Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[The Dude-Uh]

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.

I was Reading that they had 1000+ additional signature gatherers sign up within a few days of Uvalde. I think it was unfortunate timing that the shooting helped bolster their base and push the signature count across the finish line to make the ballot.

 

[arakboss]

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???

It was a typo

 

[Barefootdog]

If anyone hears of a class action lawsuit related to the State of Oregon unlawful taking of personal property or restricting 2A rights let us know.

Whatever I have to do I will sign on.
They made me a criminal with this new law.
Somebody should make these people pay dearly.

Seriously.....it's time to put some heat on the asshats in Salem .

 

[PiratePast40]

Posted this on the main thread but it really belongs here:

Just got off the phone with someone knowledgeable in this area. Some of the issues include standing and jurisdiction, and whether it's best to go federal or state. Other issues include the effect of the SCOTUS decision to remand the California 10 round magazine limit back down to be re-evaluated in lieu of the Bruen decision. Some feel that a negative ruling on 114 may have a effect on 9th circuit decisions made by St. Benitez. There are other questions about which portion of 114 to attack. Perhaps the 10 round limit is the best way, or it may be the constitutional question of means testing to exercise a right. There are other avenues as well, and my point is that these decisions are being discussed against a legal background, sometimes with the main question being what's actually winnable. Fagan's decision to move the effective date to Dec 8th really screwed things up. There's a HUGE difference in 3 weeks vs 7 weeks to prepare documents and arguments. I feel comfortable that competent people from multiple groups are working on our behalf.

 

[Kyrsen]

Posted this on the main thread but it really belongs here:

Just got off the phone with someone knowledgeable in this area. Some of the issues include standing and jurisdiction, and whether it's best to go federal or state. Other issues include the effect of the SCOTUS decision to remand the California 10 round magazine limit back down to be re-evaluated in lieu of the Bruen decision. Some feel that a negative ruling on 114 may have a effect on 9th circuit decisions made by St. Benitez. There are other questions about which portion of 114 to attack. Perhaps the 10 round limit is the best way, or it may be the constitutional question of means testing to exercise a right. There are other avenues as well, and my point is that these decisions are being discussed against a legal background, sometimes with the main question being what's actually winnable. Fagan's decision to move the effective date to Dec 8th really screwed things up. There's a HUGE difference in 3 weeks vs 7 weeks to prepare documents and arguments. I feel comfortable that competent people from multiple groups are working on our behalf.

They have to attack each piece separately so the question is which part first. The final portions of the measure make it severable so if you find one piece unconstitutional, then it is removed but the rest remains. Each piece will have to be attacked til there is nothing left. They anticipated litigation.

 

[156256Hunter]

Posted this on the main thread but it really belongs here:

Just got off the phone with someone knowledgeable in this area. Some of the issues include standing and jurisdiction, and whether it's best to go federal or state. Other issues include the effect of the SCOTUS decision to remand the California 10 round magazine limit back down to be re-evaluated in lieu of the Bruen decision. Some feel that a negative ruling on 114 may have a effect on 9th circuit decisions made by St. Benitez. There are other questions about which portion of 114 to attack. Perhaps the 10 round limit is the best way, or it may be the constitutional question of means testing to exercise a right. There are other avenues as well, and my point is that these decisions are being discussed against a legal background, sometimes with the main question being what's actually winnable. Fagan's decision to move the effective date to Dec 8th really screwed things up. There's a HUGE difference in 3 weeks vs 7 weeks to prepare documents and arguments. I feel comfortable that competent people from multiple groups are working on our behalf.

All sorts of categories of people may have standing just with respect to the 114 effects. Those categories probably include: people who have over 10 rd mags (and/or get cited or whatever by law enforcement); those who don't or can't get their firearm (that they paid for, and paid BGC/FFL fees) transferred to them after December 8, even after clearing the BGC because they don't have their extra special permit (maybe the State should just put them at the bottom of a sugary cereal or crackerjack boxes?); FFLs/gun shops who are grossly impacted by this because there's no system in place when December 8 hits. I'm sure there are a ton more.

