Oregon Judge says she’ll decide next week whether to delay new Oregon gun law

[Richo877]

Judge says she’ll decide next week whether to delay new Oregon gun law

The new law requiring a permit to purchase a gun and banning high-capacity magazines was approved by voters in November, but faces multiple legal challenges.

www.opb.org

Read More

 

[Aispuro]

She’s on the Republican Party so hopefully good news next week.

 

[ma96782]

Late a few hours, days, months, or even if it extends to years.




Aloha, Mark

 

[MichaelH]

I don't see why no one is talking about the fact that there is no permit system in place and won't be for awhile. That seems to be the big problem. Also sounds like OFF needs to hire NYSPRA's historian.

For now though, I'm stoked that the 3 day rule has been invoked at LGS where I have a purchase waiting so I can get my gummy bears. I wonder if the sponsors of 114 expected that because of how they wrote the law it would cause 20,000 to 30,000 transfers with no background check to occur.

 

[wltjd221]

https://www.reddit.com/r/ORGuns/comments/zawp2s
Seems like OFF wasn’t performing as we expected, but I wasn’t there so..

 

[MichaelH]

So you all know, the law books call a temporary injunction "an extraordinary remedy" so that's not the judge's opinion. However that extraordinary remedy is granted all the time. The court has to balance the chances of success on the merits vs. the damage/consequence to the plaintiff(s) if the injunction is not issued vs. potential harm to the party being enjoined. Given that we're talking about constitutional rights and keeping the current status quo, I'd give an injunction a better than normal chance of being granted. A thing to remember is that the judge used to be a Federal Prosecutor and prosecutors in general tend to dislike guns.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Lots of good info on the judges specific questions here

Oregon Measure 114 gun control challenge heard in court

U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut, after hearing two hours of argument, said she'll rule early next week on whether or not to grant a temporary restraining order.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I don't see why no one is talking about the fact that there is no permit system in place and won't be for awhile.

Oh the jackboots at the OSP will make sure that there is a "system" in place on December 8th. It won't work and they will not be able to issue an actual permit (except to themselves) for months, but it will be in place.

Update on the status of FICS transactions in the Pended/Delayed Queue - Oregon - 12/02/22

BM114 becomes law on December 8, 2022. Since November 8, 2022, the FICS unit has experienced unprecedented volumes of firearms transactions never seen before in the program's 26-year history. OSP continues to work diligently to process and resolve as many of the pended/delayed FICS transactions as possible.

FICS transactions that are not completed with an approval number by midnight on December 7, 2022, will require the purchaser to initiate their permit application to obtain a Permit-to-Purchase before their FICS transaction can resume. This means your FICS transaction will not be canceled on December 8th. Once the purchaser has an approved permit, the FICS transaction will resume.

It is important to note that many times pended/delayed FICS transactions are due to missing, incomplete, or incorrect information. When there is missing or incomplete information on a person's Computerized Criminal History (CCH), OSP must contact the agency that is the owner of that information to obtain official records so that OSP can determine whether the person is approved for the firearm purchase. The agencies contacted most for missing or incomplete information are the Courts or District Attorneys' offices throughout the United States. There are no required timelines for the agencies to respond to our requests for missing or incomplete information. By statute, the information within the FICS transaction database can only be held for five years.

Oregon State Police has worked with Permit Agents regarding the application form for the Permit-to-Purchase. The draft application is in the final review with permitting agencies and will be posted to the Oregon State Police's website and available to those wishing to apply for a Permit-to-Purchase on December 8, 2022.

With BM114 becoming law on December 8, 2022, this gives Oregon State Police a very short window to develop a program and have technology available for use on day 1 of the new law. Because of this, the Permit-to-Purchase program at Oregon State Police will be a manual paper process until new technical systems can be designed and implemented

Update on the status of FICS transactions in the Pended/Delayed Queue - Oregon - Elkhorn Media Group

OREGON – (Press release from Oregon State Police) BM114 becomes ...Read More

elkhornmediagroup.com

 

[MichaelH]

The OSP can have a form to give a permit, but there are no approved classes yet, so as a practical matter there won't be a system in place. That's the whole argument.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Lots of good info on the judges specific questions here

Oregon Measure 114 gun control challenge heard in court

U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut, after hearing two hours of argument, said she'll rule early next week on whether or not to grant a temporary restraining order.

www.oregonlive.com

Oh, those questions from the Judge do not sound good at all.

Judge Immergut asked lawyers who have sued the state to explain what evidence backed up their argument that magazines with more than 10 rounds are commonly used in self-defense.

The judge further pressed to understand whether she can factor current usage of large-capacity magazines in her decision.

If a magazine with a certain number of rounds that seems innocuous but has been used "in a way that perhaps wasn't contemplated," such as in mass shootings, can the magazine then be considered dangerous and unusual, she asked.

Judge Immergut noted that the Supreme Court ruling, though, made it clear that its decision is not a "regulatory strait jacket" and allows a variety of gun regulations.

"You would agree that law enforcement conceivably should have weapons that are different than a private citizen should have. Wouldn't you?" Immergut asked.

Yep, we're hosed.

 

[Cavedweller]

The OSP can have a form to give a permit, but there are no approved classes yet, so as a practical matter there won't be a system in place. That's the whole argument.

It's not just the classes. It's also the investigations local law enforcement will have to conduct to determine if the applicant is a threat to himself or the community. The criteria for such investigations have not been established, nor the resources to conduct them allocated.

 

[Cavedweller]

Oh, those questions from the Judge do not sound good at all.

My impression as well.

