Magazines: Proof of date purchased.

[arakboss]

Ok, I'll pick at part of your statement regarding use on public lands or property.

The measure reads:

Section 11 (5) (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

People read section (C) and jump to the conclusion that hunting is the only permissible use of a standard capacity magazine on public lands, but that is not what it says. "Hunting" is used only as an example. The key wording is "recreational activities"........plural. Target shooting is a recreational activity. Fishing is a recreational activity. Hiking is a recreational activity.

I didn't write the language to this stupid measure, but I can certainly read it in plain English and that is what it says. I'll wait to see what the State Legislature drafts as a final rule, but for now I'm carrying on as usual.

-E-

You are 100% correct.

 

[EHJ]

Ok, I'll pick at part of your statement regarding use on public lands or property.

The measure reads:

Section 11 (5) (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

People read section (C) and jump to the conclusion that hunting is the only permissible use of a standard capacity magazine on public lands, but that is not what it says. "Hunting" is used only as an example. The key wording is "recreational activities"........plural. Target shooting is a recreational activity. Fishing is a recreational activity. Hiking is a recreational activity.

I didn't write the language to this stupid measure, but I can certainly read it in plain English and that is what it says. I'll wait to see what the State Legislature drafts as a final rule, but for now I'm carrying on as usual.

-E-

You are 100% correct.

FTR - I agree with all of this.


It's the "Affirmative Defense" to a non-crime that is preposterous.
I know that language was added for some reason - I just believe it was for obfuscation to confuse voters as they contemplated voting on the thing - not the actual mechanics of the actual legality of same...
Just like how they reference , "ORS 166.055" as a citation to this 'affirmative defense."

There is NO ORS 166.055. Anywhere. It does not exist. Yet it is being used as a qualifier for affirmative defense examples.

 

[arakboss]

I am not convinced documenting the mag possession is necessary or wise but I understand why some people would like to do this.

I see a number of members are looking at using a notarized list as proof that they possessed magazines prior to M114 going into effect. It seems to me that might not be reliable proof as a person could just provide some expanded list to cover mags they intended to purchase after a mag ban was in effect?

If you actually presented all your grandfathered mags to a person (perhaps an FFL) whose testimony would be considered reliable and had them provide documentation to verify your inventory of mags, that might be more acceptable to a jury. If an FFL provided false information or documentation to a jury they would risk losing their license. That might make juries consider their testimony more reliable?

 

[arakboss]

FTR - I agree with all of this.


It's the "Affirmative Defense" to a non-crime that is preposterous.
I know that language was added for some reason - I just believe it was for obfuscation to confuse voters as they contemplated voting on the thing - not the actual mechanics of the actual legality of same...
Just like how they reference , "ORS 166.055" as a citation to this 'affirmative defense."

There is NO ORS 166.055. Anywhere. It does not exist. Yet it is being used as a qualifier for affirmative defense examples.

The affirmative defense language is problematic. The ORS number was a typo and the affirmative defense language is in the ORS.

I can see why some would like to document their grandfathered collection of 11+ mags. As others have pointed out it has been rare for somebody to be charged with violating mag bans. Some people like to dot all their i's and cross all their t's and I won't criticize them for wanting to do so. Finding a reliable way to document them that a jury will accept is the trick.

 

[EHJ]

The affirmative defense language is problematic. The ORS number was a typo and the affirmative defense language is in the ORS.

I can see why some would like to document their grandfathered collection of 11+ mags. As others have pointed out it has been rare for somebody to be charged with violating mag bans. Some people like to dot all their i's and cross all their t's and I won't criticize them for wanting to do so. Finding a reliable way to document them that a jury will accept is the trick.

https://www.nals.org/blogpost/1359892/279125/Affirmative-Defenses

The affirmative defense is a justification for the defendant having committed the accused crime. It differs from other defenses because the defendant admits that he did, in fact, break the law. He is simply arguing that he has a good reason for having done so and, therefore, should be excused from all criminal liability.

Possessing 10+mags is not a crime. Using or possessing them in certain situations (listed) is the crime.

An affirmative defense example would be - using a 10+mag in public, (etc, whatever) to defend your life...
"Yes - I agree that using them in that situation was illegal" (Admitting you broke the law.) "But I was defending my life.... therefore...AD."

Possessing them, simply - is not breaking any law.
We do not have a mag 'ban' in Oregon.
We have restricted use and transfer of mags in Oregon.

Trying to use an affirmative defense for simple possession, in legal carve-outs - has you admitting that the use of same mags was all illegal to begin with. (It's not.)

It's all a word trap.

 

[arakboss]

https://www.nals.org/blogpost/1359892/279125/Affirmative-Defenses

Possessing 10+mags is not a crime. Using or possessing them in certain situations (listed) is the crime.

An affirmative defense example would be - using a 10+mag in public, (etc, whatever) to defend your life...
"Yes - I agree that using them in that situation was illegal" (Admitting you broke the law.) "But I was defending my life.... therefore...AD."

Possessing them, simply - is not breaking any law.
We do not have a mag 'ban' in Oregon.
We have restricted use and transfer of mags in Oregon.

Trying to use an affirmative defense for simple possession, in legal carve-outs - has you admitting that the use of same mags was all illegal to begin with. (It's not.)

It's all a word trap.

