Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[JuglansRegia]

Alan Gottlieb from the Second Amendment Foundation was on the radio today talking about this very subject.

He stated that they have a lawsuit and plaintiffs ready for when it's go-time. He confirmed that the suit will be filed in Federal Court and they will ask for an injunction right from the start to put the measure on hold while the legal wrangling goes on.

-E-

this, an ex party injunction needs to be filed to put the law on hold until it gets sorted out in court, that is what needs to happen when you put an unconstitutional law on the books. I remember when CA passed a ballot measure banning gay marriages, they got a judge to strike it down before it even went into effect. So with the right judge this "could" and "should" happen quickly but judges make some weird rulings so who knows. In the mean time, magazines are available nationwide and cheap plus with veterans day coming up, there should be some good sales out there.

 

[MM6973]

I'm starting this thread in the hopes we can keep some information easier to find. One someone has VERIFIABLE information that any group is starting litigation, please post the information here. There will be plenty of rumors so be careful of your sources.

@Joe Link can we get this one pinned?

OFF should have legitimate information out within a week.

Be aware that some organizations are working on how to bend the knee to show compliance and not really doing anything to help the cause.

This is my first post. Being in the business, this measure obviously concerns me. One thing I have not seen mentioned is the fact that in the section discussing what would be considered "affirmative defense" for possession of illegal magazines, ORS 166.055 is referenced. That statute does not exist???

 

[Longwalkhome]

Folks should know who the outside money comes from that supports 114.

Report: Oregon Gun Control Ballot Measure Bankrolled by Out-of-State Money

A report from Bearing Arms indicates Oregon's Ballot Measure 114--a measure requiring a paid permit to purchase a gun--is being bankrolled by out-of-state donors.

www.breitbart.com

 

[PiratePast40]

This is my first post. Being in the business, this measure obviously concerns me. One thing I have not seen mentioned is the fact that in the section discussing what would be considered "affirmative defense" for possession of illegal magazines, ORS 166.055 is referenced. That statute does not exist???

Welcome to the forum.

My understanding of affirmative defense means that you would be required to prove your innocence. The example I heard was that homicide is a crime, but you have an opportunity to explain that you did it in self defense, or for another reason. In other words, the possession of the magazines is a crime but you would have an opportunity to defend your actions and prove how it was not a crime for you to possess them, i.e., you are guilty until you can prove that you are innocent.

 

[MM6973]

Welcome to the forum.

My understanding of affirmative defense means that you would be required to prove your innocence. The example I heard was that homicide is a crime, but you have an opportunity to explain that you did it in self defense, or for another reason. In other words, the possession of the magazines is a crime but you would have an opportunity to defend your actions and prove how it was not a crime for you to possess them, i.e., you are guilty until you can prove that you are innocent.

Understood and you are correct. However, that does not explain how one can comply with a statute that does not exist.

 

[PiratePast40]

Understood and you are correct. However, that does not explain how one can comply with a statute that does not exist.

They really don't care if it's legal or if compliance is possible, hence the final clause in the measure:

SECTION 12. If any provision of this 2022 Act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. The people hereby declare that they would have adopted this Chapter, notwithstanding the unconstitutionality, invalidity and ineffectiveness of any one of its articles, sections, subsections, sentences or clauses.

 

[MM6973]

They really don't care if it's legal or if compliance is possible, hence the final clause in the measure:

SECTION 12. If any provision of this 2022 Act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. The people hereby declare that they would have adopted this Chapter, notwithstanding the unconstitutionality, invalidity and ineffectiveness of any one of its articles, sections, subsections, sentences or clauses.

That's a valid point. I don't know if it is more disturbing to think that the majority of the proponents of this measure actually read and understood it and supported it anyway or that they just supported it out of ignorance. Either way, disturbing.

 

[Ben B.]

I seriously doubt more than a very small fractional minority of supporters read that bill.

Consideration appears to have gone no farther than a mentally-impaired level of: "Guns bad, no one should have them, vote yes on 114, it will stop school shootings."

 

[GrayGoose]

I seriously doubt more than a very small fractional minority of supporters read that bill.

Consideration appears to have gone no farther than a mentally-impaired level of: "Guns bad, no one should have them, vote yes on 114, it will stop school shootings."

They didn't read it. They only heard from KATU and others that "114 would require background checks on all gun purchases", mentioning nothing else, and the sheeple masses fell for it.

 

[Jay Walk]

And when you tell them that 114 does not apply to those who choose to kill the answer is
Oh well.

 

[leverite]

Anyone care to conjecture about how an overturning of the CA mag limit would affect the WA and the mag limit section of 114?

 

[tjwong]

What I would like to know is. Were all the so called signatures validated? And who here has actually seen these so call signature gatherers? I am no hermit, I get around yet I have NEVER and I mean NEVER seen any signature gatherers at any mall, safeways, Freddies or elsewhere. Where did these bubblegum hats gather over 175k signatures? That what I want to know. Because no one I know seen anyone out there gathering signatures to get 114 on this ballot? And once sent to the SOS office I would like to know how they were actually validated? Lets say there was a lot of fraud involved in the gathering process, what happens? How does it get investigated? I know I am just grasping at straws here. I just can't believe people was so stupid as to vote this POS 114 into law!!

 

[Librarian]

Anyone care to conjecture about how an overturning of the CA mag limit would affect the WA and the mag limit section of 114?

