Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[The Heretic]

can you open carry a G17 with a stock magazine post 114?

not if you don't want to be a test court case

 

[Yarome]

Not to open a can of worms, but if you really wanna get down to the language of the measure... it could very easily be read to make any mag, even a 10rd'er, with a removeable base plate is also illegal.

Buy your 10 round mags... carry... it's still an illegal mag and you're still "technically" a criminal!

It's THAT poorly written.

"(A) An ammunition feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it is not capable, now or in the future, of accepting more than 10 rounds of ammunition;"

+2 extender and 30secs of your time... BOOM! That 10rd mag is an illegal feeding device. The baseplate must be rendered non-removeable.

 

[Librarian]

can you open carry a G17 with a stock magazine post 114?

After 114 becomes effective, you cannot legally carry any handgun with a magazine having a capacity greater than 10, unless

(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; 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.

'stock magazine' has no legal meaning, though for a G17 it's usually 17 rounds - GT the 10-round limit.

 

[The Heretic]

Not to open a can of worms, but if you really wanna get down to the language of the measure... it could very easily be read to make any mag, even a 10rd'er, with a removeable base plate is also illegal.

Buy your 10 round mags... carry... it's still an illegal mag and you're still "technically" a criminal!

It's THAT poorly written.

Only if the 10 rd mag can be converted to be more than 10 rds. Some mags cannot. My SIG 227 10 rd mags cannot - there is extension for them but from what I have read it is not reliable. The 14rd mags are not 10rds with an extension - they are just longer mags with a sleeve.

Most of the SIG/MecGar mags I have that are ten round cannot because of the way they are designed - some can use ext baseplates, but the ones intended to be CA compliant cannot. It just depends.


Some have a dimple like this:


The ones I have are either blocked off like the first or have a much larger dimple than the photo above.

 

[Yarome]

Only if the 10 rd mag can be converted to be more than 10 rds. Some mags cannot. My SIG 227 10 rd mags cannot. Most of the SIG/MecGar mags I have that are ten round cannot because of the way they are designed - some can use ext baseplates, but the ones intended to be CA compliant cannot. It just depends.

Yeah. Just sayin... simply buying a 10rd mag doesn't guarantee it's legal.. by OR law. The most common still have removeable baseplates.

 

[The Heretic]

Yeah. Just sayin... simply buying a 10rd mag doesn't guarantee it's legal.. by OR law. The most common still have removeable baseplates.

Yeah - but I think the intention of that part of the law is to discourage people from converting, not to prosecute someone with a ten rd mag that could theoretically be converted with an extension.

 

[Yarome]

Yeah - but I think the intention of that part of the law is to discourage people from converting, not to prosecute someone with a ten rd mag that could theoretically be converted with an extension.

I fully agree. Until they decide they want to cut even deeper (once we're all used to the new norm and quiet down our whining).... the language is already built in to allow expansion to increase the scope of restriction.

 

[Yarome]

....or have a much larger dimple than the photo above.

Those are convertable. Internally blocked are as well. Some using follower blocks built into the baseplates, some with dimples, some with studs or rivets.... all convertibe.

I get it. It certainly doesn't mean all mags are convertible and typically more mfg and/or style specific, but a whole heck of a lot are. Simply having "10rd" stamped on the mag isn't a guarantee it's "114" compliant... "technically speaking".

Like I said... not trying to open a can of worms. More just a commentary on how piss poor it's written and a heads up that some of that language "may" be turned further against us at some point.

Personally though I have high hopes it's only a matter of time before the whole dang thing is scrapped and any discussion is a moot point anyway.

It's just fun to stir the pot the woketards are trying to get us all to eat out of.

 

[tkdguy]

I agree! Awful situation we are in but several legal teams will be very annoying those that promoted this sack of ____! Have a supply of popcorn.

 

[Cavedweller]

can you open carry a G17 with a stock magazine post 114?

That's not the point. The poster I was replying to was whining that he had been made a criminal by virtue of owning magazines of greater than 10 rounds capacity, or by using them on public lands, neither of which is true.

As I stated in another post, there are enough odious aspects of this law without engaging in hyperbole.

 

[PiratePast40]

Can we get this thread back on track? It was specifically started to track and discuss litigation. There are plenty of threads discussing all the ways of complying if people want to pay mind games. If it ever gets to that point, the overlords will be more than happy to tell us how we will comply.

