Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[ilikegunspdx]

It COULD make it moot, but they would have to raise the claim to that, and a court would have to agree. Tony Aiello spoke to that in a video recently.
HB 3075 will not automatically moot the lawsuits.

Yep that's what the question mark at the end of the sentence was for. No need to shout.

 

[MrJoshuaYoder]

Yep that's what the question mark at the end of the sentence was for. No need to shout.

Was just trying to emphasize the "could", not meaning to come across as shouting. I suppose quotes and/or italics might have been better than caps for that.

 

[nwslopoke]

He's trying to keep his position as Representative of Polk and parts of Marion Counties.

Of course. But I'd rather have a caged rat that an uncontrolled rat. One less vote against gun control is just that. Maybe he'll bring a friend. With an anti-gun super majority, don't ask too many questions and give the guy his cheese.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Of course. But I'd rather have a caged rat that an uncontrolled rat. One less vote against gun control is just that. Maybe he'll bring a friend. With an anti-gun super majority, don't ask too many questions and give the guy his cheese.

Or we could, I dunno... Vote in a different, more pro2A person to represent Polk and parts of Marion Counties?

 

[nwslopoke]

Or we could, I dunno... Vote in a different, more pro2A person to represent Polk and parts of Marion Counties?

When there is someone running. In Washington County, for instance, we rarely get an alternative candidate. If I ran, I don't even know how many of my 3 friends would vote for me.

 

[64MercurysRule]

Oregon gun owners appeal to state Supreme Court to review gun control Measure 114

Attorney Tony Aiello Jr. argued that the state’s high court should clarify Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution, which establishes the right to bear arms, as other gun regulations are pending before lawmakers.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[Savage Jav]

Oregon gun owners appeal to state Supreme Court to review gun control Measure 114

Attorney Tony Aiello Jr. argued that the state’s high court should clarify Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution, which establishes the right to bear arms, as other gun regulations are pending before lawmakers.

www.oregonlive.com

So with this appeal is 114 not if affect?

 

[jeremyb]

When there is someone running. In Washington County, for instance, we rarely get an alternative candidate. If I ran, I don't even know how many of my 3 friends would vote for me.

I will knock doors and hand out flyers for your campaign!

 

[spookshack]

So with this appeal is 114 not if affect?

Per the article,

"The state Supreme Court can decide to consider the petition, accept briefs from the state and hear oral arguments, or decline to accept the petition and let the Appeals Court ruling stand."

 

[Librarian]

So with this appeal is 114 not if affect?

That's correct - not in effect while on appeal, and if Supreme Court takes it, not in effect while they think about it.

If SC does not take it (or, takes it and supports the court of appeals), has to go back down to Harney to enter a judgement consistent with the ruling, so a little while before that lower court ruling is issued - weeks rather than months, I expect.

 

[Savage Jav]

That's correct - not in effect while on appeal, and if Supreme Court takes it, not in effect while they think about it.

If SC does not take it (or, takes it and supports the court of appeals), has to go back down to Harney to enter a judgement consistent with the ruling, so a little while before that lower court ruling is issued - weeks rather than months, I expect.

So still more time? Still a couple more things I want just a funding thing.

 

[Mono1]

That's correct - not in effect while on appeal, and if Supreme Court takes it, not in effect while they think about it.

If SC does not take it (or, takes it and supports the court of appeals), has to go back down to Harney to enter a judgement consistent with the ruling, so a little while before that lower court ruling is issued - weeks rather than months, I expect.

Thanks @Librarian...YOU Da MAN!

 

[nwslopoke]

I will knock doors and hand out flyers for your campaign!

Thanks but my wife will out me as a habitual trash not taker outer.

 

[arakboss]

So with this appeal is 114 not if affect?

What was Tony's argument to the Oregon Supreme Court regarding the mag ban?

Edit: It seems that Tony is sticking with the idea that all mags will be illegal because all mags can be modified to a non-compliant capacity. The way I read the Appeals Court decision is that they believe many mags can be legal under 114 restrictions, because they have a different view on what "readily", "permanent", etc, means.

 

[arakboss]

What was Tony's argument to the Oregon Supreme Court regarding the mag ban?

Edit: It seems that Tony is sticking with the idea that all mags will be illegal because all mags can be modified to a non-compliant capacity. The way I read the Appeals Court decision is that they believe many mags can be legal under 114 restrictions, because they have a different view on what "readily", "permanent", etc, means.

Something to consider is that mag ban laws across the country have the same permanently altered language in them. Surprisingly there are still lots of mags being sold and modified in these jurisdictions. I suspect Oregon Supreme Court will side with the Appeals Court regarding mag ban interpretation.

 

[Savage Jav]

Something to consider is that mag ban laws across the country have the same permanently altered language in them. Surprisingly there are still lots of mags being sold and modified in these jurisdictions. I suspect Oregon Supreme Court will side with the Appeals Court regarding mag ban interpretation.

Obviously I hope it all gets overturned but at the very least I hope they also hit on where those "legal mags" can be used. Public land? Carry? Both are lawful acts but there is no "designated shooting areas" on BLM land and carry is lawful as long as you have a chl.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Both are lawful acts but there is no "designated shooting areas" on BLM land and carry is lawful as long as you have a chl.

I dunno, there seem to be spots on BLM land that says you can target shooting wherever these signs are, unlike the other signs of "UNSAFE TARGET SHOOTING AREA" or "NO TARGET SHOOTING BEYOND THIS POINT" or some such (and jerkwads almost always destroyed the UN part or the whole sign)

 

[1911Fanatic]

View attachment 2076145

I dunno, there seem to be spots on BLM land that says you can target shooting wherever these signs are, unlike the other signs of "UNSAFE TARGET SHOOTING AREA" or "NO TARGET SHOOTING BEYOND THIS POINT" or some such (and jerkwads almost always destroyed the UN part or the whole sign)

Well, that sign sounds fair enough. Too bad some dickwad shot it full of holes. It makes the rest of us look bad.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Well, that sign sounds fair enough. Too bad some dickwad shot it full of holes. It makes the rest of us look bad.

You should have seen the other signs

 

[Jcon268]

Obviously I hope it all gets overturned but at the very least I hope they also hit on where those "legal mags" can be used. Public land? Carry? Both are lawful acts but there is no "designated shooting areas" on BLM land and carry is lawful as long as you have a chl.

I'm also hoping they look at it a little more like Washington with the grandfathering aspect. We already know there is no good way to prove you owned certain mags at any specific date and you shouldn't have to be arrested and put through a court system to try to explain this to a non-gun-friendly judge and jury. They've just gone too far, plain and simple.