Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[156256Hunter]

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?

Measure 114 says in part: "a person commits the crime of unlawful manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale or otherwise transferring of large-capacity magazines if the person manufactures, imports, possesses, uses, purchases, sells or otherwise transfers any large-capacity magazine in Oregon on or after the effective date of this 2022 Act."

AND

That the mag owner is prohibited from "maintaining" the magazine, if they do so "in a manner other than:

(A) On property owned or immediately controlled by the registered owner;

(B) On the premises of a gun dealer or gunsmith licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 for the purpose of lawful service or repair;

(C) While engaging in the legal use of the large-capacity magazine, at a public or private shooting range or shooting gallery or for recreational activities such as hunting, to the extent permitted under state law [pro tip: it is already illegal to hunt most game species with a semiauto firearm having a capacity of more than 5 rds] ; or

(D) While participating in firearms competition or exhibition, display or educational project about firearms sponsored, conducted by, approved or under the auspices of a law enforcement agency or a national or state-recognized entity that fosters proficiency in firearms use or promotes firearms education; and

(E) While transporting any large-capacity magazines in a vehicle to one of the locations authorized in paragraphs (c)(A) to (D) of this subsection, the large-capacity magazine is not inserted into the firearm and is locked in a separate container."

This means if you have a "high cap" mag stuck under your truck seat that you forgot about, and you get pulled over in the wrong part of town (and your vehicle is searched), AND you're not on your way to a "shooting range or gallery" or to a gunsmith, or to a competition or exhibition, and you're (obviously) not on private land, then you'll be guilty of a misdemeanor (subject to the affirmative defense).

 

[The Heretic]

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?

I would assume the use of >10rd mags in concealed carry for self-defense is now illegal and is covered in the one assertion about use; "Are you going to stop using them because of this law?"

 

[Cavedweller]

Measure 114 says in part: "a person commits the crime of unlawful manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale or otherwise transferring of large-capacity magazines if the person manufactures, imports, possesses, uses, purchases, sells or otherwise transfers any large-capacity magazine in Oregon on or after the effective date of this 2022 Act."

You left out this part:

(4) Subsection (2) of the section does not apply at any time to: (A thru E)

(C) While engaging in the legal use of the large-capacity magazine, at a public or private shooting range or shooting gallery or for recreational activities such as hunting, to the extent permitted under state law [pro tip: it is already illegal to hunt most game species with a semiauto firearm having a capacity of more than 5 rds] ; or

The operative words being "recreational activities such as."

This means if you have a "high cap" mag stuck under your truck seat that you forgot about, and you get pulled over in the wrong part of town (and your vehicle is searched), AND you're not on your way to a "shooting range or gallery" or to a gunsmith, or to a competition or exhibition, and you're (obviously) not on private land, then you'll be guilty of a misdemeanor (subject to the affirmative defense).

That is true. But mere possession and use in manner decribed in post #73 does not make one a criminal. There are enough odious aspects of this measure without engaging in hyperbole.

 

[Cavedweller]

I would assume the use of >10rd mags in concealed carry for self-defense is now illegal and is covered in the one assertion about use; "Are you going to stop using them because of this law?"

Granted. Does that constitute a taking?

 

[156256Hunter]

You left out this part:

(4) Subsection (2) of the section does not apply at any time to: (A thru E)

The operative words being "recreational activities such as."


That is true. But mere possession and use in manner decribed in post #73 does not make one a criminal. There are enough odious aspects of this measure without engaging in hyperbole.

I'm talking about when you're not engaged in those very discrete (not discreet) activities, you're a criminal for possessing the magazine.

And I didn't omit anything I quoted the pertinent part of the measure which referred to those narrow activities people would still be allowed to do (maybe)

 

[radderbehuntin]

I would assume the use of >10rd mags in concealed carry for self-defense is now illegal and is covered in the one assertion about use; "Are you going to stop using them because of this law?"

Yes... it will be. I will conform. I'm just going to open carry my 50 Desert Eagle!!!

 

[156256Hunter]

Granted. Does that constitute a taking?

Retroactive applications of a law can constitute a taking

 

[156256Hunter]

And I was answering your specific question, "So in what way have you been made a criminal?"

Answer is, in all circumstances you're not engaging in one of the very narrow exceptions listed. A "kind of important one" intentionally omitted from the measure is, "or to possess for the purpose of carrying or possessing a firearm to be used for self defense".

 

[Connor Murphy]

Yes... it will be. I will conform. I'm just going to open carry my 50 Desert Eagle!!!

Not in Multnomah County you won't. Unless it is unloaded of course.

 

[ma96782]

IMHO.
CHANGE.......will not come so easily.

Keeping Bruen in mind and the many Un-Constitutional Laws being proposed and already enacted and not yet repealed. Unless and until......there is some accountability for intentionally and/or knowingly violating the Constitutional Rights of "We The People". We could expect that THEY will keep on doing it (or at least, try).

