Measure 114 another win in the books

[peteNW503]

Oregon Supreme Court upholds order blocking new voter-approved gun laws - OPB

I love to see common sense prevail! We aren't out of the woods but this is the second time they have been denied! I think the courts understand that you cannot undermine a judge just because you do not agree with the ruling. The whole bill was unconstitutional. I really hope they just throw it out completely! The fact that this is the second denial speaks volumes! It is up to them to prove the constitutionality of this bill they want passes so bad. Otherwise seems like the state knows where they stand in regards to this bill.

Read More

 

[titsonritz]

Wow, I am completely shocked. I would have lost money had I bet on it.

BTW, this belongs here...
https://www.northwestfirearms.com/t...court-to-overturn-judge-raschio.437645/page-3

 

[Longwalkhome]

I believe they know this law would never hold up in the highest courts. The law should not have made the ballot for a number of reasons plus they didn't have any system set up to make 114 work.

State sees a big cash cow in having more beuacrats and programs so of course they want 114 to go through. Plus it would destroy the gun trade which has been a goal of the commies forever.

Waiting for the fat lady to sing before another song is started by the commies.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Oregon Supreme Court upholds order blocking new voter-approved gun laws - OPB

I love to see common sense prevail! We aren't out of the woods but this is the second time they have been denied! I think the courts understand that you cannot undermine a judge just because you do not agree with the ruling. The whole bill was unconstitutional. I really hope they just throw it out completely! The fact that this is the second denial speaks volumes! It is up to them to prove the constitutionality of this bill they want passes so bad. Otherwise seems like the state knows where they stand in regards to this bill.

I don't think they are "ruling" on the constitutionality of the law here or anything along those lines. Looks like they are saying it is too early for the OR Supreme Court to wade in. And they are correct about that.

SCOTUS does the same thing. They like to rule after all the facts are in, not while the trial is going on. The lower court gathers all the facts and makes a ruling, then it can be appealed to a higher court to review. If higher court steps in way early it undermines the lower court and the process as they haven't even heard all the facts or made a ruling.

It is a positive thing for sure but I wouldn't read much into it about the OR Supreme Court in terms of the merits of the case, constitutionality, etc. Only that it is inappropriate for them to step in so early on in the case. That's how I read it from that article anyway (I didn't read OR Supreme Court docs, only the article).

 

[ilikegunspdx]

@Moderators we have three threads on the same thing. Can this please be merged into:

https://www.northwestfirearms.com/t...-decision-to-end-the-tro-due-tomorrow.440250/

 

[peteNW503]

I don't think they are "ruling" on the constitutionality of the law here or anything along those lines. Looks like they are saying it is too early for the OR Supreme Court to wade in. And they are correct about that.

SCOTUS does the same thing. They like to rule after all the facts are in, not while the trial is going on. The lower court gathers all the facts and makes a ruling, then it can be appealed to a higher court to review. If higher court steps in way early it undermines the lower court and the process as they haven't even heard all the facts or made a ruling.

It is a positive thing for sure but I wouldn't read much into it about the OR Supreme Court in terms of the merits of the case, constitutionality, etc. Only that it is inappropriate for them to step in so early on in the case. That's how I read it from that article anyway (I didn't read OR Supreme Court docs, only the article).

I understand I am just talking big picture. Before it seemed like it was up to us to get the courts to understand our perspective. Now it seems like the court is doing what it should have done in the first place! The burden should be on the people who drafted this bill to prove that it is indeed constitutional. The fact that the OSC denied them for a second time shows they aren't just going to strip us of our rights unless the people who drafted it can given reason enough to and so far not looking good for them. We can always get screwed right at the end " cough cough measure 114" but it gives me a little hope.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Fyi here is the text from the ruling from one of the other threads. Note that The only thing they are saying is they will not weigh in on this time. They are saying nothing about the case, pro or con:

 

[arakboss]

The big picture for me is that I have more time to pick up magazines for all the panic firearm purchases I have made. I am going to have to revise my debt payoff goal date out a few months

 

[dancinghippos]

The big picture for me is that I have more time to pick up magazines for all the panic firearm purchases I have made. I am going to have to revise my debt payoff goal date out a few months

Please remember to patronize the gun shops who went the extra mile when it counted last year. The shops who said "The three day limit has passed and your check isn't even close" versus "All sales are final. If your check isn't done in time we will keep the money and the hardware until you get the permit "

 

[MichaelH]

I wouldn't read too much into the Supreme's denial of a pre-judgment appeal seeking to overturn a trial court's injunction during pending litigation. Before the OR Supremes strike or uphold the law, they really need a full trial court record.