Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[CamoDeafie]

Trump must have lookin' to get a piece o' that when he nominated her

He's also a New York businessman who bumped elbows with the Clintons, particularly Bill. And.. how has NY been for 2A rights in general?

 

[PiratePast40]

Here's the update for day 3 of the trial:

The defense (state of Oregon) is still calling their witnesses. First witness, historian Dr Delay testified on the evolution of repeating firearms throughout the 1800's. Although interesting, not much new information that others had not already spoken of including development of repeating rifles by Winchester and Henry. Through 1860, there were few lever action rifles with internal magazine capacity greater than ten rounds. They all of a sudden jump to number of rounds fired during the Virginia Tech and Las Vegas shootings pointing out that there were more deaths when repeating firearms with greater than 10 rounds available in a magazine. It appears that they are making the case that, absent changes in science, technology, and manufacturing, there would be fewer deaths by gunfire. The only redeeming concept was a nod to John Moses Browning and his revolutionary design. Colt thought it was a gimmick, so Browning sold his idea of the 1911 to FN.

Next witness was another historian, this one with a PHD from Yale. His testimony was another history lesson about militias and the arms they possessed. His information came from probate records of the period. Yes, you heard that right. Information on amounts and types of firearms from around the 1740s to 1798 was based on probate records. He did point out that most private firearms owned were "fowlers". These firearms were lighter, smaller caliber, and cheaper than smooth bore muskets or rifled barrel long guns. His final point was about the rate of fire with rifles and muskets being a max of 3 rounds per minute. During cross examination, he testified that the concept of militia during the revolution being civilian volunteers was incorrect. He also is adamant that the Heller decision is wrong. The only redeeming value to his testimony was, while demonstrating how to load and fire a musket, he pointed his pretend firearm at the judge and then apologized to her. Another "expert" paid for with your tax dollars.

Third witness is being paid $1,150/hr of our money. Seems the majority of her research was verifying the NRA Armed Citizen Database. She used some of the most powerful analytics available and still came up with the same numbers as the NRA. Good thing we spared no expense to verify publicly available statistics. During cross, she also admitted that she doesn't think anyone except military and law enforcement should have guns that can contain over 10 rounds. She also admitted that she didn't try to verify that a previous plaintiff had stated that he used 13 rounds in a self defense situation. The lawyer for the defense kept insisting that, since there was no police record or newspaper reports of the incident (since they didn't look for any) that his testimony is in question. My suggestion is that if you're a lawyer, might not want to announce that next time you visit Coat oi Arms gun store in Keiser.

Next witness spoke about how dangerous objects such as Bowie knives, dirks, sword canes, and pistols were regulated at times in history. The regulations she cited were all related to concealed carry.

Last one was a professor of English and linguistics. There was a boring discussion of what words meant in the 18th and 19th centuries. The point was to prove that cartridge box was an accessory. They quite clumsily tried to make the point that cartridge boxes and pouches were the same as magazines and not part of a firearm. They found a single newspaper article from the mid 1860's about an early machine gun. In the article, the author stated that the cartridge box was moved to the breach of the barrel for self-loading and it was therefore a magazine. And so, voila, a modern magazine is the same as a cartridge box or pouch and thus not a part of the firearm. During the cross, it was revealed that the witness was upset that his testimony in front of SCOTUS during Heller was rejected. He was also upset that SCOTUS ignored his brief during the Bruen case.

There was time that the Kavanaugh opinion from Bruen was brought up. The defense seemed to insinuate that Kavanaugh's opinion that permits could be issued for carry outside the home, somehow applied to permit to purchase. We'll see how that goes.

The defense is expected to continue with testimony from their witnesses all day tomorrow.

In the mean time, when the discussion of Tina Kotek keeping your kicker comes up, think of just how much of your money the state is spending on these "expert" witnesses.

 

[PiratePast40]

Latest OFF Alert. Only posting the new parts. The rest is what I posted above.

Federal Trial Rolls On.

