Messages
99
Reactions
127
She really went sideways. Whoever mentioned Berkeley may have been right.
“Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they will suffer immediate and irreparable harm if this Court does not block Measure 114 from taking effect on December 8, 2022. Plaintiffs have not produced sufficient evidence at this stage to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their challenge to Measure 114's restrictions on large-capacity magazines. Plaintiffs have also failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their facial challenge to Measure 114's permitting provisions. “
 
Messages
99
Reactions
127
“However, in light of the difficulty the State has conceded in terms of implementation of the permitting provisions at this stage, implementation of those permitting provisions is stayed for thirty days.”
 
Messages
99
Reactions
127
The judge followed the logic first laid out in the Supplemental Brief filed by the California DOJ in Duncan v. Bonta and also argued by Oregon here -- “While magazines in general are necessary to the use of firearms for self-defense, Plaintiffs have not shown, at this stage, that magazines specifically capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition are necessary to the use of firearms for self-defense.”
 
Messages
2,761
Reactions
7,101
The judge followed the logic first laid out in the Supplemental Brief filed by the California DOJ in Duncan v. Bonta and also argued by Oregon here -- “While magazines in general are necessary to the use of firearms for self-defense, Plaintiffs have not shown, at this stage, that magazines specifically capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition are necessary to the use of firearms for self-defense.”


That's why I believe it was an error to go after that part with the injunction request.
 
Messages
99
Reactions
127
The judge followed the logic first laid out in the Supplemental Brief filed by the California DOJ in Duncan v. Bonta and also argued by Oregon here -- “While magazines in general are necessary to the use of firearms for self-defense, Plaintiffs have not shown, at this stage, that magazines specifically capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition are necessary to the use of firearms for self-defense.”
The argument I developed (in my head) in response to the mag limit, is an analogy to bullets: the ban on LCMs is valid if it would be valid for a court to ban bullets that exceed say, 1300fps. (My understanding is that flintlocks and muskets tipped out around 1,000 fps +\-.). A state could argue that bullets traveling slowly, like a subsonic 9mm, are still lethal for self-defense, so we don’t need high velocity bullets that increase tissue damage. Would it be permissible for a state to anllow only slower bullets? I think the Supremes would say no, and they should say the same to the capacity of mags.
 
Messages
30
Reactions
54
The argument I developed (in my head) in response to the mag limit, is an analogy to bullets: the ban on LCMs is valid if it would be valid for a court to ban bullets that exceed say, 1300fps. (My understanding is that flintlocks and muskets tipped out around 1,000 fps +\-.). A state could argue that bullets traveling slowly, like a subsonic 9mm, are still lethal for self-defense, so we don’t need high velocity bullets that increase tissue damage. Would it be permissible for a state to anllow only slower bullets? I think the Supremes would say no, and they should say the same to the capacity of mags.
Whoa! Let’s not be giving them any bright ideas
 
Messages
248
Reactions
380
Messages
2,685
Reactions
6,217
Messages
99
Reactions
127
Well, at least we have a month to buy more guns?
Yes, at least 30 days, pending further motions. These two motions were for temporary restraining orders (quick hearings) and the judge notes at the end: "Plaintiffs are entitled to a prompt hearing to determine whether a preliminary injunction should issue based on a more complete record. The parties are ordered to confer and propose a briefing schedule to this Court by December 7, 2022." So they have a few weeks to develop their arguments against her reasoning (if they can) and present better evidence with declarations citing to authorities, i.e., 99% of those that possess LCM are law abiding.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
99
Reactions
127
Messages
228
Reactions
566
Horrible news... Just read it here. OFF really phucked up! They should have stayed clear and let FPC and the professionals take care of this.

I think you are making some invalid assumptions, which are:

1) The judge is honest.
2) The judge is not an ideologue.

If both assumptions are true, then brilliant arguments can save the day. But, I don't see any evidence that the judge is NOT an ideologue. The questions she posed indicated she is an ideologue. The only effect brilliant arguments will have on a dedicated ideologue, as that they may become a more-informed ideologue.
 
Messages
3,890
Reactions
5,894
I have to agree. NSSF Complaint and Motion are much more straightforward and better organized.
Both were presented at the same time and both had lawyers at the hearing. Attorneys for Fitz were remote, but still presented arguments. Both also made separate arguments after the defense had spoken. Both received separate letters from the judge. OFF did not represent both, they were separate.
 
Messages
380
Reactions
598
Not that I expect Immergut to rule differently, but she still must hear Eyre and Azzopardi.

And Asmussen before Judge Raschio is interesting, but I think AG will appeal to Oregon Supreme Court.
 

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top