Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[ORN197]

Just another example of the skewed media picking a "learned scholar" by title to push the narrative. I saw more of that interview and the guys not at all well grounded.

Just in that short blurb, he's saying the permit will likely be upheld as constitutional?? In what world does he live in where a subjective "may issue" permit is not considered an unconstituional infringement.... and in no way supported by text and history. Isn't it in his job description to be aware of the SC Bruen decision that smacked down exactly that type of infringement?

Not that it matters what he thinks, anyway, but that sort of lefty cherry picking to support their narrative always pushes my buttons. If the truth doesn't support your position... adjust the truth... not your position.

I don't know the guy interviewed, but I think you're reading way too far into his commentary. What was so "lefty" about the "narrative" was he trying to push, exactly? I thought it was a pretty sober assessment of situation.

Bruen addressed a fairly narrow issue... as you state, a subjective "may issue" permit, to carry concealed. Bruen said little to nothing about the various permit-to-purchase systems which exist in NY, IL and other states, other than affirming that shall-issue systems are generally OK, in the context of concealed carry. Probably not a stretch to think the conservatives on the USSC would apply the same logic to a permit-to-purchase system, but that's not been challenged yet. As the commentator states... could be years before something like that reaches the USSC (if ever).

The commentator said he thinks the "permit to purchase requirements will ultimately be upheld"... he didn't comment on the specific requirements or say anything about it being upheld as it's written right this minute in BM 114. It is very likely that once the OR legislature is done "adjusting" BM-114 into ORS, the permit system will look much more like those that already exist in other states. I suspect it's going to look a lot like (if not get piggy-backed on) the existing CHL system, but that's just a guess on my part.

Look, I personally think "shall not be infringed" requires little further explanation, but we're a long way from that in this country. We have, historically, accepted all sorts of infringements. Just because someone (this lawyer, for instance) offers commentary in-line with that reality doesn't mean they're some leftist shill.

 

[Yarome]

I don't know the guy interviewed, but I think you're reading way too far into his commentary. What was so "lefty" about the "narrative" was he trying to push, exactly? I thought it was a pretty sober assessment of situation.

Bruen addressed a fairly narrow issue... as you state, a subjective "may issue" permit, to carry concealed. Bruen said little to nothing about the various permit-to-purchase systems which exist in NY, IL and other states, other than affirming that shall-issue systems are generally OK, in the context of concealed carry. Probably not a stretch to think the conservatives on the USSC would apply the same logic to a permit-to-purchase system, but that's not been challenged yet. As the commentator states... could be years before something like that reaches the USSC (if ever).

The commentator said he thinks the "permit to purchase requirements will ultimately be upheld"... he didn't comment on the specific requirements or say anything about it being upheld as it's written right this minute in BM 114. It is very likely that once the OR legislature is done "adjusting" BM-114 into ORS, the permit system will look much more like those that already exist in other states. I suspect it's going to look a lot like (if not get piggy-backed on) the existing CHL system, but that's just a guess on my part.

Look, I personally think "shall not be infringed" requires little further explanation, but we're a long way from that in this country. We have, historically, accepted all sorts of infringements. Just because someone (this lawyer, for instance) offers commentary in-line with that reality doesn't mean they're some leftist shill.

It's directly related to the NY CHL case in so much as a right may not be infringed under subjective scrutiny. Yes... purchase permit type systems do exist, but your forgetting that they were instated pre bruen. They have not been challenged yet under the new standard, so to say that they exist so it's likely to be upheld may not be accurate since none have yet been challenged.

Because one uncontitutional law exists does not make another unconstitutiona law somehow constitutional... and not likely to stand under the new standard.

What I meant by the narrative he was pushing is the idea that at least some of 114 is likely to stand those that support it can still feel like they have a "win". Downplaying the unconstituionality of it while... as a supposed scholar on the subject... should know that with the recent SC decision.. the likelihood of it being upheld leans farther the opposite direction.

Not that it won't be upheld by an anti-2A judge willing to thumb their nose at the SC, but following the strict scrutiny standard based on text and history... it has no standing.

 

[E4mafia]

I know this is in CA and applies to CHL's, but I somehow think the same incompetence would play out 1 for 1 in a PTP system.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598041964112670721

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598042238487257091

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598042637751066628

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598043272043429890

 

[The Heretic]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/z94nq3

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.170381/gov.uscourts.ord.170381.15.0.pdf

 

[Librarian]

FPC files against 114

FPC Files Lawsuit Challenging Oregon “Large Capacity” Magazine Ban as Unconstitutional

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Oregon Measure 114’s ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds and requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the ban from being enforced while the case continues.

www.firearmspolicy.org

Fitz v Rosenblum,

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants as follows:
a. Declare that Oregon's ban on possession, use, sale, manufacture, or transfer of magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds violates the right to keep a and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
b. Enjoin Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them from enforcing the provisions of the magazine ban and all related laws, regulations, policies, practices, and
customs that would impede or criminalize the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms;

h/t reddit thread

https://www.reddit.com/r/oregon/comments/z97joa

 

[Librarian]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/z94nq3

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.170381/gov.uscourts.ord.170381.15.0.pdf

I love this bit --

Second, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, has squarely rejected a takings claim asserted against California's large-capacity magazine ban. Duncan, 19 F.4th at 1111–13.47 California's exercise of its police powers, Duncan held, cannot trigger a takings claim.