06.08.2023

Before we share a report of the third day of OFF's federal trial to stop the unconstitutional Measure 114, we want to take a moment to once again send our sincere thanks to the Republican Senators who have risked so much to protect our rights and basic common sense by refusing to participate in the Democrat's war on sanity.

By protesting the Democrat's outrageous agenda by denying quorum, the Senate Republicans, and two Independents, (Art Robinson and Brian Boquist) have put the brakes on SB 348.

SB 348, as you know, was Floyd Prozanski's effort to make Measure 114 even worse than it was when passed by out of state millionaires.

The Democrat propaganda machine and their mouthpieces in the media have been working non-stop to demonize the peaceful protest of the Senators who denied quorum to protect the minority, even as they continue to pretend to want to protect the rights of minorities.

So please take a moment to send a word of thanks to Senate Republican Leader Tim Knopp and ask him to share your appreciation with his fellow Senators.

At the trial we face a number of challenges. As you may know the Judge has declared that she will not hear arguments about the constitutionality of Measure 114 as applied. Her position is that the issue is "not ripe" because no one has yet been harmed by the measure. Of course, the only reason no one has been harmed yet is because a state judge in Harney County, in a separate decision, placed an injunction on the measure. So it cannot go into effect until after a full trial in State Court which we expect to happen in September.

Needless to say, if the measure takes effect, thousands of Oregonians will be denied their rights to acquire firearms legally, countless gun stores will be out of business and untold numbers of hard working Oregonians will lose their jobs. The judge has noted that we are free to bring another lawsuit at that time at enormous expense while the state gets to pay their many lawyers…with your money.

The state has taken several positions that are, on their face, ridiculous.

They have claimed that the magazines they seek to ban (virtually all magazines) are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are not "arms" they are "accessories". This is patently absurd. Flashlights are "accessories." Magazines are components. Without a magazine no magazine fed firearm could function as intended. To take the position that these devices are not protected would be to say that stocks, bolts, and trigger groups are "accessories" and can be banned by the whim of the legislature or uninformed voters.

As we have pointed out, because the measure calls for the banning of any magazine that can be converted to hold more than 10 rounds, it would ban almost all magazines rendering modern firearms useless. (They very goal of the state and the measures proponents.)

The state is also contending that the "permit to purchase" scheme is constitutional because it is "shall issue" and "shall issue" permit schemes are allowed under the Bruen decision. But this is clearly false.

First of all, there is nothing in the measure that compels any police agency to issue permits. They "may" but it's not required. Some sheriffs have already stated they will not issue permits because they simply lack the resource and facilities to do so. Keep in mind, that if the police in your county cannot issue, your ability to purchase a firearm is gone. You may not apply in any other county.

But beyond that, no sheriff can legally issue a permit anyway. The measure requires that the FBI conduct a fingerprint check. The FBI has flatly stated they will not do so. So there is no legal way for the sheriff or your local police to comply.

No permit can be "shall issue" when the permitting agent cannot issue.

While our witnesses and attorneys have done an amazing job of making these points, it remains to be seen if the judge is seeing the obvious contradictions.

The state has been relying on "expert witnesses" who are attempting to prove that early firearms do not have the capacity of modern firearms. Why you need "expert" witnesses to prove this is hard to understand. But the notion that our constitution only protects things in existence 200 years ago is odd when the argument is taking place in a courtroom filled with computers and flat screen TV's, fed by the internet, and protected by metal detectors.

 

[jackrv]

Oh, let's not call Immergut 'crooked'.

How about 'not a neutral arbiter as our system of law requires'?

Let's call her crooked because she is.

 

[PiratePast40]

In case people are wondering, Oregon for Gun Safety Alliance is the Giffords/Bloomberg backed group intervening in the Measure 114 trial. Here's a link from their facebook page with an abbreviated list of objectives. It's not dissimilar to the other objectives we're seeing in the Washington and Illinois cases. This might help explain why their witnesses were chosen and the objective of the defense.