Hummm.......a NEW LAW perhaps? Gun Owners as a class. So, a new category of Civil Rights violation (looking at Politicians as the potential suspect/target). Conspiracy to deny The Constitutional Right(s) of any CITIZEN of the USA under the color of Law.

So then......
Well, I can still wish/imagine that some sort of real punishment will inevitably follow (as per legally allowable for such an act of TYRANNY).

Aloha, Mark

 

[Cavedweller]

I'm talking about when you're not engaged in those very discrete (not discreet) activities, you're a criminal for possessing the magazine.

No argument there. But that's not the point I was responding to originally. The poster of #73 was stating that mere possession or use for recreational activities on public land were criminal.

And I didn't omit anything I quoted the pertinent part of the measure

I beg to differ. You began "a person commits the crime" while leaving out the section which states that it's not a crime if A-E apply. I'd say that's not insignificant.

Again: (4) Subsection (2) of the section ("a person commits the crime") does not apply at any time to: (A thru E)

Answer is, in all circumstances you're not engaging in one of the very narrow exceptions listed.

I would say the exceptions, rather than being narrow, cover most things except, as you point out:

A "kind of important one" intentionally omitted from the measure is, "or to possess for the purpose of carrying or possessing a firearm to be used for self defense".

 

[PiratePast40]

Can we please get out of the weeds and not derail this thread. There are other trains wrecks for that discussion.

 

[The Heretic]

Granted. Does that constitute a taking?

From the OFF filing:

114 also violates the Takings Clause. By banning possession—in addition to sales and use—of magazines that were lawfully acquired and are presently possessed. 114 constitutes a physical appropriation of property without compensation that is per se unconstitutional.

 

[radderbehuntin]

Not in Multnomah County you won't. Unless it is unloaded of course.

Why would anyone want to even go to Multnomah county...they are the reason we are in this mess!!!

 

[156256Hunter]

Can we please get out of the weeds and not derail this thread. There are other trains wrecks for that discussion.

Sorry. I was surprised that hear that 114 apparently doesn't restrict use of 11+ rd magazines "for most things" in life.

Unless, inter alia, you're driving around with a 11+ cap magazine not on your way to recreationally shoot, or are going to a gunsmith.

 

[PiratePast40]

Let's keep in mind, what you're seeing is the complaint asking for an injunction on measure 114. They are asking that the whole thing be stopped, not just a certain part. A lawsuit is the process.

OFF will be severely limited in what they can say going forward. You probably won't see anyone talking to the media unless it's something friendly,

 

[156256Hunter]

Let's keep in mind, what you're seeing is the complaint asking for an injunction on measure 114. They are asking that the whole thing be stopped, not just a certain part. A lawsuit is the process.

OFF will be severely limited in what they can say going forward. You probably won't see anyone talking to the media unless it's something friendly,

To clarify, the OFF lawsuit filed yesterday looks like it's primary purpose is to stay and then knock out the "high cap" mag provision While their requests for relief do basically ask for all of 114 to be enjoined, how the complaint is worded, and based on 114 severability clause, in my (nonlegal advice) opinion, the most the court will do is issue a preliminary injunction regarding the magazines.

The Complaint requests the court:

A. Enter a declaratory judgment under 208 U.S.C. § 2201 that 114 is
unconstitutional on its face or, alternatively, to the extent its prohibitions apply to law-abiding
adults seeking to acquire, use, or possess firearm magazines that are in common use
by the American public for lawful purposes; because such prohibition infringes on the right
of the people to keep and bear arms in violation of the Second and 14th Amendments to the
United States Constitution; unconstitutionally takes property without compensation in
violation of the Takings Clause; and arbitrarily deprives Plaintiffs of protected property
interests under the Due Process Clause.

B. Issue an injunction immediately enjoining Defendants and their officers,
agents, and employees from enforcing 114 in its entirety, or, alternatively, to the extent that
such can be segregated from the rest of 114, any provision of 114 that prohibits the
acquiring, using, or possessing of firearm magazines that are in common use by the
American public for lawful purposes.

 

[PiratePast40]

I would expect to see other groups also file soon. I am aware that some groups are coordinating, but not all want to be tied to the other(s). That's not a bad thing. The hope is that if one gets shot down, another one may keep going forward. Sometimes the lawyers move forward with what they've got instead of waiting for other parties to check in.

 

[The Heretic]

Oregon’s Measure 114, strict new gun limits go into effect even sooner, state says

Originally, the measure was expected to go into effect 30 days after certification of the election. Instead, the state now says it goes into effect 30 days from the Nov. 8 election.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[Ura-Ki]

The more challenges to 114 we can bring, the more chances we have of ether getting injunctive relief or forcing it up the flag poll to the 9th!