Oregon Measure 114 January 3rd 2023

[arakboss]

One more day. Anybody here think the judge will let three day rule ban go into effect?

I am fairly confident that he will allow three day releases to continue.

OSP has been bringing the queue numbers down but I think that is mostly due to gun sales dropping.

 

[nammac]

One more day. Anybody here think the judge will let three day rule ban go into effect?

I am fairly confident that he will allow three day releases to continue.

OSP has been bringing the queue numbers down but I think that is mostly due to gun sales dropping.

I do believe the 3 day rule will be upheld, if the letter of the law is followed.

As for slumping gun sales, I can attest that the crowd at Sportsman's on 185th has gone from a deluge to a light drizzle the last few times I've been in there…

 

[arakboss]

I do believe the 3 day rule will be upheld, if the letter of the law is followed.

As for slumping gun sales, I can attest that the crowd at Sportsman's on 185th has gone from a deluge to a light drizzle the last few times I've been in there…

Sales might pick up a bit if three day releases are allowed to continue but I think a lot of buyers are starting to realize the economy is going to be in for a rough ride this year.

 

[Yarome]

I do believe the 3 day rule will be upheld, if the letter of the law is followed.

As for slumping gun sales, I can attest that the crowd at Sportsman's on 185th has gone from a deluge to a light drizzle the last few times I've been in there…

By "upheld"... you mean the injunction upheld/continued, right?

I agree. With the current language in the provisions I don't see how it's severable from the permit portions.

 

[frankenmint]

my ffl says it's stayed till march. I was there on Friday and have stuff still in bound that I havent bgc for yet, so I believe them.

 

[arakboss]

my ffl says it's stayed till march. I was there on Friday and have stuff still in bound that I havent bgc for yet, so I believe them.

I know the permit to purchase portion has been put off until March but the State wanted the judge to ban the three day releases earlier. The judge should be giving us his decision on that by 5pm tomorrow.

 

[frankenmint]

I know the permit to purchase portion has been put off until March but the State wanted the judge to ban the three day releases earlier. The judge should be giving us his decision on that by 5pm tomorrow.

alright. Well, my ffl had instructed me that they would be contacting me in about 10 days (on Friday). I had brought up, 'dont i only have till the 3rd of jan' and that's when I was told about not worrying about it till march

 

[SonicBlue03]

Part of the reason purchases are drying up is inventory and dealers not transferring from out of state. 114 is forcing the market to dry up which was part of the point.

 

[Yarome]

my ffl says it's stayed till march. I was there on Friday and have stuff still in bound that I havent bgc for yet, so I believe them.

He's misinformed. Everything is on an indefinate stay with no deadline. Jan 3rd being the only exception to hear if the injuction on the 3day rule will be lifted or not.

It seems many people are confusing the federal judges orders with judge Raschio's. His is the only one that matters.

 

[Member 38805]

The 72 hr. release was put into effect many years ago when the state initiated the instant check NICS background check. It was a deal made in Oregon where pro gunners agreed to not fight the background check initiative as long as the state agreed they'd release any firearms sale if the check took longer than 72 hrs.
It's a Oregon law, and I see nothing that would change that law as long as measure 114 is still in limbo? So not sure why a judge would be ruling on that until a ruling is made that lets 114 begin?

 

[Yarome]

The 72 hr. release was put into effect many years ago when the state initiated the instant check NICS background check. It was a deal made in Oregon where pro gunners agreed to not fight the background check initiative as long as the state agreed they'd release any firearms sale if the check took longer than 72 hrs.
It's a Oregon law, and I see nothing that would change that law as long as measure 114 is still in limbo? So not sure why a judge would be ruling on that until a ruling is made that lets 114 begin?

114 covers multiple issues. One being a provision that the 3day law would be abolished. It was written into the provisions of the purchase permit, but the state is trying to argue that it is seperable from the permit requirement and may be enacted on it's own... even if any other part of 114 is ruled unconstitutional.

That was one of the points in 114... that any portion of it struck down does not strike down all of it.

The big question at the moment is first the constitutionality of it and if it is even seperable or not from the purchase permit... since in the language... it is built in as a component of the permit provisions. The severability of the 3day from the permit process is likely our best defense (meaning.. it's not severable). At least, that's the tack that the judge decided he wanted to take with the arguments.

The state is arguing that portions of the sentence of those provisions can be ingnored while the other half of the sentence can be enacted. I doubt the judge is going to agree with that.

Without a full rewrite of those provisions it is currently too intertwined as a provision of the permit issue and is likely to be determined it's "all or nothing" as a joint issue.

 

[GrayGoose]

114 covers multiple issues.

And that is why the whole bill should be thrown out as null and void, before we even argue the constitutionality of each of the issues. The Secretary of State should know better, so should the AG, but they let their liberal twisted minds get in the way of doing their job that they took an oath to do. They hate guns. They hate law-abiding gun owners. And that's all they care about.

 

[PiratePast40]

114 covers multiple issues. One being a provision that the 3day law would be abolished. It was written into the provisions of the purchase permit, but the state is trying to argue that it is seperable from the permit requirement and may be enacted on it's own... even if any other part of 114 is ruled unconstitutional.

