JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Monday hearing, morning break...

The state moved to throw out the CDC range of DGU's (60k-2.2mil). Plaintiff argued that the CDC abandoning/removing the report from their website was political pressure rather than the report being invalid or wholly abandoned. IE., The CDC stats were recently used and accepted as evidence in several 2A related cases. Specifically Duncan v. Bonta.

Plaintiff moved to exclude the Las Vegas event police report. The Judge excluded it.

Offer of proof RE Dr Segal renewed... the Judge stated he already ruled on that, repeated himself that he won't accept that testimony, won't grant an offer of proof and won't reconsider entertaining any further motion on the matter. In addition... he struck the filing for offer of proof from the record. (IOW, "Didn't you hear me the first time? I said NO. Now shut up about it.) 🤣

Survivor witnesses 3 and 4 testimony may or may not be allowed pending plaintiffs review of the 500+ pages and possible objection (TBD). Witnesses 1 and 2, no foundation and denied entry and/or offer of proof.

Mr. Springer and Mr Calloway (plaintiff witnesses) we're recalled for rebuttal to the states witnesses.

Mr. Springer just clarifying some points of the states "firearm expert" that fell more in the plaintiffs favor. Rebutting that his recommendation that a 10mm 9rnd firearm is suitable for SD. Citing overpenetration and recoil many would have difficulty managing with accurate fire. Also establishing that firearm choice may depend greatly on environmental use. IE., An apartment dweller vs. rural farmhouse with no close neighbors.

Mr. Calloway testified about several examples of modifying certain mags to accept more rounds without any tools or additional parts.

The plaintiff and state both rested their cases.
 
Last Edited:
Monday hearing, morning break...

The state moved to throw out the CDC range of DGU's (60k-2.2mil). Plaintiff argued that the CDC abandoning/removing the report from their website was political pressure rather than the report being invalid or wholly abandoned. IE., The CDC stats were recently used and accepted as evidence in several 2A related cases. Specifically Duncan v. Bonta.
Thank you very much for the update. State's motion was denied, correct?
 
Thank you very much for the update. State's motion was denied, correct?
The Judge cited a subsection under... 401(?) which didn't make it entirely clear, but believe it is allowed but under the weight of the information and not allowed as "evidence"(?) He expressed before that the range is too broad to be considered definitive factual information... which I believe he was simply restating what he already said on the matter (previous state objection).

Not being an attorney, the legalese sometimes trips me up. 🤣

He didn't clearly say he was sustaining or overruling the motion.
 
Monday hearing, morning break...

The state moved to throw out the CDC range of DGU's (60k-2.2mil). Plaintiff argued that the CDC abandoning/removing the report from their website was political pressure rather than the report being invalid or wholly abandoned. IE., The CDC stats were recently used and accepted as evidence in several 2A related cases. Specifically Duncan v. Bonta.

Plaintiff moved to exclude the Las Vegas event police report. The Judge excluded it.

Offer of proof RE Dr Segal renewed... the Judge stated he already ruled on that, repeated himself that he won't accept that testimony, won't grant an offer of proof and won't reconsider entertaining any further motion on the matter. In addition... he struck the filing for offer of proof from the record. (IOW, "Didn't you hear me the first time? I said NO. Now shut up about it.) 🤣

Survivor witnesses 3 and 4 testimony may or may not be allowed pending plaintiffs review of the 500+ pages and possible objection (TBD). Witnesses 1 and 2, no foundation and denied entry and/or offer of proof.

Mr. Springer and Mr Calloway (plaintiff witnesses) we're recalled for rebuttal to the states witnesses.

Mr. Springer just clarifying some points of the states "firearm expert" that fell more in the plaintiffs favor. Rebutting that his recommendation that a 10mm 9rnd firearm is suitable for SD. Citing overpenetration and recoil many would have difficulty managing with accurate fire. Also establishing that firearm choice may depend greatly on environmental use. IE., An apartment dweller vs. rural farmhouse with no close neighbors.

Mr. Calloway testified about several examples of modifying certain mags to accept more rounds without any tools or additional parts.

The plaintiff and state both rested their cases.
I had no idea that you could fit 9mm rounds into a 40 cal magazine and have it work in a some 9mm guns.
 
I had no idea that you could fit 9mm rounds into a 40 cal magazine and have it work in a some 9mm guns.
Absolutely. It's a common practice. Most common when using a .40 to 9mm conversion barrel. Load up 9's in your existing 40 mag and they shoot just fine. The .40 and 9mm ejectors are also nearly interchangeable. To note... many of those cheaper lower parts kits include only a 9mm ejector for either caliber.

I don't recommend it for absolute reliable function, but it's pretty common to see if you aren't paying attention to what you're buying.
 
Lunch break. Court to resume at 1:30...

Plaintiff's closing statement is concluded and too much to cover in review. As suspected... the challenge is limited to OR's constitution, article 27 and OR state legal precedence. I think our attorney did an excellent job outlining the 4 steps of proof and well supported with citations and both plaintiff and defense witness testimony.

I can't really think of any main point he didn't cover that I wish he had. He actually brought up some language in 114 and how it could apply that I hadn't really thought about before. IE., Technically speaking... affixing a mag to a firearm expands the capacity +1, or +2 and would be illegal. Much the same as affixing/attaching an extension. (Maybe a stretch, but technically speaking... the point is valid by the plain text)


I'm assuming the state will also conclude their closing statements before days end.... HOWEVER... there are some written arguments still pending. The Judge is allowing the week for responses and won't close out the hearing record until next Monday. IOW, don't expect a real quick turnaround on his final ruling.


** For those not entirely familiar with the OR constitution protections... it is limited to defense of self or others, defense of property, defense of state, and defense against the state.
 
Last Edited:
Lunch break. Court to resume at 1:30...

Plaintiff's closing statement is concluded and too much to cover in review. As suspected... the challenge is limited to OR's constitution, article 27 and OR state legal precedence. I think our attorney did an excellent job outlining the 4 steps of proof and well supported with citations and both plaintiff and defense witness testimony.

I can't really think of any main point he didn't cover that I wish he had. He actually brought up some language in 114 and how it could apply that I hadn't really thought about before. IE., Technically speaking... affixing a mag to a firearm expands the capacity +1, or +2 and would be illegal. Much the same as attaching an extension. (Maybe a stretch, but technically speaking... the point is valid by the plain text)


I'm assuming the state will also conclude their closing statements before days end.... HOWEVER... there are some written arguments still pending. The Judge is allowing the week for responses and won't close out the hearing record until next Monday. IOW, don't expect a real quick turnaround on his final ruling.
I'd be happy with a long, Benitez like decision as long as the injunction against all 114 stays in effect. Keeps it away from a fast appeal.
 

Upcoming Events

ARPC Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR
Central Oregon Sportsmen's show
Redmond, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top