Eventually, resolving Duncan in favor of dropping magazine restrictions would be helpful.

But each law will have to be challenged in Federal court, and run through the trial, appeal, en banc, and possibly Supreme Court path, and that will take around 5 years each, Unless A Miracle Occurs.

See post 3 in this thread.

 

[leverite]

Eventually, resolving Duncan in favor of dropping magazine restrictions would be helpful.

But each law will have to be challenged in Federal court, and run through the trial, appeal, en banc, and possibly Supreme Court path, and that will take around 5 years each, Unless A Miracle Occurs.

See post 3 in this thread.

I have heard in the past that a decision on one case would immediately bind the entire federal district.
Is that incorrect?

 

[Librarian]

I have heard in the past that a decision on one case would immediately bind the entire federal district.
Is that incorrect?

OR and WA will contest that - no going quietly by the Authoritarians - so each law will need its own lawsuit, and each defendant will strenuously attempt to distinguish their law from the CA law.

 

[Ura-Ki]

OR and WA will contest that - no going quietly by the Authoritarians - so each law will need its own lawsuit, and each defendant will strenuously attempt to distinguish their law from the CA law.

This all comes down to the Judges assigned to each case and how they view both the 2nd AND, the 9th circuit courts actions and tactics! You get the right judge that will have NONE of the lefts shenanigan's, things will move through quickly, the wrong judge, and we got a hell of a fight on our hands!

With the most recent SCOTUS Smack Down on the 9th, basically having 4 big cases Granted, Vacated, and Remanded back down to them, they would be very wise to not antagonize SCOTUS any further then they already have! This series of cases will ether force the 9th to act in good faith under Bruen, or it will certainly incur the wrath of SCOTUS!

 

[SonicBlue03]

This all comes down to the Judges assigned to each case and how they view both the 2nd AND, the 9th circuit courts actions and tactics! You get the right judge that will have NONE of the lefts shenanigan's, things will move through quickly, the wrong judge, and we got a hell of a fight on our hands!

With the most recent SCOTUS Smack Down on the 9th, basically having 4 big cases Granted, Vacated, and Remanded back down to them, they would be very wise to not antagonize SCOTUS any further then they already have! This series of cases will ether force the 9th to act in good faith under Bruen, or it will certainly incur the wrath of SCOTUS!

This is true. Buddy of mine is a pro 2A attorney in Spokane (he's mainly a divorce attorney but he's wanting to pivot more to Constitutional cases since he's fallen in love with shooting the past year) described it this way:
"SCOTUS has laid out what the lower courts need to do. And if they thumb their nose at SCOTUS like they have tried to, daddy's gonna get the paddle out."

 

[The Dude-Uh]

What I would like to know is. Were all the so called signatures validated? And who here has actually seen these so call signature gatherers? I am no hermit, I get around yet I have NEVER and I mean NEVER seen any signature gatherers at any mall, safeways, Freddies or elsewhere. Where did these bubblegum hats gather over 175k signatures? That what I want to know. Because no one I know seen anyone out there gathering signatures to get 114 on this ballot? And once sent to the SOS office I would like to know how they were actually validated? Lets say there was a lot of fraud involved in the gathering process, what happens? How does it get investigated? I know I am just grasping at straws here. I just can't believe people was so stupid as to vote this POS 114 into law!!

Portland is where they got the signatures. We had a signature gatherer shove a petition in our face at laurelhurst park on the 4th of July and just say "will you sign a petition for gun safety?"

He was surprised when I started to grill him with questions about ip17 (which became 114) and it was abundantly clear he never even read the ballot measure he was gathering signatures for. I'm sure most people voting for it didn't actually understand what they were voting for. They just heard gun safety and voted yes.

Ironically the same people that voted yes to 114 giving police authority over who can and cannot purchase a firearm were downtown protesting to defund the police a year earlier.

 

[Stomper]

Portland is where they got the signatures. We had a signature gatherer shove a petition in our face at laurelhurst park on the 4th of July and just say "will you sign a petition for gun safety?"

He was surprised when I started to grill him with questions about ip17 (which became 114) and it was abundantly clear he never even read the ballot measure he was gathering signatures for. I'm sure most people voting for it didn't actually understand what they were voting for. They just heard gun safety and voted yes.

Ironically the same people that voted yes to 114 giving police authority over who can and cannot purchase a firearm were downtown protesting to defund the police a year earlier.

That's because their "ideology" is a mental disorder…..

 

[tjwong]

Portland is where they got the signatures. We had a signature gatherer shove a petition in our face at laurelhurst park on the 4th of July and just say "will you sign a petition for gun safety?"

He was surprised when I started to grill him with questions about ip17 (which became 114) and it was abundantly clear he never even read the ballot measure he was gathering signatures for. I'm sure most people voting for it didn't actually understand what they were voting for. They just heard gun safety and voted yes.

Ironically the same people that voted yes to 114 giving police authority over who can and cannot purchase a firearm were downtown protesting to defund the police a year earlier.

I would still like to know how those signatures were validated and if indeed they were all valid. I understand PDX is likely where they got the signatures and Laurelhurst is just on spot. Surely 170k plus signatures didn't happen from there. Like I said, I never saw anyone doing this, and it would take a lot of effort to garner that many signatures.