Messages
536
Reactions
608
Assisted suicide…
State funding abortions for out of staters (including travel)…
And let’s not forget the legalization of drugs, not just pot…

Oh yea and additional taxes placed on anyone living in the Portland Metro zone…
I need to add "garbage/trash alongside all freeways". At least in the metro area, this place is trashy, literally. Embarrassing when people visit they see garbage (and graffiti) everywhere.
 
Messages
19,494
Reactions
74,351
Wow, Harney County of all places, but we'll take it anyway! Looks like we have a State Judge who can read and understand the Laws and the Latest SCOTUS rulings, and apply them as commanded, so it will be fun to watch Judge Immergut and the Oregon Supremes dance around this Judges Ruling!
 
Messages
2,861
Reactions
6,078
1670363746693.png
 
Messages
7,003
Reactions
14,414
Wow, Harney County of all places, but we'll take it anyway! Looks like we have a State Judge who can read and understand the Laws and the Latest SCOTUS rulings, and apply them as commanded, so it will be fun to watch Judge Immergut and the Oregon Supremes dance around this Judges Ruling!
Too bad they didn't just the multi point issue based on the federal judges findings that there are multiple points.
 
Messages
600
Reactions
271
From Oregon Open FB page:
Judge Raschio GRANTED a 10 day Temporary Restraining Order on BOTH the magazine ban and the Permit to Purchase requirement. It will last from Dec. 8th - Dec. 18th.
A hearing had been set for next Tuesday (12/13) at 9:00am for Plantiffs' motion for a Preliminary Injunction on the magazine ban and PtP. This is a request for a longer lasting halt to M114 than the TRO. A Preliminary Injunction lasts the duration of a case until a final ruling is made although it could be appealed.
This is from the fifth lawsuit which was filed in Harney County, a State Circuit Court.
A more detailed summary and PDF of the order to come later.
 
Messages
19,494
Reactions
74,351
From Oregon Open FB page:
Judge Raschio GRANTED a 10 day Temporary Restraining Order on BOTH the magazine ban and the Permit to Purchase requirement. It will last from Dec. 8th - Dec. 18th.
A hearing had been set for next Tuesday (12/13) at 9:00am for Plantiffs' motion for a Preliminary Injunction on the magazine ban and PtP. This is a request for a longer lasting halt to M114 than the TRO. A Preliminary Injunction lasts the duration of a case until a final ruling is made although it could be appealed.
This is from the fifth lawsuit which was filed in Harney County, a State Circuit Court.
A more detailed summary and PDF of the order to come later.
Yup, and an appeal automatically kicks it up the flag poll to the 9th, so we get to see if they will FINALLY follow the actual law that SCOTUS Commands!
 
Messages
99
Reactions
127
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.

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.
FPC complaint and motion are better organized and better argued, in my opinion.
 
Messages
4,406
Reactions
10,707
Yup, and an appeal automatically kicks it up the flag poll to the 9th, so we get to see if they will FINALLY follow the actual law that SCOTUS Commands!
No. This is a state case based on the Oregon Constitution and not the 2A, and the AG will appeal to the State Supreme Court. There was a discussion on this in another thread. There are so many threads on 114 and pending lawsuits it's hard to keep track of it all. They are multiplying like rabbits
 
Messages
19,494
Reactions
74,351
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.
A Permit to Purchase is unconstitutnal, requiring the permit BEFORE a firearm can be purchased, it basically blocks a person from legally obtaining a firearm prior to taking a mandated class required as part of that permit process, it's a circle jerk with no payoff if you don't already own a gun! THATS where it will fall!

Outside of that, the bigger question of the constitutnality of a Permit to Purchase, There Is NO Historical Analog supporting that, so it's only a matter of time before that gets shot down in flames, and if 114 gets all the way to the SCOTUS, it will assuredly be struck down!
 
Messages
19,494
Reactions
74,351
No. This is a state case based on the Oregon Constitution and not the 2A, and the AG will appeal to the State Supreme Court. There was a discussion on this in another thread. There are so many threads on 114 and pending lawsuits it's hard to keep track of it all. They are multiplying like rabbits
And what happens once the States Supreme's counter this judge's ruling?
 
Messages
536
Reactions
608
Maybe someone else already said this, but it could be the Federal judge crafted her rulings today, to minimize the potential for either side to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Maybe the mag cap ban will be by the plaintiffs (if this decision is immediately appealable, I don't know), but by kicking the special permit application process to get kicked out 30 days (with the potential for longer depending on what the state later reports to the Court), right now at least with the first two cases she doesn't have to worry about certain aspects of her ruling.
 
Messages
4,406
Reactions
10,707
A Permit to Purchase is unconstitutnal
That is undisputed.
requiring the permit BEFORE a firearm can be purchased, it basically blocks a person from legally obtaining a firearm prior to taking a mandated class required as part of that permit process, it's a circle jerk with no payoff if you don't already own a gun!
As I have stated elsewhere, this is not so. The measure does not prevent a trainer from temporarily transferring a firearm to a trainee for the purposes of training. It does not even require that training be accomplished with a actual firearm, only that certain skills be demonstrated which could be accomplished with facsimili firearms and ammunition and still meet the letter of the law. Will that be allowed? We won't know until the actual policies and procedures are developed by the stakeholders committee.
 
Messages
8,558
Reactions
14,328
That is undisputed.

As I have stated elsewhere, this is not so. The measure does not prevent a trainer from temporarily transferring a firearm to a trainee for the purposes of training. It does not even require that training be accomplished with a actual firearm, only that certain skills be demonstrated which could be accomplished with facsimili firearms and ammunition and still meet the letter of the law. Will that be allowed? We won't know until the actual policies and procedures are developed by the stakeholders committee.
I'm agreeing with you here. Handing a gun to someone in your vicinity to use is not and has never been a transfer. A transfer is a change of ownership.
 

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top