Messages
393
Reactions
854
I read the filing by OFF the day it was filed, then today read the AG’s response to that filing. Then I read the nearly simultaneous filing by FPC. It’s like they already knew how the AG would respond to the filing by OFF. They checked all the boxes. FPC states in social media posts that there is definitely more to come other than just suing over the mag ban. They are likely waiting until after the 8th, which I think is wise. These guys are pros. Just tossed another donation at them. Everyone here should be supporting all current organizations who are taking action.
 
Messages
3,884
Reactions
5,880
I read the filing by OFF the day it was filed, then today read the AG’s response to that filing. Then I read the nearly simultaneous filing by FPC. It’s like they already knew how the AG would respond to the filing by OFF. They checked all the boxes. FPC states in social media posts that there is definitely more to come other than just suing over the mag ban. They are likely waiting until after the 8th, which I think is wise. These guys are pros. Just tossed another donation at them. Everyone here should be supporting all current organizations who are taking action.
Really no secret there. The mag ban is the most obvious constitutional infringement, so the easiest argument for an injunction. Once the injunction is issued, the next step is to unpack everything in the measure during discovery. Not sure why FPC is going down the same path. If OFF is either successful or fails, the FPC filing seems redundant on one hand and already defeated on the other. I would have thought that a different argument would be the path for the second complaint.
 
Messages
34,478
Reactions
118,814
Really no secret there. The mag ban is the most obvious constitutional infringement, so the easiest argument for an injunction. Once the injunction is issued, the next step is to unpack everything in the measure during discovery. Not sure why FPC is going down the same path. If OFF is either successful or fails, the FPC filing seems redundant on one hand and already defeated on the other. I would have thought that a different argument would be the path for the second complaint.
That’s my thoughts as well. What’s to keep the courts from merely combining the suits into one, instead of proceeding with two or three separate cases that address the (more or less) same single issue?
 
Last Edited:
Messages
393
Reactions
854
That my thoughts as well. What’s to keep the courts from merely combining the suits into one, instead of proceeding with two or three separate cases that address the (more or less) same single issue?
If you read the AG’s response to OFF’s request for an injunction (ridiculous as some of her arguments are) it appears she was more than ready for it and addressed a lot of potential legal shortcomings in the filing. The filing by FPC covered all those things.
 
Messages
393
Reactions
854
I don’t think a lot people here have read the AG’s response to the first motion for preliminary injunction filed by OFF. Though she takes an obvious stance from the CA playbook, I can see where she poked some big holes in their filing. This may be what FPC saw coming and therefore filed their own motion that addresses things potentially missed by OFF’s council.


DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
 
Messages
246
Reactions
376
I don’t think a lot people here have read the AG’s response to the first motion for preliminary injunction filed by OFF. Though she takes an obvious stance from the CA playbook, I can see where she poked some big holes in their filing. This may be what FPC saw coming and therefore filed their own motion that addresses things potentially missed by OFF’s council.


DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Just reading through the AG responses and dismissing all of OFF/ plaintiff's first compliants they plan on fighting this all the way. Even going so far as saying DC vs Heller only protected "firearms in common usage, the AR15 was never historically protected by the 2nd amendment"
 
Messages
11,407
Reactions
42,779
Just reading through the AG responses and dismissing all of OFF/ plaintiff's first compliants they plan on fighting this all the way. Even going so far as saying DC vs Heller only protected "firearms in common usage, the AR15 was never historically protected by the 2nd amendment"
The most popular and best selling rifle type in America somehow not in common usage. That's going to stick like water on teflon
 
Messages
3,884
Reactions
5,880
I don’t think a lot people here have read the AG’s response to the first motion for preliminary injunction filed by OFF. Though she takes an obvious stance from the CA playbook, I can see where she poked some big holes in their filing. This may be what FPC saw coming and therefore filed their own motion that addresses things potentially missed by OFF’s council.


DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
How do we obtain these documents when they first come out?
 