Possession is listed as a crime in Section 11:

(2) Notwithstanding ORS 166.250 to 166.470, and except as expressly provided in subsections (3) to (5) of this section, a person commits the crime of unlawful manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale or otherwise transferring of large-capacity magazines if the person manufactures, imports, possesses, uses, purchases, sells or otherwise transfers any large-capacity magazine in Oregon on or after the effective date of this 2022 Act.


They offer some exemptions from the restrictions but with the affirmative defense language added. in regards to possession some people interpret that as the exemptions only apply if you can prove you possessed the mags prior to effective date of measure. Are they right or wrong, I don't know?

 

[nehalemguy]

....

 

[ilikegunspdx]

...

Possessing 10+mags is not a crime. Using or possessing them in certain situations (listed) is the crime.

Honestly I think you are completely misunderstanding affirmative defense and most all of m114.

Possessing 10+ mags is a crime under m114 unless possessed/used under certain conditions shown earlier (own prior to enactment + used or transporting to, etc. ...).

An affirmative defense example would be - using a 10+mag in public, (etc, whatever) to defend your life...
"Yes - I agree that using them in that situation was illegal" (Admitting you broke the law.) "But I was defending my life.... therefore...AD."

I don't see any exception at all for using a 10+ mag for self defense, not sure where you are getting that.

Possessing them, simply - is not breaking any law.
We do not have a mag 'ban' in Oregon.
We have restricted use and transfer of mags in Oregon.

We will have a mag ban once m114 takes effect. So again not sure where you are getting that.

Trying to use an affirmative defense for simple possession, in legal carve-outs - has you admitting that the use of same mags was all illegal to begin with. (It's not.)

It's all a word trap.

Actually it is illegal to begin with under m114. Which is why I think the courts will strike it down. It may take a long time before they do however.

 

[nehalemguy]

......and earlier you guys were talking about alphabet boys stopping by?

 

[EHJ]

Possession is listed as a crime in Section 11:

(2) Notwithstanding ORS 166.250 to 166.470, and except as expressly provided in subsections (3) to (5) of this section, a person commits the crime of unlawful manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale or otherwise transferring of large-capacity magazines if the person manufactures, imports, possesses, uses, purchases, sells or otherwise transfers any large-capacity magazine in Oregon on or after the effective date of this 2022 Act.


They offer some exemptions from the restrictions but with the affirmative defense language added. in regards to possession some people interpret that as the exemptions only apply if you can prove you possessed the mags prior to effective date of measure. Are they right or wrong, I don't know?

(-1) x (-1) = 1

I understand what the words in this measure say... I'm just pointing out that - just because it may say, "1 + 1 = 3" - does not make it a legal fact.
This measure is littered throughout with illogical fallacy's like the above.
So many, in fact - one could argue that they are intentional.

 

[arakboss]

As I was smashing down breakfast I had the thought that I could pawn my 11+ magazines for a day, pay the loan off and get my mags back before the effective date of Measure 114. Assuming my pawn receipt included a itemized list of the mags, that would provide me with proof that I possessed the mags prior to the effective date of the measure.

A person could probably do a similar maneuver by giving the mags to another person and having that person give or sell them back with an itemized receipt.

Whichever way this was done, the person who transferred the mags to the owner would be subject to being put on the witness stand if the mag owner was ever in court and had to prove they possessed the mags prior to the effective date of the measure.

 

[EHJ]

I don't see any exception at all for using a 10+ mag for self defense, not sure where you are getting that.

There can be many (unlisted) instances of an affirmative defense - not just the ones they give...
Hell, you could be a 17 year old felon - and (illegally) use a firearm to defend yourself (or others) - and still use the AD.

We are all in agreement here I'm sure.
This measure is bullpuckey.

 

[Jay Walk]

no one but if you use them to defend yourself or get stopped in traffic stop and they see them sitting on back seat, etc etc. there's lots of normal every day stuff that could cause you to encounter police and risk them seeing them.

I caution against laying magazines on a seat where someone/anyone can see them.
Probably best to not pick up little Johnny from school property on the way to the range either.

That's just me but hey, you can always get out of trouble by flashing a picture.

 

[Member 53328]

How about we just live our lives……. The exact same way we were years before this. It's really not that hard.

 

[arakboss]

How about we just live our lives……. The exact same way we were years before this. It's really not that hard.

I wonder if FFLs will follow this advice?

 

[Member 53328]

I wonder if FFLs will follow this advice?

Legally they can't. I would never expect them too. They have all the risk. They have a livelihood too.

But we as individuals can all choose what we do. What we follow. I'd never expect an FFL in state to sell 11+ mags. But I also wouldn't look down on someone for jumping over to Idaho or Montana to grab some plastic.

 

[arakboss]

I've never understood the dated newspaper thing. What's to stop me from taking a picture with one marked 11/15/22 on 3/24/24?

I agree. It might work for somebody claiming to come from the future

 

[arakboss]

Take your mags to a local engraver and get them engraved with either a SN you create (maybe match it to their respective firearms and add another number at the end if you have multiple mags for it) or a symbol of your choice. Get a receipt that has date and description of work done.
Keep a copy of the receipt with the gun/mags and another in your safe. Kind of like NFA items.

That should do the trick but the cost..

 

[Xaevian]

That should do the trick but the cost..

Overeager, over compliance should be expensive...

 

[Olderguy]

Someone said this bill is poorly written, I hope so, I'm not an attorney but except for the line hunting and other recreational activities the rest, unfortunately, seems to have been pretty well researched, which really bothers me.