At this point, it's probably best to not play amateur attorney and try to dissect the initial complaint. There will be plenty of time for that in the next few weeks. I'm actually a little disappointed that none the other groups haven't filed anything yet.

 

[Yarome]

That's not the point. The poster I was replying to was whining that he had been made a criminal by virtue of owning magazines of greater than 10 rounds capacity, or by using them on public lands, neither of which is true.

As I stated in another post, there are enough odious aspects of this law without engaging in hyperbole.

That's still debatable. Wanting "recreational activities" to mean the status quo and what "they" decide it means and includes might be 2 different things. By the other language it seems to imply allowing only established and regulated activities within established areas and/or time frames.

Plinkin in the woods when the mood strikes doesn't quite fall within those confines. There is also no established definition of what constitutes "recreational activities allowed by state law".

Are public land usage regulations included within their definition of state laws? Inclusively?

I agree it most likely does, but with blue hairs, they ain't exactly known for their common sense. In that light I don't think it's safe to make the assumption as definitively allowed.

There is also the element of enforcement. Even if they decide it's "not" allowed, I highly doubt it's in any way enforceable so... kinda moot what they want to say in that regard, anyway.

We'll see!

 

[Yarome]

Can we get this thread back on track?

I'm actually a little disappointed that none the other groups haven't filed anything yet.

Agreed. I'm suprised it's taking so long too. Leading up to the election... word was many were already primed and ready to go as soon as it passed. If OFF could get'er done... what's up with the big guys??

From their email blast (OFF's) it sounded like there was some coordination between the agencies, but hinted at a bit of frustration and OFF was done waiting around for them to fall in(??)

 

[PiratePast40]

Agreed. I'm suprised it's taking so long too. Leading up to the election... word was many were already primed and ready to go as soon as it passed. If OFF could get'er done... what's up with the big guys??

From their email blast (OFF's) it sounded like there was some coordination between the agencies, but hinted at a bit of frustration and OFF was done waiting around for them to fall in(??)

Come to find out, herding and coordinating cats, lawyers, and forum members isn't as easy as it sounds.

 

[Yarome]

Come to find out, herding and coordinating cats, lawyers, and forum members isn't as easy as it sounds.

And of those... only cats make good soup so... whatcha gonna do? Patience....

 

[tkdguy]

Are Oregon's legal defense of 114, the anti-gun legislators, and the State of Oregon Secreatry of State circling the drain facing legal challenges on three or more fronts? Destroying them selves from within?

 

[PiratePast40]

Here's another KGW video that explains the lawsuit. Posted this in the other thread by mistake.

ETA: The lawyer and KGW both fail to mention that we already have background checks in Oregon. The lawyer seems to support permits and enhanced background checks, because lawyers need to do it to practice law. He also supports permits because other states have them on their books. He fails to mention that those permits have not been recently challenged in light of the Bruen decision, nor does he mention that, in Justice Kavanaugh's opinion about permits, he talked about permit to carry outside the home, not a permit to purchase.

 

[Yarome]

ETA: The lawyer and KGW both fail to mention that we already have background checks in Oregon. The lawyer seems to support permits and enhanced background checks, because lawyers need to do it to practice law. He also supports permits because other states have them on their books. He fails to mention that those permits have not been recently challenged in light of the Bruen decision, nor does he mention that, in Justice Kavanaugh's opinion about permits, he talked about permit to carry outside the home, not a permit to purchase.

That guy has no idea what the crap he's talking about. He says, supposedly, if a person has already completed training that satisfies the new training requirements that they will no be required to repeat that training. What he doesn't make clear is that there is no way to validate training retroactively as to if it is in compliance to the new stanards (that haven't even been established yet). What are they going to do? Audit the last 50yrs of all training programs that have every been offered by any institution and/or instructor that ever taught a firearm class???

If his understanding of the measure is that far off base, pretty much anything flapping out of his mouth should be highly suspect.

Another woke trying to pull the wool over the publics eyes under the guise of being a "law professional" on the matter.

 

[E4mafia]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1595839373680984065

 

[PiratePast40]

Thanks. Does anyone familiar with the courthouse know how large the room is or if they will have live video available.