Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[lucusloc]

That whole blade of grass and fat people thing you were defending. Or is that only for foreign governments/countries?

No no, I agree that if things get bad enough we will kick off Civil War Two. My question is how bad does it need to get before that happens. It seems that "unconstitutional searches and seizures of autos on the road" is not a bridge too far for most of our fellow countrymen, so CW2 will not be forthcoming anytime soon. I am sure there is a line that will be crossed that will get the "3%" or whatever riled enough to fight, but that line is probably a bit further out than anyone here would like to admit to.

And until that line is actually crossed we have to live under the thumb of the tyrant, and do so smart enough so that we can still fight back when that thumb squeezes hard enough to motivate the whole of the citizenry. Being aware of the reality of the courts is part of that, as is loudly complaining so that the less well informed are made aware of the infringements.

 

[1775usmc]

No no, I agree that if things get bad enough we will kick off Civil War Two. My question is how bad does it need to get before that happens. It seems that "unconstitutional searches and seizures of autos on the road" is not a bridge too far for most of our fellow countrymen, so CW2 will not be forthcoming anytime soon. I am sure there is a line that will be crossed that will get the "3%" or whatever riled enough to fight, but that line is probably a bit further out than anyone here would like to admit to.

And until that line is actually crossed we have to live under the thumb of the tyrant, and do so smart enough so that we can still fight back when that thumb squeezes hard enough to motivate the whole of the citizenry. Being aware of the reality of the courts is part of that, as is loudly complaining so that the less well informed are made aware of the infringements.

I got III% tattooed on my body. I'm ready for the call. lol. So serious.

 

[Ura-Ki]

No no, I agree that if things get bad enough we will kick off Civil War Two. My question is how bad does it need to get before that happens. It seems that "unconstitutional searches and seizures of autos on the road" is not a bridge too far for most of our fellow countrymen, so CW2 will not be forthcoming anytime soon. I am sure there is a line that will be crossed that will get the "3%" or whatever riled enough to fight, but that line is probably a bit further out than anyone here would like to admit to.

And until that line is actually crossed we have to live under the thumb of the tyrant, and do so smart enough so that we can still fight back when that thumb squeezes hard enough to motivate the whole of the citizenry. Being aware of the reality of the courts is part of that, as is loudly complaining so that the less well informed are made aware of the infringements.

Will not happen, not until either the left kicks off a total draco ian move to seize control over you and I, or some major events takes place that puts "Us vs Them" lots of people thought it might have kicked off during the last election season, a successful assignation would have surely done it, as would another election steal, but those things didn't happen, so here we are.

I've been saying for years now, until it hurts us personally, we're talking a YUGE hit to our wallets and freedoms,( worse then the plandemic did) when people are seriously hurting, cannot afford food, cannot pay bills, loosing everything they own and worked for, and worse, all that given to the illegals and such, nope, we got it too good here, we don't have to fight every single day of our lives just to survive, so until that changes, there will be no civil war here in these States United, it will continue to be a slow burn, taxes keep going up, rights taken away slowly, cost of living going up, ..................

The left Utopian dreamers/China lovers who demand communism will never stop, and they have all the power and the wealth to keep pushing us until they eventually win! It will take a war to stop them cold, and that is going to be extra bloody, lots of grievances to settle and lots of elites to loose everything, what we as a country have afterwards to rebuild on is the big question!

 

[40nascar]

The courts won't protect you on this one. Between the ruling that cars are part of the "public space" while on the public roads and multiple federal rulings on asset forfeiture searches and seizures there is lots of precedent than your "expectations of privacy" while in your car are next to nil. Until SCOTUS starts reversing a lot of these bad decisions that is the world we live in. The issue of seeing a gun case is especially poignant, because that could be construed as "probable cause" to suspect magazines are also present, and that would probably hold up in court under the current structure.

Of course this is all speculation until someone actually tries it in court. We won't know for sure until that happens, but as it currently stands I do not have a lot of faith that the test case will swing in our favor.

The advise an LEO gave to a friend of mine ( for pistol or revolver): Get a locking briefcase, when traveling with the handgun, put it in the briefcase along with some personal papers, such as copies of your tax returns. The firearm will be easily accessible on the passenger seat, in the briefcase. If you get pulled over, and an officer asks about the brief case ( locked at this point) let he/she/it know that the briefcase contains personal financial information, including social security #'s. If they ask to inspect it, the answer is No, not without a warrant. ( They likely won't ask at this point anyway, if you don't have a criminal background). So be smart. The supreme court has ruled that LEO's can inquire or inspect containers that are obviously shaped to hold firearms. Briefcases and guitar cases don't fall within that criteria.