Messages
536
Reactions
608
I hope the plaintiffs dig deep and get a lot of good discovery, including pre-November 8 communications/memos/analyses etc. between the OSP, the Governor, and Secretary of State discussing what they really thought of this measure. Don't forget to ask for text messages -- maybe some of the officials tried to keep things off official radar. And I hope defendants don't claim they forgot to save all that stuff.
 
Messages
2,773
Reactions
4,504
I hope the plaintiffs dig deep and get a lot of good discovery, including pre-November 8 communications/memos/analyses etc. between the OSP, the Governor, and Secretary of State discussing what they really thought of this measure. Don't forget to ask for text messages -- maybe some of the officials tried to keep things off official radar. And I hope defendants don't claim they forgot to save all that stuff.
And ALL of the communications between those groups and LEVO. I don't think it's too tinfoil hat to assume a bit of collusion there.
 
Messages
3,884
Reactions
5,880
New information alert from OFF: here:

12.01.2022

save-oregon-300x185.jpg

Tomorrow is the scheduled court date in our lawsuit to stop the implementation of Ballot Measure 114.

A lot has happened in the last 24 hours. Second Amendment Foundation, with Firearms Policy Coalition, has filed a second suit in Federal Court and Gun Owners of America has filed a friend of the court brief in our case.

The SAF suit essentially mirrors all of the arguments and points we made about the impending magazine ban. They do not discuss or argue the permit to purchase .

While it's clear that we consider the magazine ban a significant problem with Ballot Measure 114, we strongly oppose the permit to purchase requirements as well. The amicus brief filed by GOA does a good job of further explaining how that element is both extremely damaging and unconstitutional.

There is really no way to predict what will happen tomorrow and it's unlikely that we will have an answer from the court before next week. And, of course, the clock is ticking on the complete shut down of gun sales on December 8th.

As you know, the current background check system is in near collapse, and while some transfers are taking place, over 30 thousand people are in limbo waiting for approvals (or any response) from the State Police. It is impossible to imagine that any of those people will be able to take possession of the firearms they have paid for if Ballot Measure 114 goes into effect.

The State Police, as you can imagine, have no plans or rules in place to implement the onerous restrictions that 114 imposes on law abiding Oregonians, and sheriffs and police chiefs across the state are faced with the impossible situation of having to provide "permits" that do not exist. Meanwhile tens of thousands of Oregonians have had their rights eliminated BEFORE the measure has gone into effect with no reason to believe there will be any kind of resolution any time soon. So, the outcome of tomorrow's hearing is way beyond critical.

But for right now, we wanted to take a minute to express our gratitude for every single person who has sacrificed and given so generously to this effort. It is an understatement to say that there are simply no words to convey our thanks.

While the suit filed yesterday by Second Amendment Foundation is being funded by large corporate donors such as Patriot Ordinance Factory and Oregon's Radian Arms, we have no such benefactors. Every dime of this extremely costly effort has come from people like you, individuals, small dealers, gun clubs, and local collector's organizations. While we certainly would have welcomed the help of companies like Radian when we were the first to jump into this fight, (and the fight at the ballot box) we will always be in debt to you, the people and small business of this state. (And a few other states.)

We also cannot sufficiently express our thanks to the individual sheriffs who have bravely stepped up to either officially join our suit or express an intention to join.

Sheriffs Brad Lohrey of Sherman County, Cody Bowen of Union County, Brian Wolfe of Malheur County, Gary Bettencourt of Gilliam County, Chris Kaber of Klamath County, Mark Garton of Polk County, and Terry Rowan of Umatilla County have all demonstrated unusual courage and. If you live in one of their counties, you are fortunate to have sheriffs who honor their oaths.

Our legal team has been working on this non-stop and have put aside many other commitments to present the best possible case. Because of the last minute introduction of another lawsuit in the same court, we now face even more unknowns. Of course the minute we know the outcome you will too.

It has always been our policy to respond to donations with formal "thank you's" as quickly as possible. As you can imagine, we are a bit behind on that and appreciate your patience.

But, right here and now we wanted each one of you to know how deeply grateful we are for your support.
 

Upcoming Events

collectors west gun & knife show
Grants Pass, OR
Road Trip: Marysville, WA 98270 to JBLM (tacoma, WA 98433)
Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top