.

That is an incorrect assumption.

 

[arakboss]

That is an incorrect assumption.

Maybe but that would depend on the definition of a firearm.

The definition of a firearm in OPs example is:

 

[Xaevian]

No it doesn't.