 

[1775usmc]

The advise an LEO gave to a friend of mine ( for pistol or revolver): Get a locking briefcase, when traveling with the handgun, put it in the briefcase along with some personal papers, such as copies of your tax returns. The firearm will be easily accessible on the passenger seat, in the briefcase. If you get pulled over, and an officer asks about the brief case ( locked at this point) let he/she/it know that the briefcase contains personal financial information, including social security #'s. If they ask to inspect it, the answer is No, not without a warrant. ( They likely won't ask at this point anyway, if you don't have a criminal background). So be smart. The supreme court has ruled that LEO's can inquire or inspect containers that are obviously shaped to hold firearms. Briefcases and guitar cases don't fall within that criteria.

I prefer to carry it on my person. But that's not a terrible idea.

 

[Jcon268]

Click to embiggen, screen shot from HB 3075 as introduced. Note "permanently and voluntarily relinquished", language.View attachment 2076325

It looks like, if you're "caught" with one and you voluntarily surrender it, this acts as an affirmative defense. I trust that about as much as a Taco Bell fart.

 

[1775usmc]

It looks like, if you're "caught" with one and you voluntarily surrender it, this acts as an affirmative defense. I trust that about as much as a Taco Bell fart.

Just don't get caught. Haha.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The advise an LEO gave to a friend of mine ( for pistol or revolver): Get a locking briefcase, when traveling with the handgun, put it in the briefcase along with some personal papers, such as copies of your tax returns. The firearm will be easily accessible on the passenger seat, in the briefcase. If you get pulled over, and an officer asks about the brief case ( locked at this point) let he/she/it know that the briefcase contains personal financial information, including social security #'s. If they ask to inspect it, the answer is No, not without a warrant. ( They likely won't ask at this point anyway, if you don't have a criminal background). So be smart. The supreme court has ruled that LEO's can inquire or inspect containers that are obviously shaped to hold firearms. Briefcases and guitar cases don't fall within that criteria.

Do they make briefcases big enough to contain SBRs not taken down/disassembled?

 

[Jcon268]

The supreme court has ruled that LEO's can inquire or inspect containers that are obviously shaped to hold firearms. Briefcases and guitar cases don't fall within that criteria.

Conveniently, I just so happen to sell guitar cases through my business.

 

[1775usmc]

I for one do not drive around for fun with SBRs in my vehicle.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I for one do not drive around for fun with SBRs in my vehicle.

That is true, my only registered SBR tends to live in my cabinet at home, until range/shooting day then it comes with me. Granted, it has 10rd mags and 20rd mags, because of its caliber, 6.5 Grendel.

My other ARs, are all 5.56 and I'm pretty confident that I ain't gonna find 10rd mags for less than what the 30rd mags are going for

 

[ilikegunspdx]

It looks like, if you're "caught" with one and you voluntarily surrender it, this acts as an affirmative defense. I trust that about as much as a Taco Bell fart.

Personally I don't think that's what it says at all. It says prior to prosecution by arrest, citation, etc. In other words, if you voluntarily hand it in to the police as contraband ahead of time, that's an affirmative defense. That's why that part includes "buyback program". At the time of arrest, citation, etc is not "prior to".

 

[CamoDeafie]

FWIW, the two SW handguns in my possession each have ban era 10rd magazines. Both the .22 and the .40 that said, supposedly the 422 could have had 12rd magazines but I've never seen them available. The other one, the SW40V have 13rd magazines out there but . Really. 3 extra = large capacity? eh not that it matters much anyhow.....

 

[Jcon268]

Personally I don't think that's what it says at all. It says prior to prosecution by arrest, citation, etc. In other words, if you voluntarily hand it in to the police as contraband ahead of time, that's an affirmative defense. That's why that part includes "buyback program". At the time of arrest, citation, etc is not "prior to".

In what circumstance would be prior to arrest, citation if not already encountered by law enforcement? Prosecution occurring inside a courtroom AFTER encounter with law enforcement.
And buyback program? What buyback program? Where is this option I'm not remotely aware of?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

In what circumstance would be prior to arrest, citation if not already encountered by law enforcement? Prosecution occurring inside a courtroom AFTER encounter with law enforcement.

Voluntary relinquishment. Similar to what atf did with bump stocks. Foolish people who say, "I guess this is illegal now, I better go turn them in so I don't get in trouble".

And buyback program? What buyback program? Where is this option I'm not remotely aware of?

They are talking about a future possible buyback program. They of course would like to "buy back" every gun and magazine they could because the idiots think if they remove some guns they are stopping violent behavior.