Carol Scherer

In last year's election, Oregonians came together to make our schools and communities safer. Voters passed Measure 114, the only comprehensive gun safety measure on the ballot in the country.
Now, our state's new gun safety policy is under attack by out-of-state gun lobbyists.
Tomorrow, our legal team will go to court alongside the Oregon Department of Justice to defend Measure 114.
We hired a top legal team to intervene in the court case, defend the voters' will and make sure our voices are heard: The voices of survivors and families. The voices of those in the emergency rooms. The voices of parents who've lost children. Of all of us who are impacted by gun violence in our communities.
Several supporters have asked to hear more details about the legal strategy, so here's a detailed explanation of the key arguments in the case.
To ensure Measure 114's evidence-backed, life-saving policies can go into effect, three things need to happen:
1) We need to win in federal court by proving the constitutionality of the measure. Tomorrow's trial is the first big step. This five-day trial before the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon will focus on the constitutionality of Measure 114.
2) We need to win in state court at a separate trial scheduled for September.
3) State and local officials need to allocate the funding needed to ensure smooth implementation.
To understand the legal case, we first need to look at what happened last year in a major Supreme Court decision called "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen" (or "Bruen" for short).
In the Bruen case, the Supreme Court issued a new framework to evaluate the constitutionality of firearms regulations.
Bruen explicitly says states are allowed to pass laws that are in line with our history of regulating dangerous weapons that are not useful for self-defense. The Supreme Court noted in its ruling that the vast majority of firearm permit laws across the country were still valid.
Measure 114's protections for Oregonians are in line with these acceptable regulations for the following reasons:
Large capacity magazine limits are constitutional because ammunition magazines are not "arms" under the Second Amendment's original meaning, are not necessary for any firearm to function, and are not in common use for self-defense. Moreover, restrictions on large-capacity magazines are consistent with the country's historical tradition of regulating highly dangerous weapons.
The permit-to-purchase requirement is constitutional because under Measure 114, someone who wants to buy a gun must meet only specific, objective criteria in order to get a permit to purchase. The Supreme Court calls this a "shall issue" system because it is based on objective criteria, similar to firearm regulations in 43 states that the Supreme Court expressly allowed in Bruen. The permit system is also consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation.
In short, Oregon's new gun safety law aligns with the federal constitution. And similar arguments will be made in state court in a separate case this fall.
Numerous courts have already upheld laws limiting ammunition magazine capacity. And Oregon's firearm permitting system is similar to what the Supreme Court has allowed elsewhere.
Over the next few days, we will share updates on the progress of the trial, which brings us closer to creating a safer state for all of us.
Thank you for your support.
~ Jess Marks
Executive Director, Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety

 

[nammac]

In case people are wondering, Oregon for Gun Safety Alliance is the Giffords/Bloomberg backed group intervening in the Measure 114 trial. Here's a link from their facebook page with an abbreviated list of objectives. It's not dissimilar to the other objectives we're seeing in the Washington and Illinois cases. This might help explain why their witnesses were chosen and the objective of the defense.

