Oregon Interesting new case law from the 114 devision

[arakboss]

No it doesn't.

So a firearm is not a firearm unless it has a magazine? If that is true then I will be able to make and play around with all kinds of piles of parts that can fire a cartridge and not have to worry about HB2005 or many other laws.

 

[Xaevian]

So a firearm is not a firearm unless it has a magazine? If that is true then I will be able to make and play around with all kinds of piles of parts that can fire a cartridge and not have to worry about HB2005 or many other laws.

no, your statement that since a firearm can fire with a round in the chamber without a magazine means that a magazine is not a necessary part of a firearm is wrong.

 

[arakboss]

no, your statement that since a firearm can fire with a round in the chamber without a magazine means that a magazine is not a necessary part of a firearm is wrong.

The magazine would only be necessary to load cartridges as each particular firearm is designed to. It's possible there is a firearm out there that can only be loaded through a magazine but I don't own one. All of my firearms can be manually loaded including my break actions, which come to think of it, don't have a mag well.

 

[CamoDeafie]

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.

Yes they can fire a cartridge without a magazine but they're just single shot firearms without a magazine, and that negates their operation/functions as repeating firearms/autoloading firearms.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The magazine would only be necessary to load cartridges as each particular firearm is designed to. It's possible there is a firearm out there that can only be loaded through a magazine but I don't own one. All of my firearms can be manually loaded including my break actions, which come to think of it, don't have a mag well.

Let me rephrase it.

Can a semiautomatic firearm self-load, and fire the next cartridge without a magazine in which ammo is in?

Can a pump action load the next shell without a tube magazine, without a manual loading procedure?

Can a lever action self-load the next round without a tube or box or rotary magazine?

 

[arakboss]

Yes they can fire a cartridge without a magazine but they're just single shot firearms without a magazine, and that negates their operation/functions as repeating firearms/autoloading firearms.

Of course that is true, but the State was arguing that a firearm could fire a cartridge without a magazine, and that means it's not a necessary part to fire a cartridge.

 

[arakboss]

Let me rephrase it.

Can a semiautomatic firearm self-load, and fire the next cartridge without a magazine in which ammo is in?

Can a pump action load the next shell without a tube magazine, without a manual loading procedure?

Can a lever action self-load the next round without a tube or box or rotary magazine?

The State wants you to have muzzleloaders, they do not want you to have repeating firearms.

Look at the definition of a firearm. The definition doesn't require a repeating function to be supported.


"Firearm" means a weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of powder.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Of course that is true, but the State was arguing that a firearm could fire a cartridge without a magazine, and that means it's not a necessary part to fire a cartridge.

And Raschio did rebuke them on that part because it would essentially mean that any other format of firearms other than single shots would be restricted/not covered by Oregon's version of 2A, simply by the ability to accept magazines as defined by the State

 

[arakboss]

And Raschio did rebuke them on that part because it would essentially mean that any other format of firearms other than single shots would be restricted/not covered by Oregon's version of 2A, simply by the ability to accept magazines as defined by the State

I am simply saying that a magazine is not a necessary part to making a firearm based on ORS definition.

It would be a necessary part for a repeating firearm.

 

[CamoDeafie]

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

The definition of a firearm in OPs example is:

View attachment 1827150

That could in theory also include all flare guns and 37mm launchers and fireworks launchers and mortars

 

[Ura-Ki]

Many Semi Autos can fire with out a mag inserted in the mag well, effectively becoming a single shot! It's harmful to most designs as the slide will cycle, but not having a mag to stop/lock the slide back, or another cartridge to drive into battery, the slide gets hammered over time, worse because of the velocity generated by firing a round, remember, for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction! Some designs will not fire with out a mag inserted, there is good reason to have that as a function in those designs! I digress,........

 

[Xaevian]

Going down a slight tangent, the vast majority, all but a mere handful, of "modern" firearms incorporate a magazine as part of the design. Single shot firearms would be considered unusual in comparison. A magazine is simply a place where additional ammunition is stored. It is just a part. The reverse to your argument would mean that anything not specifically listed as a firearm is therefore outside of regulation by the government and is free to be banned willy nilly without the regard for reason or the limitations of the 2nd amendment. No different than the quill/ink vs computer argument idiocy. Or the Jim Crow laws to circumvent the 14th Amendment.

 

[monkeybutler]

No one is ever going to successfully argue that a firearm without a magazine can be sold willy nilly like a used guitar because it is not actually a regulated item.

Or perhaps I misunderstand the proposed scenario.

 

[CamoDeafie]

No one is ever going to successfully argue that a firearm without a magazine can be sold willy nilly like a used guitar because it is not actually a regulated item.

Or perhaps I misunderstand the proposed scenario.

Yes you misunderstand
The State's argument is that because magazines are not needed for any firearm to function (as in shoot a projectile per State definition of firearms), they can be regulated and banned, disregarding Bruen and other cases.

 

[monkeybutler]

Yes you misunderstand
The State's argument is that because magazines are not needed for any firearm to function (as in shoot a projectile per State definition of firearms), they can be regulated and banned, disregarding Bruen and other cases.

Okay so the original snippet of law is either incomplete or i need to go to the Derek Zoolander school for kids who can't read good.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Okay so the original snippet of law is either incomplete or i need to go to the Derek Zoolander school for kids who can't read good.

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

Relevant section

"(3)"Firearm" means a weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of powder."

 

[SonicBlue03]

Even Immerbubblegum didn't deny that magazines weren't arms. She did mental gymnastics around different capacities were subsets and therefore restrictable. If Oregon truly gets traction on the "not arms" at the state level, they're going to get embarrassed as badly as those morons in Hawaii will for giving a finger to SCOTUS.

 

[Xaevian]

Arakboss must have put me on ignore.


I'm sure gonna miss those neverending challenges and great deals.

 

[arakboss]

Going down a slight tangent, the vast majority, all but a mere handful, of "modern" firearms incorporate a magazine as part of the design. Single shot firearms would be considered unusual in comparison. A magazine is simply a place where additional ammunition is stored. It is just a part. The reverse to your argument would mean that anything not specifically listed as a firearm is therefore outside of regulation by the government and is free to be banned willy nilly without the regard for reason or the limitations of the 2nd amendment. No different than the quill/ink vs computer argument idiocy. Or the Jim Crow laws to circumvent the 14th Amendment.

Oregon has a legal definition of what a firearm is. Earlier somebody suggested that a firearm without a magazine is just a "collection of parts". I would argue if a firearm can fire a cartridge without a magazine being necessary, it's still legally a firearm and not a collection of parts.

 

[Xaevian]

Oregon has a legal definition of what a firearm is. Earlier somebody suggested that a firearm without a magazine is just a "pile of parts". I would argue if a firearm can fire a cartridge without a magazine being necessary, it's still legally a firearm and not a pile of parts.

I'm assuming you read the OR definition? Does it mention any "part" of a firearm as part of the definition?

DEFINITIONS: Firearm: A weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile. by the action of powder. See ORS 166.210(3).

Handgun: Any pistol or revolver using a fixed cartridge containing a propellant charge, primer and projectile, and designed to be aimed or fired otherwise than from the shoulder.

Nope. It does a pretty good job with "cartridge" though. So, how can the state argue a magazine (or any other part)is not necessary for a firearm to function? The definition does not neither include nor exclude "magazine".

Trying to keep this relevant to OR law, though I am not licensed to practice law in OR, so any relevant case law is who knows what. Maybe ask an OR attorney?

"...designed..." If it had a magazine by design, than it is a necessary component, by design.

FYI, ORS 166 210(3) is just the same definition. It covers anything from a matchlock to a machine gun.