Magazines: Proof of date purchased.

[EHJ]

Possession of 10+ mags is not illegal.
Nowhere in this 114 mess says that.
I repeat - Possession of 10+mags is NOT illegal nor a crime.

There are 3 instances that are crimes - that involve 10+ mags...

Transfer of said mags - into the state and/or to another person.
Use on public property.
Improperly stored mags when traveling to and from private properties.

Please show me something different and I'll shut up.

 

[Tonyba]

You will need proof that you owned your high capacity magazines prior to this new law 114 taking effect,
I suggest taking photos of your magazines along with a dated news paper in the photo.

Great idea

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

Thats for the state to prove.
Obviously they fit your gun... Its evidence.
Its not "bombproof" evidence, but its evidence. Now its up to the state to disprove it.....

If it fits you must acquit !

 

[Hooyah DeepSea]

But why??? Now I'm not a lawyer, but I can read.

There is nowhere in the text of the measure that says you have to prove that you owned said magazines before the effective date of the measure.

Also, there is nowhere in the text of the measure that says you can't use them on public property. They CAN be used for "recreational activities such as hunting, to the extent permitted under state law". "Hunting" is merely an example; it does not exclude sport shooting out in the woods or grasslands, or 'toolies' . It does say that 'after the effective date, (should that ever occur) you just have to transport them properly.

 

[WeaponizedMRE]

Possession of 10+ mags is not illegal.
Nowhere in this 114 mess says that.
I repeat - Possession of 10+mags is NOT illegal nor a crime.

There are 3 instances that are crimes - that involve 10+ mags...

Transfer of said mags - into the state and/or to another person.
Use on public property.
Improperly stored mags when traveling to and from private properties.

Please show me something different and I'll shut up.

Who else is going to be violating all three instances?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

There is nowhere in the text of the measure that says you have to prove that you owned said magazines before the effective date of the measure.

See 5 (a):

 

[EHJ]

See 5 (a):
View attachment 1327930

Where do I find ORS 166.055?

And where else in 114 does it say this?

This says, 'unlawful use"...

Opponents of Oregon ballot measure 114 severely limits gun rights

SALEM, Ore. — “Ballot measure 114 will be the systematic end of firearm purchases in Oregon,” Aoibheann Cline with the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action said. On November 8th, Oregonians

www.yaktrinews.com

In one part of the ballot measure, the text reads (if the ballot is passed) it will be an affirmative defense to own a magazine with a higher capacity than 10 rounds, and hasn't been grandfathered in. The text mentions ORS 166.055, which doesn't exist.

KAPP KVEW spoke with the Oregon Legislative Counsel who said it's likely a typo, and if voted in, legislation would have to amend it during session.

A, 'typo'.
This is all bs.

 

[Uberdillo]

Wait, we're using images of PDF's now? Y'all need to step it up. I want to 35 mm film negatives of these printed out documents taken with your cellamaphones or I won't believe any part of this argument 'till we see some real evidence of this text up in here. Show me some proof.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

https://sos.oregon.gov/admin/Documents/irr/2022/017text.pdf

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Wait, we're using images of PDF's now? Y'all need to step it up. I want to 35 mm film negatives of these printed out documents taken with your cellamaphones or I won't believe any part of this argument 'till we see some real evidence of this text up in here. Show me some proof.

Too funny! I don't know why all the fuss when things have been there in black in white for a long time. It's poorly written yes but many things are clear if a person reads it. Kind of feel like saying,

 

[EHJ]

https://sos.oregon.gov/admin/Documents/irr/2022/017text.pdf

(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 (b) The possession of a large-capacity magazine was obtained by a person who, on or after the effective date of this section, acquired possession of the large-capacity magazine by operation of law upon the death of a former owner who was in legal possession of the large-capacity magazine; and (c) In addition to either (a) or (b) of this subsection the owner has not maintained the large-capacity magazine in a manner other than: (A) On property owned or immediately controlled by the registered owner; (B) On the premises of a gun dealer or gunsmith licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 for the purpose of lawful service or repair; (C) While engaging in the legal use of the large-capacity magazine, at a public or private shooting range or shooting gallery or for recreational activities such as hunting, to the extent permitted under state law; or (D) While participating in firearms competition or exhibition, display or educational project about firearms sponsored, conducted by, approved or under the auspices of a law enforcement agency or a national or state-recognized entity that fosters proficiency in firearms use or promotes firearms education; and (E) While transporting any large-capacity magazines in a vehicle to one of the locations authorized in paragraphs (c)(A) to (D) of this subsection, the large-capacity magazine is not inserted into the firearm and is locked in a separate container. (d) The person has permanently and voluntarily relinquished the large-capacity magazine to law enforcement or to a buyback or turn-in program approved by law enforcement, prior to commencement of prosecution by arrest, citation or a formal charge. (6) Unlawful manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale or otherwise transferring of a large-capacity magazine is a class A misdemeanor.

There is no, "ORS 166.055".

It keeps saying, "Unlawful Possession" - as it pertains to the, acquisition and use and mishandling of magazine - in the very same breath after mentioning how already owned magazines can be lawfully used...