 

[Yarome]

I'm just trusting that smarter people than I that have been in the trenches across the U.S. will know exactly how to proceed. They've been slapping the woke silly so far....

IMO, the best we can do as peons is to simply donate toward legal fees until it hurts. If the vast majority donated the cost of just one firearm, to preserve the rights to purchase firearms in the future, we would be doing pretty dang good to keep the lying bags of dog crap off our lawns.

Consider it the "cost of doing business" in this day and age... and quite a small investement to pass along 2A rights to the next generation.

 

[PiratePast40]

It probably wouldn't hurt for everyone to start thinking of the testimony you'll be submitting at the judiciary committee hearings. Considering the number of people expected, probably have to submit them in writing. No idea if you'll be able to testify in person.

You can be assured LEVO will be assigning people to testify on different sections so they have them ready and cover all the bases. It's important that we all step up to the plate this time. Flowery dissertations will be a waste of time so keep it to two or three minutes and get to the point quickly.

 

[zomie]

Email I got today from GOA:

Hello, thank you for your concern regarding the outcome of Ballot 114. As you know we at GOA are upset at this tyrannical attack on our constitutional right to Bear arms in Oregon. GOA worked with Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF) trying to get the message out with several alerts and support of Oregon Firearms Federation to vote down this gun control.

As you know the US supreme court found New York in violation of our 2A right and then doubled down on more gun control, we sued and won that case, but they as a state have not reversed their gun control.

GOA's legal team will be working with the Oregon Firearm Federation legal team to bring forth a lawsuit against the state of Oregon, regarding this matter. So please continue to support GOA and OFF as the battle for your rights is just beginning.

In Liberty

Monte Bowen GOA
Pacific Region Director

 

[Yarome]

Email I got today from GOA:

Saw that. The one I haven't heard anything from is SAF. I know a lot of us list them in the smile amazon program. I'm fairly sure they will be doing something too, but haven't seen anything from them yet.

Side note... if you DON'T designate them for your smile account, or haven't set up your smile account yet, please consider doing so. It's absolutely free money and better going toward a cause vs. just more money in Bezos pocket.

 

[Saladfarmer]

I emailed SAF today and have not received a response as of yet.

I said this in a different post and in my email to SAF:
I am deeply concerned and torn up about measure 114.
The latest statement from OSP and the Secretary of state said they will be implementing
114 on December 8th. There is no such system to comply with said measure, thereby
stopping all firearm sales until the OSP has a system in place to comply with measure 114.

All this measure is trash and unconstitutional as I'm sure you know. But not allowing
any firearms sales is even more so and prior rulings from the Cov19 era stand against a
complete shutdown of commerce (2a) and freedom to assemble (1a).

Are you planning on filing in joint or singly on this on behalf of Oregon citizens to get a TRO
or injunction or anything to get this tossed out completely?

We really need help down here as I know the 2023 legislative session is slated
to bring an AWB as well. And if that doesn't work another ballot initiative (18) to do
the same.

Thank you for your time and efforts. Your work is much appreciated.

 

[PiratePast40]

GOA won against New York but an appeal has been accepted. A temporary stay on the decision has been issued. This will continue to be a long and costly battle.

From GOA 11/15/22:
https://www.gunowners.org/new-york-to-challenge-goas-legal-victory/

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its foundation (GOF) are in a huge, tug-of-war battle against the state of New York.

The good news is that o n November 7, we won a stunning VICTORY against the radically anti-gun state of New York that has viciously waged war on the Second Amendment.

Judge Glenn Suddaby ruled that New York's new law – which requires citizens to give records of their social media history to the government to determine their eligibility to conceal carry – has imposed "unprecedented constitutional violations."

This victory was not limited to New York. It was a victory against every local and state anti-gun government across the country that was hoping to establish a loophole to the Supreme Court's recent pro-2A Bruen decision.

But anti-gunners are not going quietly into the night…

…They filed notice of their intent to appeal the decision – and on Tuesday, November 15, the appellate court gave New York what they were seeking. They secured a temporary stay of Suddaby's ruling.

But regardless of this recent setback, GOA and GOF will keep fighting for your God-given rights in court.

