Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[roseburger]

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB243

Sb243 set the effective date for both permit system and mag cap law as march 15th. But that's only if the the Oregon sc has made a decision in favor of m114 before then. So theoretically if today they ruled in favor of m114 than both mag cap and permit scam would not go in to effect until march 15th. If no decision is made by then it would be postponed. If ruled against m114 implementation than it's gone till the next anti gun law gets proposed.

The original trial with Immergut put a federal hold on the permit to purchase. It doesn't matter what's in the ORS.

 

[quin2021]

The original trial with Immergut put a federal hold on the permit to purchase. It doesn't matter what's in the ORS.

So they can't even implement the permit scheme even if the Oregon sc rules in favor?

 

[roseburger]

So they can't even implement the permit scheme even if the Oregon sc rules in favor?

The first case was on the US Constitution and currently has a Federal hold on SB114, someone else will have to chime in on if the new SB243 also requires a new trial. The Oregon supreme Court case is against the State Constitution. Unless SB243 somehow overrides the federal hold requiring a new trial, it doesn't matter what the Oregon SC rules if the permit scheme isn't ready. That said, by all accounts, the permit scheme should be ready.

The federal hold is regarding the permit scheme not being ready.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The original trial with Immergut put a federal hold on the permit to purchase. It doesn't matter what's in the ORS.

So they can't even implement the permit scheme even if the Oregon sc rules in favor?

I don't know. I cannot seem to find anything about putting the permit to purchase on hold until Oregon's system is up/ready

https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/35395-civprooregonfirearmsfederationvkotekfrcp52findings

 

[Bolt_308]

I will admit I am probably a little 'tin foil wearing conspiracy theory guy' right now, as I am huddled in my basement with the power out to our house . . . But wouldnt it be interesting if the Oregon Supreme Court waited until March 14th, then dropped a ruling in favor of M114, making it get implemented the last second, thus stopping the inevitable rush purchases . . .

Ok ok I need to get out of the basement more . . . ;-)

 

[roseburger]

I think I'm mistaken. It looks like it may have only been a thirty day hold, then Raschio put a full stop to it on the state level. Looks like permits in March.

 

[Will_White]

I think I'm mistaken. It looks like it may have only been a thirty day hold, then Raschio put a full stop to it on the state level. Looks like permits in March.

The Federal Court ruling was appealed wasn't it? I think they're waiting to see what the State SC says maybe.

 

[roseburger]

The Federal Court ruling was appealed wasn't it? I think they're waiting to see what the State SC says maybe.

I thought so. It looks like we're really just waiting on Oregon at this point.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The Federal Court ruling was appealed wasn't it? I think they're waiting to see what the State SC says maybe.

Yes, and I believe it's in limbo at 9th Circus pending whatever happens with Duncan V Bonta take 2 at SCOTUS

 

[Will_White]

The permit to purchase requirement only effects transfers that require a BGC correct? Family transfers and legal home builds aren't effected correct (or won't be since the implementation is still paused pending court decisions)

 

[PiratePast40]

The permit to purchase requirement only effects transfers that require a BGC correct? Family transfers and legal home builds aren't effected correct (or won't be since the implementation is still paused pending court decisions)

If that section is declared constitutional, no permit or other paperwork required for family.

Regardless of the Oregon Supreme Court decision, Personally Made Firearms (PMF's) now need a serial number and logging by an FFL unless they were manufactured before a date, I believe, in 1966.

 

[Librarian]

Yes, and I believe it's in limbo at 9th Circus pending whatever happens with Duncan V Bonta take 2 at SCOTUS

Yes, Duncan seems to be the gating factor in the Federal consideration of OFF v Kotek (or is it Oregon Attorney General-of-the-week? I have forgotten.)

 

[Will_White]

If that section is declared constitutional, no permit or other paperwork required for family.

Regardless of the Oregon Supreme Court decision, Personally Made Firearms (PMF's) now need a serial number and logging by an FFL unless they were manufactured before a date, I believe, in 1966.

it needs a serial number that complies with federal law before the build is started, so if you Form 1 something, from my reading you, can build whatever you want.

