Oregon Measure 114 January 3rd 2023

[3MTA3]

Actually--the 72 hr release is Federal. Oregon's law ORS 166.412 (3)(B)(c). One day:


"If the department fails to provide a unique approval number to a gun dealer or to notify the gun dealer that the purchaser is disqualified under paragraph (a) of this subsection before the close of the gun dealer's next business day following the request by the gun dealer for a criminal history record check, the gun dealer may deliver the firearm to the purchaser."

I don't think the thing that will trip them up is the number of days, but the fact that under 114 there is no limit making it effectively forever and thus a selective ban by caveat.

 

[Member 38805]

Actually--the 72 hr release is Federal. Oregon's law ORS 166.412 (3)(B)(c). One day:


"If the department fails to provide a unique approval number to a gun dealer or to notify the gun dealer that the purchaser is disqualified under paragraph (a) of this subsection before the close of the gun dealer's next business day following the request by the gun dealer for a criminal history record check, the gun dealer may deliver the firearm to the purchaser."

But since Federal law is 72 hrs. the state law doesn't matter. FFL dealers operate under Federal law, so they wont observe a shorter state deadline. But most FFL holders wouldn't adhere to the 72 hr. law either as they feared losing their license, which was total BS on their parts, or ignorance of the laws they sell under.

 

[arakboss]

Where will the Judge's decision be first reported?

 

[BillM]

But since Federal law is 72 hrs. the state law doesn't matter. FFL dealers operate under Federal law, so they wont observe a shorter state deadline. But most FFL holders wouldn't adhere to the 72 hr. law either as they feared losing their license, which was total BS on their parts, or ignorance of the laws they sell under.

State law can be less restrictive that Federal Law (Legal marijuana etc.) State law can not be more restrictive than Federal.(Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution). That's the way it is supposed to work--and by those standards eliminating the 72 hr provision witt a stricter state law should not be allowed. States crap all over the Supremacy Clause--maybe that needs to stop?

 

[arakboss]

State law can be less restrictive that Federal Law (Legal marijuana etc.) State law can not be more restrictive than Federal.(Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution). That's the way it is supposed to work--and by those standards eliminating the 72 hr provision witt a stricter state law should not be allowed. States crap all over the Supremacy Clause--maybe that needs to stop?

I thought it was the other way around?

 

[nammac]

That's not correct. When the state wanted to eliminate private sales at gun shows with background checks the deal worked out with the legislature was to institute the instant check system, and part of that said if they did and checks weren't completed within 72 hrs. the gun purchase could be completed.
And at the same time this bill also included another rule many people are unaware of that allowed private parties at gun shows to do a call in background check. So if two people wanted to do a sale one could call the state police, give them the buyer's info and a credit card number, and complete the transaction just like a dealer could.
I've used this method since the whole law was passed back in 2015.
The instant check, and 72 hr. rule became law in Oregon in 2000 long after the Brady bill was passed.

See post #59, Oregon is actually one day…

 

[Robert Hood]

Been Searching to see if there is any news in regards to the ruling expected today.
Was there a time that it was expected by today?

 

[solv3nt]

Been Searching to see if there is any news in regards to the ruling expected today.
Was there a time that it was expected by today?

EOD. Patience young Padawan.

 

[arakboss]

Been Searching to see if there is any news in regards to the ruling expected today.
Was there a time that it was expected by today?

By 5pm today. I have been looking too but nothing yet. I was worried that he might wait until the last minute if it's bad news but who knows.

 

[erikjill]

I'm waiting to commit to a purchase on Gunbroker pending the outcome of today's ruling. I don't want to put $1,500 on something unless I know when I'll receive it. I just hope someone else doesn't buy it in the meantime. I just keep checking this thread since I'm sure it will be reported here before almost anywhere else.

 

[solv3nt]

I'm waiting to commit to a purchase on Gunbroker pending the outcome of today's ruling. I don't want to put $1,500 on something unless I know when I'll receive it. I just hope someone else doesn't buy it in the meantime. I just keep checking this thread since I'm sure it will be reported here before almost anywhere else.

Don't worry, someone will create a new thread.

 

[arakboss]

I'm waiting to commit to a purchase on Gunbroker pending the outcome of today's ruling. I don't want to put $1,500 on something unless I know when I'll receive it. I just hope someone else doesn't buy it in the meantime. I just keep checking this thread since I'm sure it will be reported here before almost anywhere else.

I am in a simliar boat but with local deal.

 

[Yarome]

I'm waiting to commit to a purchase on Gunbroker pending the outcome of today's ruling. I don't want to put $1,500 on something unless I know when I'll receive it. I just hope someone else doesn't buy it in the meantime. I just keep checking this thread since I'm sure it will be reported here before almost anywhere else.

Even if the 3day safeguard get's shut down... it's not as if it halts all BGC's and there is still always the possibility of an instant or evan a call in approval if you can talk your FFL into it.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I don't see how the State can prevail on the 3 day rule, IT"S FED LAW, and the state cannot preempt FED laws with it's own state laws, it's covered by both Preemption and Supremacy! For Judge Racieo to find for the state here, would be highly unlikely, especially with how he has ruled thus far!

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I don't see how the State can prevail on the 3 day rule, IT"S FED LAW, and the state cannot preempt FED laws with it's own state laws, it's covered by both Preemption and Supremacy! For Judge Racieo to find for the state here, would be highly unlikely, especially with how he has ruled thus far!

Lots of states have a "Waiting" period of longer than three days.

 

[Robert Hood]

I beleive it's; The Fed set the minimum, and states can be stricter. Buuuut, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[PiratePast40]

I don't see how the State can prevail on the 3 day rule, IT"S FED LAW, and the state cannot preempt FED laws with it's own state laws, it's covered by both Preemption and Supremacy! For Judge Racieo to find for the state here, would be highly unlikely, especially with how he has ruled thus far!

The judge was specific about this case being about the Oregon constitution and laws, not federal. He even mentioned that Bruen had no bearing on this particular lawsuit.

 

[kmk1012]

Where will the Judge's decision be first reported?

My money is here on NWFA! That's where I tend to get info about these things. Been watching for a bit today.

 

[Yarome]

The judge was specific about this case being about the Oregon constitution and laws, not federal. He even mentioned that Bruen had no bearing on this particular lawsuit.

Kinda sorta. Bruen has no bearing on "some" of the elements of the various 114 hearings. Namely, those that are not being argued on a constitutional basis... (IE., the 3day safeguard)... however, any 2A related suit... state or federal... is still bound by the SCOTUS strict scrutiny law (Bruen).

Saint Raschio used Bruen as a basis for scrutiny under Oregon constitutional law on the mag ban injunction.

 

[3MTA3]

Don't worry, someone will create a new thread.

Has anybody created a thread with links to all the 114 threads yet?