Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[ColeInOregon]

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

No the FPC asked for an injunction for its members, when that was granted the SAF did the same. The important question is why they didn't ask for the injunction to cover all the citizens of that districrict?

 

[Yarome]

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.

This.

Their original petition, as in each of the similar cases, requested a nationwide injunction. They also requested... to the effect of... failing that, injunctive relief for the plaintiffs. As stated, the judge would only go along with relief for the plaintiffs, but they have also since gone back and filed another motion requesting that the judge revise his ruling and expand the injunction to a national injunction. They haven't given up on it.

As to their motive?? Ummm... they are a pro 2A rights group with the sole purpose of challenging 2A infringement laws... because they are violations of the constitution and move to take away the inalienable rights of every American citizen. Their "motive" seems to be pretty darn transparent.

What type of nefarious motive are you alluding to?

 

[Yarome]

No the FPC asked for an injunction for its members, when that was granted the SAF did the same. The important question is why they didn't ask for the injunction to cover all the citizens of that districrict?

You are incorrect. It would be wise to read their petitions before making misinformed conclusions. In each of the cases they all asked for multiple remedies of varying degrees. Which all included request for a nationwide injunction. Some remedy requests where granted and some where not.

The FPC case judge kind of set the tone for the other courts when he granted relief only for the plaintiffs. The other judges also declined to rule in favor of a nationwide injunctions and followed suit with relief for the named plaintiffs.

 

[PiratePast40]

Let's make clear that the last few comments have absolutely nothing to do with the current Measure 114 lawsuits and are about the SBR and pistol brace issues. There is a separate thread for that topic.

 

[Yarome]

Let's make clear that the last few comments have absolutely nothing to do with the current Measure 114 lawsuits and are about the SBR and pistol brace issues. There is a separate thread for that topic.

Oops... just replied to the alerts and assumed we were in the pistol brace thread.

My bad... and won't reply further on it here.

Thanks for the heads up!

 

[PiratePast40]

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.

I believe FPC, GOA, SAF, and others will still send you updates without sending contributions. There are quite a few other lawsuits going on besides just pistol braces. Remember, lawsuits can only be brought by "damaged" parties. That means it's difficult to start the process until damages occur unless there is a lawsuit over constitutionality.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

No the FPC asked for an injunction for its members, when that was granted the SAF did the same. The important question is why they didn't ask for the injunction to cover all the citizens of that districrict?

This is incorrect.

 

[raftman]

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.

An additional note, despite LEVO's claim at their recent press conference; it appears a law enforcement-certified training course still does NOT fully exist to meet the M114 training requirements. There is an online course you could take that they can point to, but this doesn't meet the live-fire/in-person demonstration.

 

[MatthewDB]

By my reading I do not think there is a live fire requirement. Just a hands on demonstration of loading and unloading the firearm.

It includes the obnoxious terms "lock and load" but nothing about firing the firearm.

 

[PiratePast40]

By my reading I do not think there is a live fire requirement. Just a hands on demonstration of loading and unloading the firearm.

It includes the obnoxious terms "lock and load" but nothing about firing the firearm.

Section 4, page 4:
(D) In-person demonstration of the applicant's ability to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency. This requirement may be met separately from the other course requirements in subpargagraphs (A), (B) and (C) of paragraph (c), which may be completed in an on-line course, provided the on-line course has been conducted by a trainer certified by law enforcement.

 

[Member 66129]

Section 4, page 4:
(D) In-person demonstration of the applicant's ability to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency. This requirement may be met separately from the other course requirements in subpargagraphs (A), (B) and (C) of paragraph (c), which may be completed in an on-line course, provided the on-line course has been conducted by a trainer certified by law enforcement.

My interpretation of that is that just knowing how to fire it by pulling a trigger would satisfy their requirement. It doesn't say anything about being able to hit what you're aiming at.

 

[CamoDeafie]

My interpretation of that is that just knowing how to fire it by pulling a trigger would satisfy their requirement. It doesn't say anything about being able to hit what you're aiming at.

Are you a lawyer for State of Oregon, and know what they mean?

 

[The Heretic]

My interpretation of that is that just knowing how to fire it by pulling a trigger would satisfy their requirement. It doesn't say anything about being able to hit what you're aiming at.

I would dare say that any instructor/etc., would probably fail you if you hit the ceiling/walls/ground instead of the target.

 

[Member 66129]

Are you a lawyer for State of Oregon, and know what they mean?

No, but I am probably more familiar with the constitution than they are

 

[CamoDeafie]

No, but I am probably more familiar with the constitution than they are

As are we all here... better Constitutional Scholars than Obama

 

[PiratePast40]

I don't think the author knows what it mean either. She admitted that most of 114 is cut and paste from other documents. Most likely sent to her by Giffords and MDA.

 

[solv3nt]

I don't think the author knows what it mean either. She admitted that most of 114 is cut and paste from other documents. Most likely sent to her by Giffords and MDA.

Most likely????

 

[PADRE]

NRA certification requires a minimum score on paper at 50' does it not?

 

[PiratePast40]

NRA certification requires a minimum score on paper at 50' does it not?

The pre-course qualification says 15 yards.

Now that I think about it, I believe the author of M114 said, at one time, that the demonstration portion does not require live fire. Considering how much time she's spent communicating with OSP and legislators, OSP and OSSA may have adapted her philosophy, but I don't know that for sure.

 

[PiratePast40]

OFF Independence Day Letter

…our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor