Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[AshWilliams]

Thanks for the report.

Yes, thanks for keeping us all up to date!

 

[Yarome]

They kept saying large capacity magazines (LCMs) and witnesses kept calling them standard capacity. Judge finally asked that they refer to them as M114 does (LCMs) to avoid confusion.

Thanks for the update~!

That should show right there how bent the "judge" is. Forcing the plaintiffs to adopt a definition that is the very crux of a portion of the lawsuit? Mags are defined and designed as "standard" capacity for a particular firearm by the MFG. Be it 8, 12, 15 or other.

High capacity, by any definition, would be a round increase above and beyond their original design. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but forcing them to adopt the definition/terminology the state is trying to impose should be objected to... strenuously.

Akin to forcing a defense attorney to refer to their client as "the murderer" in a criminal trial... IMHO.

 

[Librarian]

Thanks for the update~!

That should show right there how bent the "judge" is. Forcing the plaintiffs to adopt a definition that is the very crux of a portion of the lawsuit? Mags are defined and designed as "standard" capacity for a particular firearm by the MFG. Be it 8, 12, 15 or other.

High capacity, by any definition, would be a round increase above and beyond their original design. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but forcing them to adopt the definition/terminology the state is trying to impose should be objected to... strenuously.

Akin to forcing a defense attorney to refer to their client as "the murderer" in a criminal trial... IMHO.

I have to disagree.

The whole idea of LCM is silly, but in a legal proceeding, to use the legal term (or, potential legal term, since this is not yet effective law) really does cut down on ambiguity.

To stick with 'standard' is like your little brother insisting on calling you by your middle name.

Outside a courtroom or a bill, whatever you like should be fine; most folks will get what you're talking about.

 

[Librarian]

My Bad

Nah, 'smart' is not the issue. You have not been compelled by years of court cases to learn stuff normal people have no need to know.

That's more like blessed.

 

[Yarome]

I have to disagree.

The whole idea of LCM is silly, but in a legal proceeding, to use the legal term (or, potential legal term, since this is not yet effective law) really does cut down on ambiguity.

To stick with 'standard' is like your little brother insisting on calling you by your middle name.

Outside a courtroom or a bill, whatever you like should be fine; most folks will get what you're talking about.

I agree and understand the ambiguity issue in a legal proceeding, but it is, on it's face, inaccurate and re-enforcing the infringement.

In your example, I would put it more akin to the courts insisting you call your brother by his middle name... not what he is known by to all.

 

[solv3nt]

I agree and understand the ambiguity issue in a legal proceeding, but it is, on it's face, inaccurate and re-enforcing the infringement.

In your example, I would put it more akin to the courts insisting you call your brother by his middle name... not what he is known by to all.

It works be more akin to an argument over trans rights and the judge insisting to use the birth gender.

 

[Librarian]

Ms Bernstein of the Oregonian has an article about the hearing:

Oregon’s gun control Measure 114 gets federal court test

A trial before U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut in Portland is scheduled to last five days and focus on whether the gun control regulations are constitutional under the Second Amendment.

www.oregonlive.com

Sound right to folks who were there?

 

[Yarome]

Ms Bernstein of the Oregonian has an article about the hearing:

Oregon’s gun control Measure 114 gets federal court test

A trial before U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut in Portland is scheduled to last five days and focus on whether the gun control regulations are constitutional under the Second Amendment.

www.oregonlive.com

Sound right to folks who were there?

"Immergut said she also will determine if the regulation of large-capacity magazines reflects "unprecedented societal concerns" or "dramatic technological changes.""

Is it just me or does that sound an awful lot like interest balancing... of which courts are expressly forbidden from doing(?) Mock court....

 

[Ura-Ki]

"Immergut said she also will determine if the regulation of large-capacity magazines reflects "unprecedented societal concerns" or "dramatic technological changes.""

Is it just me or does that sound an awful lot like interest balancing... of which courts are expressly forbidden from doing(?) Mock court....

Dead On, that's EXACTLY what she is attempting to do!
I rolled my eyes at that when I read it, now knowing with out doubt she is biased as hell and will side with the State, forcing it to the Nutty Ninth!

