Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[solv3nt]

(My bolding)

You're a bold one; I like it.

 

[Yarome]

You're a bold one; I like it.

Yup. The username @MountainGirl says it all.... and from "peaceful mountain".... didn't fool me for one second!

 

[solv3nt]

Yup. The username @MountainGirl says it all... and from "peaceful mountain".... didn't fool me for one second!

She'll fit right in

 

[MountainGirl]

Yup. The username @MountainGirl says it all.... and from "peaceful mountain".... didn't fool me for one second!

Good that it did not.

 

[solv3nt]

Trying to up your "worlds greatest dad" ranking, hu?

It says "Greatest Dad in the World", geez, some people just don't get it.

 

[Yarome]

It says "Greatest Dad in the World", geez, some people just don't get it.

You mean.... I been ROBBED!!?!? Mine says "917th Worlds Greatest Dad!". Considering the world population... in the top 1000... I thought that was doing pretty damn good!!

I musta not picked up on the message they were sending. No wonder I didn't get the "other" mug, hu?

 

[solv3nt]

You mean.... I been ROBBED!!?!? Mine says "917th Worlds Greatest Dad!". Considering the world population... in the top 1000... I thought that was doing pretty damn good!!

I musta not picked up on the message they were sending. No wonder I didn't get the "other" mug, hu?

It's semantics. Geez. Don't get your panties in a bundle.

 

[3MTA3]

Shouldn't LEVO and Knuteson be footing the bill for the states legal representation? Why are the taxpayers left with the bill for their ill conceived abortion of a ballot measure?

Since the bill passed by a vote of the people (albeit the state doing everything it could to grease the rails and look the other way when needed) the State, as planned, is forced by law to defend the law and thus the victim. Since "we the people" passed it "we the people" are required to pay to defend it.

 

[solv3nt]

Since the bill passed by a vote of the people (albeit the state doing everything it could to grease the rails and look the other way when needed) the State, as planned, is forced by law to defend the law and thus the victim. Since "we the people" passed it "we the people" are required to pay to defend it.

We should start requiring politicians to pay for these lawsuits with their campaign funding.

 

[SonicBlue03]

We should start requiring politicians to pay for these lawsuits with their campaign funding.

End Qualified Immunity

 

[3MTA3]

We should start requiring politicians to pay for these lawsuits with their campaign funding.

We should force the AG to pay for the lawsuits for approving a ballot measure that violated Oregon law by having more than one subject and violated both the Oregon and US Constitutions.

It was her job to prevent this from happening and virtually all state and federal employees can be personally held liable for restitution of monies due to misconduct or incompetence.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

virtually all state and federal employees can be personally held liable for restitution of monies due to misconduct or incompetence.

As it turns out, no, they can not and that (among a bunch of other reasons) is why we need to end Qualified Immunity

Frequently Asked Questions About Ending Qualified Immunity - Institute for Justice

“Qualified immunity” is a special legal protection for all local, state, or federal government workers who can only be held accountable for violating someone’s rights if a court has previously ruled that it was “clearly established” those precise actions were unconstitutional.

ij.org

 

[3MTA3]

As it turns out, no, they can not and that (among a bunch of other reasons) is why we need to end Qualified Immunity

Frequently Asked Questions About Ending Qualified Immunity - Institute for Justice

“Qualified immunity” is a special legal protection for all local, state, or federal government workers who can only be held accountable for violating someone’s rights if a court has previously ruled that it was “clearly established” those precise actions were unconstitutional.

ij.org

Misconduct or incompetence are the operative words and not unconstitutional. I stopped being a COTR (Contracting Officer Technical Representative) because even though my technical knowledge is sound I could still be held personally liable for a contract I OK'd that was effed up by the contracting officer using wording that had contractual/legal significance that most people would not recognize.. Qualified Immunity does not come into play when you are simply not doing your job correctly.

I do agree that Qualified Immunity needs to go.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Contracting Officer Technical Representative

I just did a quick web search and scan of what the heck a COTR is, and my golly but that position sounds like a patsy position to take the fall for the .gov or the private sector when (note: WHEN, not "if") things go wrong!

 

[3MTA3]

I just did a quick web search and scan of what the heck a COTR is, and my golly but that position sounds like a patsy position to take the fall for the .gov or the private sector when (note: WHEN, not "if") things go wrong!

I figured that out when I started asking the contracting officer I was working with questions and he got really vague on his answers. I had the feeling that he was placing all the liability on my shoulders to protect himself. When I pressed the point he basically told me that it was up to me to figure it out. A friend of mine who was also a contracting officer confirmed my suspicions and also that it was common practice.

Being a COTR was not my full time job. It was part of a job managing communications $ystem$ (telecom and network) across the PNW for a Federal Agency. I shifted to a regional and then enterprise position and let my COTR credentials "accidently" expire.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Do we know if Friday's hearing has a webcast like the first injunction hearing?

 

[Yarome]

Do we know if Friday's hearing has a webcast like the first injunction hearing?

Yup!

Oregon Judicial Department : Grant & Harney Home : Grant & Harney County Circuit Court : State of Oregon

www.courts.oregon.gov

Harney Webex – PUBLIC
December 23, 2022 at 10:00 AM

Join from the meeting link:

https://oregonjudicial.webex.com/oregonjudicial/j.php?MTID=m6607b5cdcadb0e1c73907e88aca5ffd1.php

Join by meeting number:
MEETINGS.WEBEX.COM
Meeting number (access code): 2490 636 2369
Meeting password: HARpublic22*

Join by phone:
1-408-418-9388
Access code: 2486 636 2369 ##

 

[3MTA3]

Question regarding the registry: I've been reading the measure and it looks like the registry involves the permits and not the associated firearms. Does anybody have different information or full details of the registry?

114 text here: https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Meas...equirements_Initiative_(2022)#Text_of_measure

I'm not thrilled for the increasingly authoritarian Oregon government having a list of firearm owners, but I really don't want Mrs 3M to be able to see that rifle I assured her I owned before we even started dating was, in fact, purchased last week.

 

[Yarome]

Question regarding the registry: I've been reading the measure and it looks like the registry involves the permits and not the associated firearms. Does anybody have different information or full details of the registry?

114 text here: https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Meas...equirements_Initiative_(2022)#Text_of_measure

I'm not thrilled for the increasingly authoritarian Oregon government having a list of firearm owners, but I really don't want Mrs 3M to be able to see that rifle I assured her I owned before we even started dating was, in fact, purchased last week.

I dunno, but this is how I see it going. Once your name is on the registry as a gun owner... anything going through OSP for a BGC... your name is gonna pop, cross index to the state registry and updated accordingly.

It's not necessary for the administrative side of the registry to be specifically outlined in the measure itself so... they ain't gonna make a registry if they don't plan to populate it with any and all info they can, IMHO.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Question regarding the registry: I've been reading the measure and it looks like the registry involves the permits and not the associated firearms. Does anybody have different information or full details of the registry?

114 text here: https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Meas...equirements_Initiative_(2022)#Text_of_measure

I'm not thrilled for the increasingly authoritarian Oregon government having a list of firearm owners, but I really don't want Mrs 3M to be able to see that rifle I assured her I owned before we even started dating was, in fact, purchased last week.

I'm not seeing a direct link between the Permit registry and the 4473, but,.......
All they have to do is cross reference the OSP to see anything recorded, cause we all know the OSP follows the law and destroys records after 5 years!