www.oregonlive.com
Not that it would change what the laws are or the outcome, but imagine the message sent if all the county sherriffs of counties that voted 'no' on 114 all stepped up as plaintiffs! 29 out of 36 in OR. That sounds like a "majority" to me.
Judge will likely grant the motion for injunction. Also OSP is working on a rule to allow a delay in enforcement until rules can be approved. I have no concerns that we won't be able to buy guns on Dec 09.
SAF is waiting until the rules are written, to know specifically which arguments to make:
blog.cheaperthandirt.com
Bold strategy Cotton, let's see how that works out!SAF is waiting until the rules are written, to know specifically which arguments to make:
'The Firearms Protection Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation have signaled that they are sitting on the sidelines until it is clear how Oregon officials plan to proceed with its implementation.'
Oregon Measure 114 – Magazine Bans, Registries, and State Police - The Shooter's Log
Oregon Measure 114, Changes to Firearm Ownership and Purchase Requirements Initiative. Extreme gun control — read the article to see why.
They better not!! So if the state takes a year or more to actually announce the rules to get a permit... SAF an FPC are gonna sit on their hands and let the law stay in effect without challenge all that time??? The unconstitutional nature of the measure should be more than sufficient to challenge it instead of waiting around to see just exactly the procedure they will implement to act on the unconstitutional law.SAF is waiting until the rules are written, to know specifically which arguments to make:
'The Firearms Protection Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation have signaled that they are sitting on the sidelines until it is clear how Oregon officials plan to proceed with its implementation.'
Oregon Measure 114 – Magazine Bans, Registries, and State Police - The Shooter's Log
Oregon Measure 114, Changes to Firearm Ownership and Purchase Requirements Initiative. Extreme gun control — read the article to see why.
I read elsewhere this almost-certainly correct assessment: if Judge Immergut grants the injunction, OR will appeal to the 9th; if she does not, OFF will appeal to the 9th. Both appeals are probably mostly written already ...
Ninth is in interesting territory right now, so regardless of their particular bent (mostly anti, as we know) they should at least be marginally aware at the optics of their own legitimacy vs. their activism since Bruen was handed down. The danger of them directly challenging SCOTUS could very well (and likely) lead to a more direct/explicit ruling that completely guts the lower courts' ability to justify certain restrictions. In essence, "don't make Daddy get the paddle."
FFLs will still be able to buy guns.
Cops will still be able to buy guns with the permits that they make up and issue to themselves.
Pretty much what I said - years out to a resolution.
I could see the "no sale of magazines over 10" being enforced statewide while the permit system is in limbo. The Dems in Salem will give off-duty LEOs a carve out to keep their OSP attack dogs from turning on them.
With Duncan, that part looks really vulnerable. Don't know how the court will deal with another case in the 9th on that topic; it's not unusual for a court to put a case 'on hold' for the result of another case, but they don't have to do that.
Just another example of the skewed media picking a "learned scholar" by title to push the narrative. I saw more of that interview and the guys not at all well grounded.