 

[PiratePast40]

Ms Bernstein of the Oregonian has an article about the hearing:

Oregon’s gun control Measure 114 gets federal court test

A trial before U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut in Portland is scheduled to last five days and focus on whether the gun control regulations are constitutional under the Second Amendment.

www.oregonlive.com

Sound right to folks who were there?

Yes, that sounds about right.

 

[PiratePast40]

Derek LeBlanc provided his summary on his facebook page.

 

[PiratePast40]

Here's the OFF write-up.

06.06.2023
Federal Trial Underway.
Yesterday was the first day in OFF's federal trial to stop the implementation of the very dangerous and unconstitutional Measure 114.
In addition to the limitless budget the state has to deny your rights, the judge has allowed an anti-gun organization to "intervene" adding to the army of lawyers working to undermine the Second Amendment in Oregon.
We are proud to note that OFF's witnesses did an outstanding job of presenting the facts and the reality of this measure, in spite of the shameless attempts by the state to discredit and impeach them. Needless to say, the state failed.
No matter which way the judge rules, the harsh truth that this measure is far more expansive than the state pretends it is, will come out.
Adam Johnson, the owner of Coat of Arms firearms in Keizer, was able to skillfully place on the record that virtually all firearms magazines will be banned under this measure, not just those capable of holding over 10 rounds. This was something the judge clearly had never considered and was obviously surprised by.
Most questions by the state and the anti-gun intervenors were completely nonsensical and had nothing to do with the issues of the trial. But their cross examinations were surprisingly limited and it was clear they wanted to steer the arguments away from the facts of the case and use their time to attack our witnesses for the "crimes" of actually supporting gun rights or working in firearm's related businesses.
The strategy of the state, from the start, has been to side step the issues and the clear dictates of the Supreme Court.
The state, and the anti-gun organizations who are in league with the state, are basing their entire argument on the fact that firearms and firearm's magazines are used in crimes.
This is hardly a novel or compelling argument, and it is absurdly irrelevant. Of course firearms are used in crimes. But the state is also trying to imply that standard magazines are never used for lawful purposes, and in fact, are not even "arms" that are protected by the Second Amendment.
The state is using stats of the "average" number of rounds fired in self defense situations to imply that because that is fewer than ten, people are not even using ten round magazines in defensive situations. Since most modern firearms come from the manufacturer with magazines over ten rounds, and there are countless millions of them in the hands of law abiding gun owners, this is an utterly nonsensical position.
Unfortunately, it is a position the court seems happy to entertain.
(Even more absurd is the reality that if law abiding Oregonians are stripped of their right to own magazines, criminals will still be acquiring as many as they want by using any of the millions in circulation or simply crossing state lines to buy them from any gun store.)
But it should not even matter. The courts have clearly upheld the right to own arms for any lawful purpose and it is undeniable that countless thousands of people use standard capacity magazines for purposes in addition to self defense.
The argument that firearms and standard magazines are used in crime should not even be allowed to brought into this case. The Supreme Court in Bruin made it clear that the state cannot use a "balancing test". If the Second Amendment protects it, it's protected. So it is troubling that this irrelevant and completely emotional argument is being permitted.
What is not being allowed is the mountain of evidence our lawyers and volunteers have assembled demonstrating that the Oregon State Police are already not doing their job and almost certainly cannot complete the additional work Measure 114 will create for them.
The judge's exclusion of this information and the cartel media's refusal to acknowledge it will certainly color the outcome.
The Court has also made it clear that it intends to severely restrict discussion and arguments about the devastating "permit" system which will essentially end gun sales in this state.
The injunction placed on Mz 114 by a state judge will remain in effect until that trial which is scheduled for September.
The Federal trial will continue this week. The cartel media will continue to be the mouthpiece for the state and provide slanted and misleading propaganda about the proceedings. You can count on that.
Meanwhile, every effort has been made by the state to drag this battle out as long as possible. Our legal bills are enormous and continuing. Our legal team has been working non stop and will continue to all week.
Your financial support for this fight has never been more critical as we work to build the strongest possible case and prepare for what will be the inevitable appeal.
We are deeply grateful for your help and activism.
Please consider any donation you can make to this critical battle. Our funding does not come from national organizations or firearms businesses. 100% of our resources come from people like you.
Donations to the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, which is funding this fight can be made here:
https://oregonfirearms.ejoinme.org/MyPages/DonationPage/tabid/70447/Default.aspx
Categories: OFF Alerts, Uncategorized

Post navigation

https://www.oregonfirearms.org/democrats-demand-vengeance

 

[jackrv]

The judge's mind is made up before the determination. It's a done deal and will be appealed and eventually we'll be stuck with either 114 or S348.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The judge's mind is made up before the determination. It's a done deal and will be appealed and eventually we'll be stuck with either 114 or S348.