That was one of the points in 114... that any portion of it struck down does not strike down all of it.

The big question at the moment is first the constitutionality of it and if it is even seperable or not from the purchase permit... since in the language... it is built in as a component of the permit provisions. The severability of the 3day from the permit process is likely our best defense (meaning.. it's not severable). At least, that's the tack that the judge decided he wanted to take with the arguments.

The state is arguing that portions of the sentence of those provisions can be ingnored while the other half of the sentence can be enacted. I doubt the judge is going to agree with that.

Without a full rewrite of those provisions it is currently too intertwined as a provision of the permit issue and is likely to be determined it's "all or nothing" as a joint issue.

I was under the impression that severability is only part of the issue. I believe that, just as important, is the issue of indefinite/unreasonable delay as proven by the current backlog. I thought the judge could issue the TRO based on either. There was discussion of rewriting the measure from the bench, but I'm not sure which specific point that discussion was about. Possibly severing the waiting period from the permit? Not a legal type and get confused easily, so don't hesitate to speak up if I'm wrong about that.

 

[Yarome]

... the issue of indefinite/unreasonable delay as proven by the current backlog.

The point the judge made regarding that is likely why the severability issue is our best hope.

Since there is no time limit placed on when the state must complete a BGC there is no way to determine what constitutes an "unreasonble delay". He made it clear that he can only rule on the law as it is written and not on how it is implemented in practice.... even if the state is in fact slowing walking BGC's... "in practice".

IE., If it said BGC's must be completed in 30 days, and it's taking longer than that... then that would be an "unreasonable delay".

Since it doesn't.... we're kinda screwed. Or at least within the scope of that specific hearing.

 

[Yarome]

There was discussion of rewriting the measure from the bench, but I'm not sure which specific point that discussion was about.

That was about the 3day and an argument of the state, but the judge didn't seem to think too kindly to that and outside of the scope of the hearing... as presented.

I highly doubt a judge is even allowed to rewite law like that from the bench, but I believe what they meant by it was for the judge to exclude certain portions of the sentences that pertaine to the permit and just keep the portions that pertained to the 3day. Basically the same thing and the judge didn't appear to be going for either.

I dunno how that would or could even work though. It may be within his authority and might be what he ends up doing(??) I really don't know. To me it sounded like desperation and throwing out nonesense just to try and push their agenda... since nothing else has been working(??)

 

[The Heretic]

That was my initial thought. But unless you are going to extend the permit to purchase for another 30 days or indefinitely would the 3 day rule really matter? If they are going to put people who are in the que on a freeze and not release their firearms. It basically voids the 3 day rule once the permit to purchase goes into effect. So the only reason I can think why they want that blocked the 3 day rule is if they are going to extend the permit. As of right now what is the date that the permit to purchase is suppose to take effect?

Yup - if the permit system isn't going to be decided on and/or in place for some months, then the 3 day rule should be allowed to stand as is until then. If the state/antis don't like that, then they shouldn't have put it in the bill with the permit system.

 

[Yarome]

Yup - if the permit system isn't going to be decided on and/or in place for some months, then the 3 day rule should be allowed to stand as is until then. If the state/antis don't like that, then they shouldn't have put it in the bill with the permit system.

They really are seperate issues though. Its their own fault for incorporating it so closely into the permit provisions, but in reality... one has no direct link to the other.

The permit process being pre purchase and permission just to start the BGC process (a BGC to start a BGC), and the 3 day allowing the state to slow walk actual purchase BGC's to their hearts content. Basically sand bagging us on both sides of the transaction.

Even if the permit portion stands, the 3day shouldn't be a part of it and a completely seperate issue removing any safeguard against the woke agenda.

 

[nammac]

The 72 hr. release was put into effect many years ago when the state initiated the instant check NICS background check. It was a deal made in Oregon where pro gunners agreed to not fight the background check initiative as long as the state agreed they'd release any firearms sale if the check took longer than 72 hrs.
It's an Oregon law, and I see nothing that would change that law as long as measure 114 is still in limbo? So not sure why a judge would be ruling on that until a ruling is made that lets 114 begin?

Actually the 3 day release was built into the Brady Bill which was signed into Federal Law in November 1993 by Slick Willie….

 

[Jade Falcon]

We're all frustrated with the slow pace of things right now. You can check the different facebook feeds for FPC and GGWG Oregon if you need something to occupy your time. The judge said he will make his decision on the waiting period on or before the 3rd so we just have to wait. There is no doubt in my mind there will be at least one, if not three new threads once a decision drops so they'll be plenty of flares in the sky.

I wouldn't take GGWG Oregon seriously about anything. They seem too concerned with posting memes, false information, and grossly exaggerated claims about M114 than they are about actually posting valuable information that's verified and true. And if you try and point something out on there, you'll get some chest-thumping a-hole with an attitude who continues to peddle false information. Like needing a permit for each gun you buy, which is utterly false, and why people continue to believe this falsehood is beyond me.

So as you can see, I'm not a fan of the page. But to each his own.

 

[Droo]

We should know by 5pm Tuesday whether the Judge is going to allow three day rule releases to continue. I have both fingers crossed.

You and I both my friend. I might have to go pick up a new piece if he does allow it to continue.