Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[Yarome]

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."

IOW, clearly written into the measure, "we already know it's wholely unconstitutional and completely ineffective, despite how we lied to fool everyone into voting for it, but we're gonna do it anyway and F'y'all peons!"

 

[Cavedweller]

They made me a criminal with this new law.

Really? How so?

 

[sithc]

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

More info...

Oregon’s Measure 114 sees first challenge: Oregon Firearms Federation files lawsuit to try to stop strict new gun limits

The Oregon Firearms Federation late Friday filed a federal suit against Gov. Kate Brown and the state’s attorney general, urging a judge to bar the recent voter-approved gun control Measure 114 from taking effect next month.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[Provincial]

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.

The fact that they made it severable could be construed as an admission that 114 addresses more than one subject. That would make it unconstitutional on the state level.

The State will argue that it all relates to firearms, but databases, permits, and magazine limits are quite different subjects. Some apply to the 2A, others to the 4A, and so on. Just including a bogus affirmative "defense" that creates a "guilty until proven innocent" status is a separate subject.

 

[PiratePast40]

More info...

Oregon’s Measure 114 sees first challenge: Oregon Firearms Federation files lawsuit to try to stop strict new gun limits

The Oregon Firearms Federation late Friday filed a federal suit against Gov. Kate Brown and the state’s attorney general, urging a judge to bar the recent voter-approved gun control Measure 114 from taking effect next month.

www.oregonlive.com

Can someone convert the copy of the document to a different format so we can save and read it?

 

[nehalemguy]

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.

Alan Gotlieb was on the radio a few days ago. He says they are saddled up for a lawsuit to be filed in Federal Court, plaintiffs are on-board, and that they will ask for a stay on implementation right at the start.

-E-

 

[PiratePast40]

Can someone convert the copy of the document to a different format so we can save and read it?

Neve mind. Downloaded as pdf from the source.

 

[Yarome]

Can someone convert the copy of the document to a different format so we can save and read it?

pdf is here.

 

[WillametteWill]

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.

The fact that they made it severable could be construed as an admission that 114 addresses more than one subject. That would make it unconstitutional on the state level.

Agree @Provincial . One of the specific reasons it passed is because of the inability to write a brief description of what the law covers for voters. This is a critical point for the courts to consider. The folks that were out getting signatures were able to say, "Look over here!!!" without showing all the other components, so far from single issue.

 

[guido1161]

I'm kind of scratching my head on the choice of the law firm to file the suit.

https://www.kaempflawfirm.com/

 

[156256Hunter]

This lawsuit seems mostly focused on the mag capacity part of 114.

[Edit: as others already stated. But this is an unfiled version of the Complaint — no case number. I assume this got filed.]

 

[sed]

Just a reminder for Oregonians...if you donate to the OFF Political Action Committee, your donation of $50 for a single filer or $100 for a joint/head of household filer, qualifies for an Oregon tax credit.

Oregonians can make a $50 donation to a qualifying political party/committee of their choosing each year and 100% get this contribution back as a credit on your Oregon tax return.
There may be income requirements of single filer making less than $75k and joint/household making less than $150k to get this credit - do your own research if concerned.

This is not a deduction, but a credit.
You send OFF PAC a $50/$100 donation; the state of Oregon gives you $50/$100 back on your tax return.
You are reimbursed in full for your contribution and OFF PAC gets $100 to help fight for our 2A rights.

This is a use-it-or-lose-it credit you can use each and every year.
If you haven't used your Oregon Political Tax Credit this year, I can't think of a better Oregon political cause/group to support than OFF PAC!

More info about OFF PAC - https://www.oregonfirearms.org/oregon-firearms-federation-political-action-committee
How to donate - https://www.oregonfirearms.org/join-support-off

 

[Barefootdog]

Really? How so?

Is that even a serious question?

How many magazines in excess of 10 rounds to you own?
Are you going to stop using them because of this law?
Are you going to stop using them on the public lands many of use shoot on?

The magazines you own and the use of that legally owned property is now being made illegal. That's a taking. Legislators who wrote and supported this should be individually sued. The State of Oregon should be sued. Striking down an unconstitutional law is one thing.

We should be working to breach whatever immunity from litigation the individual legislators enjoy and go after them with litigation, each and every one of them.....and the state of Oregon as well.

 

[PiratePast40]

Is that even a serious question?

How many magazines in excess of 10 rounds to you own?
Are you going to stop using them because of this law?
Are you going to stop using them on the public lands many of use shoot on?

The magazines you own and the use of that legally owned property is now being made illegal. That's a taking. Legislators who wrote and supported this should be individually sued. The State of Oregon should be sued. Striking down an unconstitutional law is one thing.

We should be working to breach whatever immunity from litigation the individual legislators enjoy and go after them with litigation, each and every one of them.....and the state of Oregon as well.

It wasn't legislators, it was outside interests and religious organizations that got this on the ballot. They are the ones that need to be sued and held accountable.

 

[The Heretic]

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

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.170381/gov.uscourts.ord.170381.1.0.pdf

https://www.reddit.com/r/pdxgunnuts/comments/yz4abu

 

[Barefootdog]

I stand corrected then.
Somebody needs to be taught a lesson.

I'm not above suing a church.

There's a lot of tax exempt church properties that can be turned into shooting ranges.....

 

[corsar66]

 

[jayR]

IOW, clearly written into the measure, "we already know it's wholely unconstitutional and completely ineffective, despite how we lied to fool everyone into voting for it, but we're gonna do it anyway and F'y'all peons!"

Everybody can file a complaint.
https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/election-law-violation.aspx

Here's one: Violation of Section 250.125
Anybody else ?

What We Investigate

With some exceptions, the Elections Division can only investigate alleged violations of ORS chapters 246 – 260 and Oregon Administrative Rule chapter 165. This includes:

• State campaign finance rules and regulations
• Disclosure rules and regulations, including "paid for by" on political materials
• Public employee neutrality
• Undue influence
• Voter intimidation
• False statements made in the voters' pamphlet, recall petitions, or candidacy filings

 

[Cavedweller]

Is that even a serious question?

How many magazines in excess of 10 rounds to you own?
Are you going to stop using them because of this law?
Are you going to stop using them on the public lands many of use shoot on?

The magazines you own and the use of that legally owned property is now being made illegal. That's a taking. Legislators who wrote and supported this should be individually sued. The State of Oregon should be sued. Striking down an unconstitutional law is one thing.

We should be working to breach whatever immunity from litigation the individual legislators enjoy and go after them with litigation, each and every one of them.....and the state of Oregon as well.

I do not support this measure nor did I vote for it, but I have to ask if you have read it. None of the things you have mentioned above have been made illegal. Possession on private property is not illegal. Use in recreational activities on public land is not illegal. So in what way have you been made a criminal?

 

[nehalemguy]

I'm kind of scratching my head on the choice of the law firm to file the suit.

https://www.kaempflawfirm.com/

I dunno. I kind of like him already.

In 2021, John Kaempf won a historic first amendment legal victory for his client, the Christian owner of the Miss USA pageant, when a transgender female sued it to be allowed to compete in the pageant. – Kaempf Law Firm

Share via: LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email The case of Anita Green v. Miss USA Pageant involves the attempt by a transgender “female” to participate in the Miss USA pageant. A federal court accepted John Kaempf’s argument that under the freedom of association embodied in the First Amendment to...

www.kaempflawfirm.com