Carol Scherer

In last year's election, Oregonians came together to make our schools and communities safer. Voters passed Measure 114, the only comprehensive gun safety measure on the ballot in the country.
Now, our state's new gun safety policy is under attack by out-of-state gun lobbyists.
Tomorrow, our legal team will go to court alongside the Oregon Department of Justice to defend Measure 114.
We hired a top legal team to intervene in the court case, defend the voters' will and make sure our voices are heard: The voices of survivors and families. The voices of those in the emergency rooms. The voices of parents who've lost children. Of all of us who are impacted by gun violence in our communities.
Several supporters have asked to hear more details about the legal strategy, so here's a detailed explanation of the key arguments in the case.
To ensure Measure 114's evidence-backed, life-saving policies can go into effect, three things need to happen:
1) We need to win in federal court by proving the constitutionality of the measure. Tomorrow's trial is the first big step. This five-day trial before the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon will focus on the constitutionality of Measure 114.
2) We need to win in state court at a separate trial scheduled for September.
3) State and local officials need to allocate the funding needed to ensure smooth implementation.
To understand the legal case, we first need to look at what happened last year in a major Supreme Court decision called "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen" (or "Bruen" for short).
In the Bruen case, the Supreme Court issued a new framework to evaluate the constitutionality of firearms regulations.
Bruen explicitly says states are allowed to pass laws that are in line with our history of regulating dangerous weapons that are not useful for self-defense. The Supreme Court noted in its ruling that the vast majority of firearm permit laws across the country were still valid.
Measure 114's protections for Oregonians are in line with these acceptable regulations for the following reasons:
Large capacity magazine limits are constitutional because ammunition magazines are not "arms" under the Second Amendment's original meaning, are not necessary for any firearm to function, and are not in common use for self-defense. Moreover, restrictions on large-capacity magazines are consistent with the country's historical tradition of regulating highly dangerous weapons.
The permit-to-purchase requirement is constitutional because under Measure 114, someone who wants to buy a gun must meet only specific, objective criteria in order to get a permit to purchase. The Supreme Court calls this a "shall issue" system because it is based on objective criteria, similar to firearm regulations in 43 states that the Supreme Court expressly allowed in Bruen. The permit system is also consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation.
In short, Oregon's new gun safety law aligns with the federal constitution. And similar arguments will be made in state court in a separate case this fall.
Numerous courts have already upheld laws limiting ammunition magazine capacity. And Oregon's firearm permitting system is similar to what the Supreme Court has allowed elsewhere.
Over the next few days, we will share updates on the progress of the trial, which brings us closer to creating a safer state for all of us.
Thank you for your support.
~ Jess Marks
Executive Director, Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety

This is easy to sun up…

"We don't care what the SCOTUS says, other states have these laws, so we must have them too"

Why don't they put that effort into the homeless issue? Arresting and incarcerating criminals who offensively use firearms to commit crimes and are most certainly felons in possession of a firearm…

Dig deep folks, we need to financially support this battle, or end up on the short end of that stick…

 

[PiratePast40]

For those planning on going up tomorrow for closing arguments, get there early since I suspect the courtroom will be packed. I've been using the parking garage just north of the courthouse and across the street. It runs $12/day. You will be going through security so be aware of what metal you have on you. Their metal detector is pretty sensitive.

 

[tiggers97]

They have claimed that the magazines they seek to ban (virtually all magazines) are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are not "arms" they are "accessories".

Can some youtuber please do a video on how a firearm works without a magazine?
i.e. fire a semi-auto with no magazine, or a pump shotgun without a tube or spring? Likewise for a lever action. Or even a revolver without it's cylinder.

 

[PiratePast40]

I'm just curious if others are keeping readers/followers updated. Are members receiving daily updates about the trial besides this site, OFF , and from Derek LaBlanc facebook posts?

 

[Rem700..300]

I'm just curious if others are keeping readers/followers updated. Are members receiving daily updates about the trial besides this site, OFF , and from Derek LaBlanc facebook posts?

Just you and other members updates.

 

[ColeInOregon]

I'm just curious if others are keeping readers/followers updated. Are members receiving daily updates about the trial besides this site, OFF , and from Derek LaBlanc facebook posts?

Your updates are greatly appreciated, and in fact, they are some the most thorough that I've read, even more so than some "news" articles.

 

[jackrv]

In case people are wondering, Oregon for Gun Safety Alliance is the Giffords/Bloomberg backed group intervening in the Measure 114 trial. Here's a link from their facebook page with an abbreviated list of objectives. It's not dissimilar to the other objectives we're seeing in the Washington and Illinois cases. This might help explain why their witnesses were chosen and the objective of the defense.