And this is why we need your urgent support fighting back.

Anti-gunners are hoping to bleed us dry with legal fees until we reach the point where we can no longer fight back any longer. But your support will keep us in the battle no matter how long it takes.

As we continue to fight for the rights of all American gun owners, please make a tax-deductible contribution to Gun Owners Foundation's Legal Defense Fund to ensure we can stay in the fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court issued its Bruen decision, which reaffirmed your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

We warned politicians to fall in line with the Supreme Court's ruling or Gun Owners of Foundation will FORCE them to.

We followed through on our warning by suing the state of New York for its draconian assault on the Second Amendment that effectively turned the entire state into a Gun-Free Zone.

Thankfully, we were able to secure a preliminary injunction in a federal district court, where the ruling enjoined the following provisions:

• Requiring good moral character
• Requiring the names and contact info of spouses and other adults in the applicant's home
• Requiring applicants to disclose social media accounts for review
• The restrictions on carrying in public parks, zoos, places of worship, locations where alcohol is served, theaters, banquet halls, conferences, airports and buses, lawful protests or assemblies, and the prohibition on carrying on private property

Of course, our fight was certainly not over, as we have become used to seeing this battle rage back and forth.

The other month, we faced a temporary setback when the judge dismissed our case on very technical grounds.

But we refused to give up. Members like you helped us raise funds for the thousands of dollars in legal fees we have incurred to win this battle.

Not only did we secure a temporary restraining order following that setback… but we then secured ANOTHER victory with a preliminary injunction on the eve of Election Day.

But now with the appellate court's recent stay of Judge Suddaby's decision, we need your continued support to continue battling the anti-gun tyrants in New York.

Our previous victories have drawn ire from the anti-gun lawyers who are trying to take us down – but with your help, we'll continue to fight back and win.

So please, make a tax-deductible contribution to Gun Owners Foundation's Legal Defense Fund to ensure we can stay in the fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

[E4mafia]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1593816495418662912

 

[zomie]

Sadly this just covers the magazine ban ... there is so much to this law that needs to be tossed out. WE NEED MORE LAWSUITS!

 

[Librarian]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1593816495418662912

Thanks for the link.

I've seen this movie before; see https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/ and http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Duncan-v.-Becerra_Filed-5-17-17_Complaint.pdf

 

[PiratePast40]

Sadly this just covers the magazine ban ... there is so much to this law that needs to be tossed out. WE NEED MORE LAWSUITS!

Absolutely, but they need to be separate. Section 12 at the end of the measure specifically says that all portions stand on their own, regardless of what happens to other portions.

 

[3MTA3]

Sadly this just covers the magazine ban ... there is so much to this law that needs to be tossed out. WE NEED MORE LAWSUITS!

I don't think and one organization is going to take on all parts. I wish I had some idea of how/if they are coordinating efforts so I can understand who gets my donations. I want to give the most/best weapons in the hands of the most effective and dedicated warriors.

I've emailed the usual suspects but no clarification. I just will never get NRA'd again and don't have enough resources to send my dollars where they have no chance of doing any good.

I still get burned wondering how many of my hundred dollar bills were used to light one of LaPierre's cigars of wipe his azz.

If you have inside knowledge please PM me. I don't need details they don't want to make public yet, I need to know who the biggest, baddest, most committed and pissed off warrior is that needs my money more than Wayne does.

 

[3MTA3]

Absolutely, but they need to be separate. Section 12 at the end of the measure specifically says that all portions stand on their own, regardless of what happens to other portions.

Divide and conquer, baby, divide and conquer

 

[zomie]

Absolutely, but they need to be separate. Section 12 at the end of the measure specifically says that all portions stand on their own, regardless of what happens to other portions.

LOL, almost like they expected this coming ... I read through it and missed that so thanks for the reminder.

"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."

 

[3MTA3]

LOL, almost like they expected this coming ... I read through it and missed that so thanks for the reminder.

"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."

Spaghetti theory - throw it against the wall and see what sticks

If they wind up with nothing else except the registry it's a huge win for the Authoritarians