But yeah... let's all spin out on arguing what do in case someone sees a fish riding a bicycle.

Arguing this measure has any modicum of validity, much less trying to defend against some boogey man of Affirmative Defense protections necessity is bewildering.

 

[Kruel J]

Possession of 10+ mags is not illegal.
Nowhere in this 114 mess says that.
I repeat - Possession of 10+mags is NOT illegal nor a crime.

There are 3 instances that are crimes - that involve 10+ mags...

Transfer of said mags - into the state and/or to another person.
Use on public property.
Improperly stored mags when traveling to and from private properties.

Please show me something different and I'll shut up.

I've been trying to point that out for a while, but some people just LOVE being sheep.


So many are jumping higher than they were told.

 

[Kruel J]

Raise your hand if you're all in for "'common sense" gun laws while documenting your legally owned property. Don't be shy.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

And nowhere that I can see does it say that one would be required, compelled or coerced to use an Affirmative Defense should one find themselves facing charges, just says that "it shall be. . . "

 

[ilikegunspdx]

There is no, "ORS 166.055".

It keeps saying, "Unlawful Possession" - as it pertains to the, acquisition and use and mishandling of magazine - in the very same breath after mentioning how already owned magazines can be lawfully used...

But yeah... let's all spin out on arguing what do in case someone sees a fish riding a bicycle.

Arguing this measure has any modicum of validity, much less trying to defend against some boogey man of Affirmative Defense protections necessity is bewildering.

I think you are making it more complicated than it is. It says "it shall be an affirmative defense... to the unlawful possession, use..." if the party can show/prove they met the following conditions. Note that I'm not defending their BS. The whole thing is a POS and unconstitutional.

 

[EHJ]

I think you are making it more complicated than it is. It's says "it shall be an affirmative defense... to the unlawful possession, use...".

The three rules that make 10+ mags, "unlawful" as stated in bm114 -

~Transfer of said mags - into the state and/or to another person.
~Use on public property.
~Improperly stored mags when traveling to and from private properties.

There is no affirmative defense to those three things that anything here can help.

It is only the belief in a Thing that gives life to that Thing.

This measure was written with so many intertwined logical fallacy's and red herrings I am positive it was written just to do what it's doing - wasting time, energy and resources and creating continued divisions all the while putting us on the defense to a mythical truism.

This thing was written with glaring flaws - intentionally.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

The three rules that make 10+ mags, "unlawful" as stated in bm114 -

~Transfer of said mags - into the state and/or to another person.
~Use on public property.
~Improperly stored mags when traveling to and from private properties.

It actually doesn't say that. It doesn't say there are 3 rules that make them unlawful. It says they are unlawful, except under certain conditions. Fe carrying in the firearm, carrying on your person, in your car, etc. etc. except if it meets certain conditions.

Re the three things you outlined, someone above already pointed out the public property one as incorrect. And the storage while traveling one is for many uses such as range, shooting activity, recreational use etc. not just private property. Note again I'm not defending this BS.

 

[Gunbuggy]

Just keep your mags. Do you really think it's going to be enforced down there? Ppl are allowed to shoot up in the streets, poop on the sidewalk, steal from stores in broad daylight, all legally or not pursued.

I mean I still buy standard capacity magazines in washington at stores and only two stores have been charged with selling them. These laws are not being enforced. They are BULL$HIT laws but I mean why would we follow a law that is unconstitutional?

Someone could break into your house tomorrow and steal all your sh*t and unless you either shoot the guy or hold him down and physically deliver him to the police when they arrive, the crime will not be pursued. Just do whatever you want. That's been working for a decade for criminals in WA OR and CA. They want to give criminals the free leeway to commit crimes? Well f*ck it we are criminals now too I guess. Just act accordingly

If I lived in Oregon the last thing I'd be worried about would be engraving my magazines or taking a photo of 200+ magazines on top of a newspaper article lol

 

[EHJ]

It actually doesn't say that. It says they are unlawful except under certain conditions. Fe carrying in the firearm, carrying on your person, etc. etc.

Re the the three things you outlined, someone above already pointed out the public property one. And the storage while traveling one is for many uses such as range, shooting activity, recreational use etc. not just private property.

A range, gun club event - etc... I was categorizing that all as private property - because it would be in the end.
I feel their bigger intent was to emphasize the no carry/chl limitations in everyplace else... ie: public property.

Inherited magazines are legal and have a carve-out...
They went to great lengths with illogical wording to avoid using the term, 'Grandfathered'.

10+ magazines are legal to possess, use and transport - given limitations.


But - for the record...
Lots of suggestions and back and forth on what is the 'best' way to build a record for possible future defense - as far as I can think - simply photographing your stuff, listing it all and sending yourself an email. All the metadata proof that would ever be needed. Go a step further and make a compressed zip file with your cell phone pics and email to yourself by the date you want to prove...

Can't hack Google.

 

[Kruel J]

How does a photograph prove anything? Without serial numbers the mags are just plastic and metal bits. A picture of them isn't going to prove ownership. It just shows that SOME mags were owned prior to the BS.

I'm not wasting one second photographing anything. It's just mental masturbation.