Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[Aero Denezol]

I don't know the name of the song or if it was made up for just this occasion or something, but it was something to the effect that they're on a journey and there's only a little way left to go.

Lol. Cringeworthy

 

[nehalemguy]

62 views in 4 hours. Probably mostly people from here.

-E-

 

[solv3nt]

62 views in 4 hours. Probably mostly people from here.

-E-

I was thinking the same thing when I was looking for the song, but it was lacking a dance.

 

[HA556]

I was thinking the same thing when I was looking for the song, but it was lacking a dance.

Okay okay, removed!

 

[Mono1]

But. ...why?

 

[arakboss]

What is the latest status of the Harney County case?

 

[PiratePast40]

What is the latest status of the Harney County case?

Trial is at the end of September

 

[fmvolume86]

Trial is at the end of September

Still don't understand why it was set for so far out ?

 

[PiratePast40]

Still don't understand why it was set for so far out ?

The judge said the had an opening in his schedule that was just a few weeks away. The plaintiffs said that would be fine. The defendants (state or Oregon) then said they were already scheduled, so would work with whatever days the judge had open. The judge then said his next opening on the docket for a full week was the last week in September.

Mic drop!

 

[Jade Falcon]

The judge said the had an opening in his schedule that was just a few weeks away. The plaintiffs said that would be fine. The defendants (state or Oregon) then said they were already scheduled, so would work with whatever days the judge had open. The judge then said his next opening on the docket for a full week was the last week in September.

Mic drop!

Hopefully he calls in sick.

 

[AshWilliams]

Are there any updates as to the status of OSP getting the permitting infrastructure and process in place prior to the trial? Any place I can read about current updates for OSP's progress?

Thanks.

 

[PiratePast40]

They were awarded $7.6 million for staffing and background check costs associated with Measure 114. There was a separate bill specifically for OSP budget, but I don't recall the bill number. That bill, in the testimony section, detailed the resource requirements. They also had the cost of the electronic fingerprinting systems. I believe that the cost for terminals, with training, was about $27k each. The M114 permitting agents, county Sheriff's, would bear that cost. Here's a link to the OSP budget information. I recall seeing that information during discovery as well, so it should be publicly available. When I get time, I'll see if I can find my previous post with the links.

ETA: Found the bill. It's SB5530. Scroll down to the last of the presentations. The answer to M114 costs is in that letter.

People should be aware that OSP has been working on implementation of M114 since before the election. MDA and LEVO were recognized as stakeholders early on in the process, were consulted often, and had a considerable amount of input. Contrary to remarks by Democrat lawyers and law makers, NO, I repeat, NO second amendment advocacy groups were consulted with regard to implementation.

Supposedly, the changes to the NICS system, released in April of this year, was going to clear the backlog of background requests and was a trial run for M114 implementation. We can see how well that worked!

I believe there was also around $330k added to the OSP budget for implementation and enforcement of HB 2005.

 

[arakboss]

Trial is at the end of September

That would mean no permit requirements until at after Sept trial?

They were awarded $7.6 million for staffing and background check costs associated with Measure 114. There was a separate bill specifically for OSP budget, but I don't recall the bill number. That bill, in the testimony section, detailed the resource requirements. They also had the cost of the electronic fingerprinting systems. I believe that the cost for terminals, with training, was about $27k each. The M114 permitting agents, county Sheriff's, would bear that cost. Here's a link to the OSP budget information. I recall seeing that information during discovery as well, so it should be publicly available. When I get time, I'll see if I can find my previous post with the links.

ETA: Found the bill. It's SB5530. Scroll down to the last of the presentations. The answer to M114 costs is in that letter.

People should be aware that OSP has been working on implementation of M114 since before the election. MDA and LEVO were recognized as stakeholders early on in the process, were consulted often, and had a considerable amount of input. Contrary to remarks by Democrat lawyers and law makers, NO, I repeat, NO second amendment advocacy groups were consulted with regard to implementation.

Supposedly, the changes to the NICS system, released in April of this year, was going to clear the backlog of background requests. We can see how well that worked!

It's under 4000 now. They are canceling a lot of them.