Carol Scherer

In last year's election, Oregonians came together to make our schools and communities safer. Voters passed Measure 114, the only comprehensive gun safety measure on the ballot in the country.
Now, our state's new gun safety policy is under attack by out-of-state gun lobbyists.
Tomorrow, our legal team will go to court alongside the Oregon Department of Justice to defend Measure 114.
We hired a top legal team to intervene in the court case, defend the voters' will and make sure our voices are heard: The voices of survivors and families. The voices of those in the emergency rooms. The voices of parents who've lost children. Of all of us who are impacted by gun violence in our communities.
Several supporters have asked to hear more details about the legal strategy, so here's a detailed explanation of the key arguments in the case.
To ensure Measure 114's evidence-backed, life-saving policies can go into effect, three things need to happen:
1) We need to win in federal court by proving the constitutionality of the measure. Tomorrow's trial is the first big step. This five-day trial before the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon will focus on the constitutionality of Measure 114.
2) We need to win in state court at a separate trial scheduled for September.
3) State and local officials need to allocate the funding needed to ensure smooth implementation.
To understand the legal case, we first need to look at what happened last year in a major Supreme Court decision called "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen" (or "Bruen" for short).
In the Bruen case, the Supreme Court issued a new framework to evaluate the constitutionality of firearms regulations.
Bruen explicitly says states are allowed to pass laws that are in line with our history of regulating dangerous weapons that are not useful for self-defense. The Supreme Court noted in its ruling that the vast majority of firearm permit laws across the country were still valid.
Measure 114's protections for Oregonians are in line with these acceptable regulations for the following reasons:
Large capacity magazine limits are constitutional because ammunition magazines are not "arms" under the Second Amendment's original meaning, are not necessary for any firearm to function, and are not in common use for self-defense. Moreover, restrictions on large-capacity magazines are consistent with the country's historical tradition of regulating highly dangerous weapons.
The permit-to-purchase requirement is constitutional because under Measure 114, someone who wants to buy a gun must meet only specific, objective criteria in order to get a permit to purchase. The Supreme Court calls this a "shall issue" system because it is based on objective criteria, similar to firearm regulations in 43 states that the Supreme Court expressly allowed in Bruen. The permit system is also consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation.
In short, Oregon's new gun safety law aligns with the federal constitution. And similar arguments will be made in state court in a separate case this fall.
Numerous courts have already upheld laws limiting ammunition magazine capacity. And Oregon's firearm permitting system is similar to what the Supreme Court has allowed elsewhere.
Over the next few days, we will share updates on the progress of the trial, which brings us closer to creating a safer state for all of us.
Thank you for your support.
~ Jess Marks
Executive Director, Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety

I notice that she makes no mention of the out of state big bucks they received...

 

[Ura-Ki]

Nobody in the MSM or the Yourubeaverse is covering this, and out side the UTube, the MSM is really down playing it, even claiming it's only a purchasing permit for a pistol and a mag ban, then they wax on about how it's going to save lives and other states already have this kind of thing, yadda yadda!!!

 

[ma96782]

I'd hate to interrupt the thought process. BUT, But, but....
to a great number of people.....





Aloha, Mark

 

[Yarome]

Bruen explicitly says states are allowed to pass laws that are in line with our history of regulating dangerous weapons that are not useful for self-defense. The Supreme Court noted in its ruling that the vast majority of firearm permit laws across the country were still valid.
Large capacity magazine limits are constitutional because ammunition magazines are not "arms" under the Second Amendment's original meaning, are not necessary for any firearm to function, and are not in common use for self-defense. Moreover, restrictions on large-capacity magazines are consistent with the country's historical tradition of regulating highly dangerous weapons.
The permit-to-purchase requirement is constitutional because under Measure 114, someone who wants to buy a gun must meet only specific, objective criteria in order to get a permit to purchase. The Supreme Court calls this a "shall issue" system because it is based on objective criteria, similar to firearm regulations in 43 states that the Supreme Court expressly allowed in Bruen. The permit system is also consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation.
In short, Oregon's new gun safety law aligns with the federal constitution. And similar arguments will be made in state court in a separate case this fall.
Numerous courts have already upheld laws limiting ammunition magazine capacity.[not post bruen they haven't] And Oregon's firearm permitting system is similar to what the Supreme Court has allowed elsewhere.

