Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 16,821
- Reactions
- 27,625
Aloha, Mark
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ORDER: Per the parties' stipulated request included in their Joint Status Report, ECF 61, this Court ORDERS that the following cases are consolidated: Oregon Firearms Federation et al. v. Brown et al., No. 2:22-cv-01815-IM; Fitz, et al. v. Rosenblum, et al., No. 3:22-cv-01859-IM; Eyre, et al. v. Rosenblum, et al., No. 3:22-cv-01862-IM; and Azzopardi, et al. v. Rosenblum, et al., No. 3:22-cv-01869-IM. The above-captioned case is designated as the lead case and with cases 3:22-cv-01859-IM, 3:22-cv-01862-IM, and 3:22-cv-01869-IM designated as trailing cases. This Court ORDERS that future filings and other docket activities be filed on the above-captioned docket only, and that the case number and designation of the lead case be listed first in the document title of every document filed in any of these cases. Ordered on 12/27/2022 by Judge Karin J. Immergut.Associated Cases: 2:22-cv-01815-IM, 3:22-cv-01859-IM, 3:22-cv-01862-IM, 3:22-cv-01869-IM (jy) (Entered: 12/28/2022
ORDER: This Court is in receipt of the parties' Proposed Scheduling Order included in their Joint Status Report, ECF 61 . This Court adopts the parties' proposed briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Oral argument is set for 2/22/2023, 2/23/2023, and 2/24/2023 at 10:00 AM in Portland Courtroom 13A before Judge Karin J. Immergut. The hearing will be in-person but the Court will allow witnesses to appear remotely with seven days' notice to the Court and all parties. Ordered on 12/27/2022 by Judge Karin J. Immergut.Associated Cases: 2:22-cv-01815-IM, 3:22-cv-01859-IM, 3:22-cv-01862-IM, 3:22-cv-01869-IM (jy) (Entered: 12/28/2022)
How does that affect the cost of the case? Does it mean that OFF will be paying for everything and other groups only supplying witnesses?Orders in the Federal cases:
Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown, 2:22-cv-01815 - CourtListener.com
Docket for Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown, 2:22-cv-01815 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.www.courtlistener.com
Doesn't change who pays; probably reduces overall overhead. How the case is run, they'll have to discuss among themselves; consolidation is usually for the convenience of the Court.How does that affect the cost of the case? Does it mean that OFF will be paying for everything and other groups only supplying witnesses?
ThanksDoesn't change who pays; probably reduces overall overhead. How the case is run, they'll have to discuss among themselves; consolidation is usually for the convenience of the Court.
Tomorrow will be his decision from Dec 23rd hearing.I was looking at the Harney Co. Court schedule for tomorrow and do not see a Webex link...was there one I missed??
I hope you proceeded forward with this, because you should be picking it up today…I wanted to transfer a sig 226 today
The store said the 3 day rule will not be applying because the judge is soon to make a decision on the 3 day rule. He said today is the last day to get the gun logged into their books and I would receive it by the 2nd . Judge will make a decision BY the third . Could be before . Gun would be stuck in limbo and I refuse to get a permit to purchase . What shall I do .
Hoping it's "Off with their heads!"Tomorrow will be his decision from Dec 23rd hearing.
I would suspect ( Best Guess) the State A.G's office to try and fast track this to the Supreme court Right Quick and in a Hurry Like, They will NOT like this ruling from Harney County messing up their plans, so what ever time it takes them to write their challenge and submit it to the court is the breathing room we have!I guess the next step is the Oregon Supreme Court as the State will surely want the Judge's ruling an all counts to be overturned.
Does anybody have an idea of the court's make up? I guess I'm pessimistic and expect it to be prone to siding with the State with a rubber stamp, but I'd really, really like to be wrong in that opinion.
Also, any fair guess on how long it will take to get there?
IMO they will "New York" it and act like SCOTUS is irrelevant and wait for them to come down with a tire iron. Remember, Oregon chooses to ignore all kinds of things Federal when they want to from immigration, cooperation with federal agencies, drug laws. etc..I would suspect ( Best Guess) the State A.G's office to try and fast track this to the Supreme court Right Quick and in a Hurry Like, They will NOT like this ruling from Harney County messing up their plans, so what ever time it takes them to write their challenge and submit it to the court is the breathing room we have!
As to the State's Supreme court ruling, I'm not holding my breath, Given the court is 100% K8 Brownstains appointments, it ain't lookin very good, though they MAY have no choice but to uphold the ruling given the Bruen Test they now MUST apply, even though the Judge said it doesn't apply!
On Tuesday, Raschio said he wouldn't treat the background check change separate from Measure 114′s permitting requirement, finding that the two are "inexorably linked."
Only if he finds that the permit requirement to buy a gun is unconstitutional as the case proceeds will he evaluate and rule on the completed background check independently, Raschio wrote.
The state has said it won't be ready to support a permitting program until March 7.
Raschio said he would hold a hearing on a preliminary injunction regarding the permitting requirement within 10 days of the state informing him that a permitting process is in place and ready to operate.