Why, it's almost as if the reply is ignoring that Duncan went to the Supreme Court, and the en banc opinion is vacated.

 

[SonicBlue03]

If Kevin's attorneys are good, they *should* completely humiliate the state of Oregon on that reply.

 

[Yarome]

If Kevin's attorneys are good, they *should* completely humiliate the state of Oregon on that reply.

No doubt. That guy is so full of it. I don't believe one word of that. "Tacti-cool" has always been in demand, there isn't a company in the world that would ignore public demand if profit could be made and the only reason they were not in common use is simply because they were not available for purchase in quantity.

What a moron.....

Mfg's don't drive demand... the people do. Go back to school buddy!

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I hope that it is not the same attorney who defended Mike Strickland.

 

[PiratePast40]

Anyone else going to the hearing?

 

[Cavedweller]

That guy is so full of it.

In a nut shell.

 

[HDR]

FPC files against 114

FPC Files Lawsuit Challenging Oregon “Large Capacity” Magazine Ban as Unconstitutional

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Oregon Measure 114’s ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds and requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the ban from being enforced while the case continues.

www.firearmspolicy.org

Fitz v Rosenblum,

Excellent post. I was a little disheartened after reading the AG's response to OFF's filing but this is what we need. In Fitz they seem to have hit the mark. They also appear to be waiting on issues beyond magazines until after the 8th, which I think is the proper route. Everyone here needs to read both.

 

[3MTA3]

FPC files against 114

FPC Files Lawsuit Challenging Oregon “Large Capacity” Magazine Ban as Unconstitutional

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Oregon Measure 114’s ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds and requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the ban from being enforced while the case continues.

www.firearmspolicy.org

Fitz v Rosenblum,


h/t reddit thread

https://www.reddit.com/r/oregon/comments/z97joa

FPC moves to the donatable ranks. Sorry, I already knew they are among the good guys, but until an organization acts for us I can't direct funds there that would be better used for Oregon.

 

[Jay Walk]

Tell the "sheep" you're going to pass a law that is already a law, you will gather more votes.

What a crock of sheet.

Oregon's attorney general argued in court papers Wednesday that any court-ordered delay of gun control Measure 114 would result in more unnecessary deaths and forestall steps "to reduce the risk of a massacre" in the state.

The recent voter-approved measure, set to take effect Dec. 8, will ban the sale, transfer or manufacture of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, require a permit to purchase a gun and only allow a gun to be sold or transferred once a criminal background check is completed.

 

[Yarome]

You have to appreciate the devious nature in the reply. Repeatedly stating a purchase permit will be "shall issue", but also includes the following provision:


That's the subjective part that makes it NOT "shall issue", but "may issue". Neaky Astards! "Reasonable grounds" is, of course, undefined without qualifications.

 

[UnderFire]

Tell the "sheep" you're going to pass a law that is already a law, you will gather more votes.

What a crock of sheet.

Oregon's attorney general argued in court papers Wednesday that any court-ordered delay of gun control Measure 114 would result in more unnecessary deaths and forestall steps "to reduce the risk of a massacre" in the state.

The recent voter-approved measure, set to take effect Dec. 8, will ban the sale, transfer or manufacture of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, require a permit to purchase a gun and only allow a gun to be sold or transferred once a criminal background check is completed.

If the language on the ballots did not mention background checks which we already have but is pushed as some kind of new thing, this measure would not have passed. With only a percent difference deciding, I'm fairly certain. It ticked me off when I opened my ballot and saw how that was written.

 

[street]

Then there is this nugget from Firearms Policy Coalition as well:

 

[elija_t]

Another lawsuit against Measure 114! Filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition, joined by the Second Amendment Foundation.

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-...rge-capacity-magazine-ban-as-unconstitutional

"PORTLAND, OR (November 30, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Oregon Measure 114's ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds and requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the ban from being enforced while the case continues....

"Today's filings are proof yet again that when statist idealogues attempt to unilaterally restrict the rights of peaceable people, FPC will step up and fight back," said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. "And the good people of Oregon should keep their eyes peeled for additional FPC responses to the incredibly flawed Ballot Measure 114."...

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation."

Here's hoping the best!

 

[3MTA3]

Another lawsuit against Measure 114! Filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition, joined by the Second Amendment Foundation.

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-...rge-capacity-magazine-ban-as-unconstitutional

"PORTLAND, OR (November 30, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Oregon Measure 114's ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds and requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the ban from being enforced while the case continues....

"Today's filings are proof yet again that when statist idealogues attempt to unilaterally restrict the rights of peaceable people, FPC will step up and fight back," said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. "And the good people of Oregon should keep their eyes peeled for additional FPC responses to the incredibly flawed Ballot Measure 114."...

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation."

Here's hoping the best!

Already donated to FPC on news of this, looks like SAF is due as well.

TIme to break out the debit cards for OFF, FPC and SAF if you wanna walk the walk for those defending our civil rights

 

[Nutty4Guns]

Already donated to FPC on news of this, looks like SAF is due as well.

TIme to break out the debit cards for OFF, FPC and SAF if you wanna walk the walk for those defending our civil rights

Done