Flat out lie much?? It makes you wonder how people like this, who are supposed to be god fearing "christians", can sleep at night.


On Edit: Rereading I guess they aren't exactly lying since they are just explaining their legal strategy... based on lies. Somewhere or other though I seem to remember something in the christian bible saying something or other about being honest in your dealings with others... but I could be wrong.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Flat out lie much?? It makes you wonder how people like this, who are supposed to be god fearing "christians", can sleep at night.

New York and Ch!tcago Money, that's how! These people are fakes, false prophets, perversions of Christianity, it's a tool, a means to an end for them, nothing more!

 

[ilikegunspdx]

.

Flat out lie much?? It makes you wonder how people like this, who are supposed to be god fearing "christians", can sleep at night.

Lying means nothing to them. Just as the law and their oaths to uphold the law, follow legal precedent mean nothing to judges like immergut in OR and Bryan? In WA. The only thing that matters to them is pushing through the anti gun agenda.

The only effective thing we can do right now is empower those who will be presenting this to scotus, where the rule of law supersedes their personal agenda.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Actually, it's very simple, Money and Power. Remember, Mike Bloomingturd promised 25 million to fight for his anti gun agenda, and he promised to take that fight to the states, so it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out who is behind all this, and I wouldn't be surprised to find Immergut is in on all this, maybe not money, but certainly power, this has put her name and face on it, she is "Somebody Now" instead of just another minion of mediocrity!

Idiots like Newsom, Kotex, Insley, that's different, I bet not only did they get big money from Bloomingturd, but a bunch of other rabid leftist Democraps too, and the sec state and State A.G's as well!

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Actually, it's very simple, Money and Power. Remember, Mike Bloomingturd promised 25 million to fight for his anti gun agenda, and he promised to take that fight to the states, so it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out who is behind all this, and I wouldn't be surprised to find Immergut is in on all this, maybe not money, but certainly power, this has put her name and face on it, she is "Somebody Now" instead of just another minion of mediocrity!

Idiots like Newsom, Kotex, Insley, that's different, I bet not only did they get big money from Bloomingturd, but a bunch of other rabid leftist Democraps too, and the sec state and State A.G's as well!

My suspicion is that immergut is the Guinea pig for the 9th circuit. The 9th can't openly disobey scotus when Benitez's ruling comes out which will overturn CA AWB and mag ban. But Immergut can.

I don't know if it's to give the 9th ammo to fight Benitez's pending ruling or just to have her directly challenge scotus's bruen and Heller rulings (so that they don't have to) but I do believe this is part of a bigger strategy by the anti gunners. Immergut's previous 142 page ruling (created in 2 business days) shows it was a pre-planned coordinated effort that continues to push the anti-gunners false arguments to try to get around bruen. Even mark smith said WA judge Bryan?'s ruling reads like it was directly from the anti-gunners arguments and completely ignores the legal precedents.

 

[CamoDeafie]

My suspicion is that immergut is the Guinea pig for the 9th circuit. The 9th can't openly disobey scotus when Benitez's ruling comes out which will overturn CA AWB and mag ban. But Immergut can.

I don't know if it's to give the 9th ammo to fight Benitez's pending ruling or just to have her directly challenge scotus's bruen and Heller rulings (so that they don't have to) but I do believe this is part of a bigger strategy by the anti gunners. Immergut's previous 142 page ruling (created in 2 business days) shows it was a pre-planned coordinated effort that continues to push the anti-gunners false arguments to try to get around bruen. Even mark smith said WA judge Bryan?'s ruling reads like it was directly from the anti-gunners arguments and completely ignores the legal precedents.

Add to that; there is talk about "stacking" the SCOTUS by adding more Justices, specifically appointing new Justices that when combined with the 3 known anti2A activists, would undo/overturn previous SCOTUS decisions.