 

[PiratePast40]

That would mean no permit requirements until at after Sept trial?

It's under 4000 now. They are canceling a lot of them.

It's still unacceptable for a government agency to deny citizens constitutionally protected rights for any reason. I don't see anyone jumping in to file a lawsuit. Maybe someone with influence in the NRA can ask them why they're not doing anything.

 

[AshWilliams]

They were awarded $7.6 million for staffing and background check costs associated with Measure 114. There was a separate bill specifically for OSP budget, but I don't recall the bill number. That bill, in the testimony section, detailed the resource requirements. They also had the cost of the electronic fingerprinting systems. I believe that the cost for terminals, with training, was about $27k each. The M114 permitting agents, county Sheriff's, would bear that cost. Here's a link to the OSP budget information. I recall seeing that information during discovery as well, so it should be publicly available. When I get time, I'll see if I can find my previous post with the links.

ETA: Found the bill. It's SB5530. Scroll down to the last of the presentations. The answer to M114 costs is in that letter.

People should be aware that OSP has been working on implementation of M114 since before the election. MDA and LEVO were recognized as stakeholders early on in the process, were consulted often, and had a considerable amount of input. Contrary to remarks by Democrat lawyers and law makers, NO, I repeat, NO second amendment advocacy groups were consulted with regard to implementation.

Supposedly, the changes to the NICS system, released in April of this year, was going to clear the backlog of background requests and was a trial run for M114 implementation. We can see how well that worked!

I believe there was also around $330k added to the OSP budget for implementation and enforcement of HB 2005.

Thank you for the detailed reply.

 

[Jade Falcon]

It's still unacceptable for a government agency to deny citizens constitutionally protected rights for any reason. I don't see anyone jumping in to file a lawsuit. Maybe someone with influence in the NRA can ask them why they're not doing anything.

They seem to be way more concerned about items than any actual laws. I've not seen one 2A advocacy group talk about anything other than arm braces and bump stocks for at least the past year.

 

[ColeInOregon]

They seem to be way more concerned about items than any actual laws. I've not seen one 2A advocacy group talk about anything other than arm braces and bump stocks for at least the past year.

Gee, I wonder who would stand to profit from such a move...

FPC, SAF members included in injunction against ATF new pistol brace rules

bearingarms.com

It sucks, but more and more, I feel like these groups are fighting for corporate interests and not the individual interests that the 2A is meant to serve.

 

[Yarome]

Gee, I wonder who would stand to profit from such a move...

It sucks, but more and more, I feel like these groups are fighting for corporate interests and not the individual interests that the 2A is meant to serve.

I dunno what you're toking, but please share!

I guess the private individual plaintiffs in those cases must be receiving "gun industry" kickbacks... or maybe firearm accessories under the table, too?

Grassroots organizations are critical for those who oppose unconstitutional laws to pool resources and combat the goobermental attacks against our rights. (Unlimitedly funded by our own tax dollars)

What would you suggest as a more motivationally "pure" alternative? Ma and Pa kettle going destitute trying to fund a challenge on their own and having to bail out 60days into the fight?

 

[ColeInOregon]

I dunno what you're toking, but please share!

I guess the private individual plaintiffs in those cases must be receiving "gun industry" kickbacks... or maybe firearm accessories under the table, too?

Grassroots organizations are critical for those who oppose unconstitutional laws to pool resources and combat the goobermental attacks against our rights. (Unlimitedly funded by our own tax dollars)

What would you suggest as a more motivationally "pure" alternative? Ma and Pa kettle going destitute trying to fund a challenge on their own and having to bail out 60days into the fight?

While I support the actual efforts of these orgs, ie the legal challenges in Oregon, when they do things that only include their members but affects all citizens, like in an injuction it makes me suspicious of who they are representing and what the their motives are for representing such a case.

 

[Member 66129]

While I support the actual efforts of these orgs, ie the legal challenges in Oregon, when they do things that only include their members but affects all citizens, like in an injuction it makes me suspicious of who they are representing and what the their motives are for representing such a case.

Their goal was to have an injunction for everyone but the judge only granted it for those directly involved in the case.