 

[PiratePast40]

https://www.reddit.com/r/ORGuns/comments/zawp2s
Seems like OFF wasn’t performing as we expected, but I wasn’t there so..

Are you talking about when they were on the stand?

 

[Stomper]

Oh, those questions from the Judge do not sound good at all.

Judge Immergut asked lawyers who have sued the state to explain what evidence backed up their argument that magazines with more than 10 rounds are commonly used in self-defense.

The judge further pressed to understand whether she can factor current usage of large-capacity magazines in her decision.

If a magazine with a certain number of rounds that seems innocuous but has been used "in a way that perhaps wasn't contemplated," such as in mass shootings, can the magazine then be considered dangerous and unusual, she asked.

Judge Immergut noted that the Supreme Court ruling, though, made it clear that its decision is not a "regulatory strait jacket" and allows a variety of gun regulations.

"You would agree that law enforcement conceivably should have weapons that are different than a private citizen should have. Wouldn't you?" Immergut asked.

Yep, we're hosed.

No your honor, no I would not agree and here’s why.

An earlier SCOTUS ruling in the Cruikshank case ruled that since a short-barreled shotgun was NOT in common use by the military (and logically thereby law enforcement as well) that the weapon lacked 2A protection.

In short, the 2A protects (personally) bearable arms that are in use by the military, and by logical extension to paramilitary forces (aka law enforcement agencies) which (basically) enforce political agendas codified in law.

Last I check, your basic LEO has 15-20 round magazines in their sidearms, and 20-30 round magazines in their AR platform rifles.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Oh, those questions from the Judge do not sound good at all.

Judge Immergut asked lawyers who have sued the state to explain what evidence backed up their argument that magazines with more than 10 rounds are commonly used in self-defense.

The judge further pressed to understand whether she can factor current usage of large-capacity magazines in her decision.

If a magazine with a certain number of rounds that seems innocuous but has been used "in a way that perhaps wasn't contemplated," such as in mass shootings, can the magazine then be considered dangerous and unusual, she asked.

Judge Immergut noted that the Supreme Court ruling, though, made it clear that its decision is not a "regulatory strait jacket" and allows a variety of gun regulations.

"You would agree that law enforcement conceivably should have weapons that are different than a private citizen should have. Wouldn't you?" Immergut asked.

Yep, we're hosed.

Little info to go on but seems #1 issue is going to be common use. Her exploring whether common use can change based on how it's used is extremely concerning to me. That is getting away from Bruen and back to weighing public good vs a private right.

Also she questioned number owned vs number used in self defense. Also she said law enforcement should be able to have different guns than citizens. Also she said an injunction would be an extraoridary remedy. All her questions tell me she is likely really against an injunction. She sounds like a non gun person who is saying "why do you need this?" Hopefully she will be objective after reading the other cases but I'm not hopeful right now and I would say 80% chance or more that she won't grant it but who knows, if she is able to be objective and reads the precedent she may rule base on Bruen and the other precedent cases.

In our society it seems to me that people who have used guns generally get it and those who have never used guns can't seem to understand why guns are needed. She seems no different to me than the "haven't used" group based on that small amount of info.

P.S. keep checking back on Maxine Bernstein's article as she keeps adding stuff to it. Sounds like Sportsman's warehouse just launched a 4th lawsuit.

 

[ronin223]

She is an activist judge the only way to win is prove she is impartial.


Has she worked with any of the authors of 114, like when she was part of the coalition which stopped all executions in oregon?

 

[duldej]

From the article:

Even if the magazines are common now, the judge asked, what's the evidence these larger-capacity magazines are commonly used for self-defense. She further questioned if there's a point where a certain number of rounds in a magazine would make it dangerous.

"There may well be. ... It's well above 10," Bergstrom responded.

I think this attorney from SAF is missing the point.

The 2a was drafted to protect citizens from tyranny, with the added benefit of protecting ourselves from the average perp.

Fortunately there were better arguments on the table.

 

[Ura-Ki]

This Judge is ether super smart, getting the 2A side to talk about the key issues that 114 brings up in a manor that Average Oregon Idiot could understand, or she is completely bent to the left/anti gun, and were screwed dry, no lube, or a kiss after!

 

[Librarian]

For entertainment purposes, here's the latest (Dec 1) plaintiff's briefing in the California magazine case, Duncan v Bonta.

https://t.co/chUPQQRqSR

The State concludes by again demanding more time to conduct more discovery. But it does not need more time. It needs historic laws that simply do not exist. If the State is given more time, it will simply continue its efforts to overwhelm Plaintiffs and their limited resources with more "experts" offering opinions on everything but relevant historic laws. Plaintiffs (and all Californians who seeks to obtain standard magazines over ten rounds) have waited long enough for their rights to be respected. This Court should rule on the merits promptly.

and a footnote

For an enlightening list of "highlights" from the long history of firearms and magazines over ten rounds in this country, see Judge Bumatay's dissent from the (now reversed) en banc decision in this matter. Duncan v. Bonta ("Duncan V"), 19 F.4th 1087, 1155 (9th Cir.) (Bumatay, J., dissenting) (recounting the historical precedents for "large capacity magazines" from a 16-shooter developed in 1580 to the Winchester M1873, able to hold 10 to 11 rounds, of which over 720,000 copies were made from 1873 to 1919).

Historical info for Judge Immergut ...

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

"You would agree that law enforcement conceivably should have weapons that are different than a private citizen should have. Wouldn't you?" Immergut asked.

No. Historically, since this country’s founding, private citizens have possessed, at a minimum, the same small arms and light weapons as its police and military.