Of course. Looking at who appointed whom on the Oregon Supreme Court.... and then looking at who's on the 9th Circuit. This won't be done until it reaches SCOTUS in a few years depending on how slowly 9th Circuit drags their feet. And based on their track record... I have zero confidence that the 9th will abide by Bruen nor do I have any confidence that the Salem/Portland Lords won't find a way to get a special Legislative Session that doesn't require a quorum and have the Oregon Supremes say it's okay because "hey, the Rogue Senators violated a voter passed initiative; so Senate now has the right to special session without quorum!" Blatantly violating Oregon Constitution

 

[solv3nt]

Of course. Looking at who appointed whom on the Oregon Supreme Court.... and then looking at who's on the 9th Circuit. This won't be done until it reaches SCOTUS in a few years depending on how slowly 9th Circuit drags their feet. And based on their track record... I have zero confidence that the 9th will abide by Bruen nor do I have any confidence that the Salem/Portland Lords won't find a way to get a special Legislative Session that doesn't require a quorum and have the Oregon Supremes say it's okay because "hey, the Rogue Senators violated a voter passed initiative; so Senate now has the right to special session without quorum!" Blatantly violating Oregon Constitution

We need Benitez to make his ruling.

 

[CamoDeafie]

We need Benitez to make his ruling.

He's on the same level as Immergut, IE, a Federal Judge for State of California's Southern District. Even if he does make his ruling, it still has to go to 9th District because of Immergut whose ruling will absolutely be the complete opposite of Benitez's.

 

[PiratePast40]

He's on the same level as Immergut, IE, a Federal Judge for State of California's Southern District. Even if he does make his ruling, it still has to go to 9th District because of Immergut whose ruling will absolutely be the complete opposite of Benitez's.

I haven't put a lot of thought into the hierarchy of judges. Wondering if it's the 9th Circuit we're waiting for instead, of just Benitez to make a decision on the case the Supremes remanded back to the 9th.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I haven't put a lot of thought into the hierarchy of judges. Wondering if it's the 9th Circuit we're waiting for instead, of just Benitez to make a decision on the case the Supremes remanded back to the 9th.

Immergut is Federal District Judge for District of the State of Oregon. Benitez is Federal District Judge for the District of Southern California. Regardless of Immergut and Benitez's rulings; because of a conflict between two Federal District Judges in the same 9th Circuit District, it will have to go to the 9th District Court for a review/confirmation/decision.. and then either way, if the 9th once again sidesteps Bruen and confirms for the States, the cases will have to go to SCOTUS.

Edit. For Benitez, his ruling would be binding only for the State of California,
Whereas for Immergut, her ruling would be also binding only for the State of Oregon. But because of the high potential for these two rulings to be in conflict; either ruling will be appealed up to the 9th Circuit Court, after which it will be up to the 9th to follow Bruen or not, and if not, up to SCOTUS. Whichever way the 9th decides, would be be binding for the whole 9th District at least that is my understanding?

 

[PiratePast40]

Immergut is Federal District Judge for District of the State of Oregon. Benitez is Federal District Judge for the District of Southern California. Regardless of Immergut and Benitez's rulings; because of a conflict between two Federal District Judges in the same 9th District, it will have to go to the 9th District Court for a review/confirmation/decision.. and then either way, if the 9th once again sidesteps Bruen and confirms for the States, the cases will have to go to SCOTUS.

It sounds like we're actually waiting for a decision from an En Blanc 9th Circus panel instead of just Benitez.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Sadly, the Benitez ruling wouldn't effect the outcome here in Oregon anyway, even if he included language that covered the magazines, it would still go to the 9th which at this point is an unknown, even after having their rulings GVR'ed!