 

[aljames]

If that section is declared constitutional, no permit or other paperwork required for family.

Regardless of the Oregon Supreme Court decision, Personally Made Firearms (PMF's) now need a serial number and logging by an FFL unless they were manufactured before a date, I believe, in 1966.

Gun Control act of 1968 [GCA]

 

[1911Fanatic]

The permit to purchase requirement only effects transfers that require a BGC correct? Family transfers and legal home builds aren't effected correct (or won't be since the implementation is still paused pending court decisions)

So would you have to have a permit to purchase for NFA items like suppressors?

 

[CamoDeafie]

So would you have to have a permit to purchase for NFA items like suppressors?

I would think that yes, even NFA items would be subject to M114's permit to purchase scheme, just like the FOID and similar schemes in a few other States where NFA items arent banned.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

So would you have to have a permit to purchase for NFA items like suppressors?

Imo no. Based on what I know today anyway. The reason being that m114 would implement a unique identifier # that Leo or authorized agents has to use to perform the background check. Without that unique # they cannot transfer the gun.

When a dealer gives you your suppressor they have to do the 4473 form for the file but do not have to do an actual background check. Therefore they could finalize it without the unique ID created by m114.

Caveat/unknown factor: In my reading of m114 though it's not required unless there is some nexus where OR officially considers suppressors "firearms" (as definined in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)) AND if M114 is written so broadly as to encompass all "firearms". I have no clue on this part as I have not researched it, nor do I want to spend the time to.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Imo no. Based on what I know today anyway. The reason being that m114 would implement a unique identifier # that Leo or authorized agents has to use to perform the background check. Without that unique # they cannot transfer the gun.

When a dealer gives you your suppressor they have to do the 4473 form for the file but do not have to do an actual background check. Therefore they could finalize it without the unique ID created by m114.

Caveat/unknown factor: In my reading of m114 though it's not required unless there is some nexus where OR officially considers suppressors "firearms" (as definined in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)) AND if M114 is written so broadly as to encompass all "firearms". I have no clue on this part as I have not researched it, nor do I want to spend the time to.

Oregon House Bill 3075 amended M114 to encompass "all firearms".

Click to enlarge screen shot from .PDF

ORS 166.210 – Definitions

As used in ORS 166.250 (Unlawful possession of firearms) to 166.270 (Possession of weapons by certain felons), 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun…

oregon.public.law

ORS 166.210 definitions; does seem to say "firearms silencer" and not "a firearm is blah blah blah including silencers blah blah blah"

Edit. But it also would turn on the Federal definition of a silencer too; if a silencer/suppressor is considered by the Feds to be a firearm, then yes permit to purchase will cover silencers as well due to being considered a "firearm" federally

 

[PiratePast40]

So would you have to have a permit to purchase for NFA items like suppressors?

Stop by and ask Floyd Prozanski. He's in your neighborhood.

Oregon House Bill 3075 amended M114 to encompass "all firearms".
View attachment 2223549
Click to enlarge screen shot from .PDF

ORS 166.210 – Definitions

As used in ORS 166.250 (Unlawful possession of firearms) to 166.270 (Possession of weapons by certain felons), 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun…

oregon.public.law

ORS 166.210 definitions; does seem to say "firearms silencer" and not "a firearm is blah blah blah including silencers blah blah blah"

Edit. But it also would turn on the Federal definition of a silencer too; if a silencer/suppressor is considered by the Feds to be a firearm, then yes permit to purchase will cover silencers as well due to being considered a "firearm" federally

Let's be clear that HB3075 was tabled, so we really can't use it as a reference. We can use it as a template to get an idea what the newest version will look like though.

As far as I can tell, pre-filed bill titles and summaries haven't been posted yet, so we don't know for sure what kind of insanity they'll try this time. But we do know that they will try something, and it'll most likely be just as bad and a gut and stuff at the last minute. The next session will have the first floor session in February but they will be working on bills before then. Here's the calendar.

 

[Rustle]

Kinda crazy how slow the judicial process is.