 

[Jcon268]

Personally I don't think that's what it says at all. It says prior to prosecution by arrest, citation, etc. In other words, if you voluntarily hand it in to the police as contraband ahead of time, that's an affirmative defense. That's why that part includes "buyback program". At the time of arrest, citation, etc is not "prior to".

A couple of things to note here. To satisfy the requirement of voluntarily relinquishing mag prior to "citation" (I haven't been arrested or prosecuted yet), they would be suggesting self-incrimination by walking into a police station to "relinquish" my magazines. Are they really that daft? Who would voluntarily admit to having magazines in front of a police officer? At best, they'll be lucky if anyone destroys their magazines at home let alone participates in some non-existent buyback program where they give you nothing of value to turn your back on gun ownership in essence. Do they think we live in Australia?

Let's not forget I also have the opportunity to attempt to prove that my magazine was owned prior to the date they provided as cutoff. Or have they withdrawn that concession?

 

[CamoDeafie]

View attachment 2076692
A couple of things to note here. To satisfy the requirement of voluntarily relinquishing mag prior to "citation" (I haven't been arrested or prosecuted yet), they would be suggesting self-incrimination by walking into a police station to "relinquish" my magazines. Are they really that daft? Who would voluntarily admit to having magazines in front of a police officer? At best, they'll be lucky if anyone destroys their magazines at home let alone participates in some non-existent buyback program where they give you nothing of value to turn your back on gun ownership in essence. Do they think we live in Australia?

Let's not forget I also have the opportunity to attempt to prove that my magazine was owned prior to the date they provided as cutoff. Or have they withdrawn that concession?

Yes they really are that daft. They really truly believe they can get more gun owners to jump through hoops to "comply" with everything they want. They still have that concession for proving you lawfully owned and possessed mags before Dec 8th 2022. They also put in new language that basically says from Dec 8th, 2022 to whenever, people will not be officially prosecuted for violating the mag portion of M114 while M114 is under injunction/stayed under order of Court until Supreme Court or Court of Appeals decisions blah blah blah

 

[Jcon268]

Voluntary relinquishment. Similar to what atf did with bump stocks. Foolish people who say, "I guess this is illegal now, I better go turn them in so I don't get in trouble".

So you're talking about an amnesty period? Or is it possible to do this at any time? 10 years later I could decide to walk into a police station with a bag full of mags and they're just going to pat me on my back and send me on my way?

They are talking about a future possible buyback program. They of course would like to "buy back" every gun and magazine they could because the idiots think if they remove some guns they are stopping violent behavior.

They can't buy back what they didn't sell to me. I also doubt there will be any funding for such programs, look at how they're having trouble finding the funding for the bills already.
Wow, I just got a whole other sense of stupidity in the writing of that bill that I didn't even pick up on before. Thanks for pointing it out. If they really think we're all going to realize we're bad people and need to hand mags to the police - they've just gone to another level of buffoonery.

 

[Jcon268]

Yes they really are that daft. They really truly believe they can get more gun owners to jump through hoops to "comply" with everything they want. They still have that concession for proving you lawfully owned and possessed mags before Dec 8th 2022. They also put in new language that basically says from Dec 8th, 2022 to whenever, people will not be officially prosecuted for violating the mag portion of M114 while M114 is under injunction/stayed under order of Court until Supreme Court or Court of Appeals decisions blah blah blah

Isn't that kind of what it already said? Or did they move that language over from 3075 to 114? I don't see how they can prosecute ANYTHING while under injunction. Bravo to them for being so apt to notice their hands are tied.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

View attachment 2076692
A couple of things to note here. To satisfy the requirement of voluntarily relinquishing mag prior to "citation" (I haven't been arrested or prosecuted yet), they would be suggesting self-incrimination by walking into a police station to "relinquish" my magazines. Are they really that daft? Who would voluntarily admit to having magazines in front of a police officer? At best, they'll be lucky if anyone destroys their magazines at home let alone participates in some non-existent buyback program where they give you nothing of value to turn your back on gun ownership in essence. Do they think we live in Australia?

Let's not forget I also have the opportunity to attempt to prove that my magazine was owned prior to the date they provided as cutoff. Or have they withdrawn that concession?

You have to admit it to use affirmative defensive. That's how it works. If you don't admit to it you can't use affirmative defense.

Fe "yes officer I shot him, but it was in self defense". Then you prove self defense and you go free. Vs "no officer I didn't shoot him".

If you want to use affirmative defense for possession of a >10 mag, you have to admit it and show both it was for an allowed purpose and you owned it prior to the effective date.