measure 114 passed, what's next?

[Jasonanddeonna]

Mods, please feel free to move to whichever of the 132,452 M114 threads this fits.

For whatever it is worth, M114 Legal Action:

Oregon Gun-Control Initiative Faces Immediate Legal Peril After Slim Victory

Gun-rights advocates are already drafting a lawsuit against Oregon’s new gun-control initiative.

thereload.com

My bigger concern is why we do not have a judge putting a halt to this already:

1. Unconstitutional - Oregon Constitution for Ballot Measures
2. Unconstitutional - 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms (no permits, training, or permission needed)
2. Unconstitutional - Violates the 4th, 5th, 9th Amendments for Privacy as well as numerous Privacy Acts
3. Prior Supreme and Lower Court Rulings

I'm sure I am missing many more.

 

[Alexx1401]

Mods, please feel free to move to whichever of the 132,452 M114 threads this fits.

For whatever it is worth, M114 Legal Action:

Oregon Gun-Control Initiative Faces Immediate Legal Peril After Slim Victory

Gun-rights advocates are already drafting a lawsuit against Oregon’s new gun-control initiative.

thereload.com

My bigger concern is why we do not have a judge putting a halt to this already:

1. Unconstitutional - Oregon Constitution for Ballot Measures
2. Unconstitutional - 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms (no permits, training, or permission needed)
2. Unconstitutional - Violates the 4th, 5th, 9th Amendments for Privacy as well as numerous Privacy Acts
3. Prior Supreme and Lower Court Rulings

I'm sure I am missing many more.

Sadly MANY black robes do not like the constitution, they like power. Find one who will shoot this down? State will find one higher up the food chain to say its fine. Depending on the courts to undo stupidity done by voters is seldom a solution sadly.

 

[The Heretic]

Sadly MANY black robes do not like the constitution, they like power. Find one who will shoot this down? State will find one higher up the food chain to say its fine. Depending on the courts to undo stupidity done by voters is seldom a solution sadly.

Humans in position of authority tend to be corrupted by that power, to one degree or another. However, the corruption of the understanding of the Constitution by the judicial system, is something that happened over time, starting not long after the Constitution was written, and it was slowly corrupted by all three government branches over the past 2+ centuries, to serve the purposes of those in power, and the institution of the government itself. The excuses the judicial system uses is precedent and/or that a decision serves a "reasonable" purpose of the government.

This has turned the Constitution on it head in many respects, to the point that returning to the original intent of the Constitution is called "extreme" and "radical".

 

[KEMOSABEJR1]

Humans in position of authority tend to be corrupted by that power, to one degree or another. However, the corruption of the understanding of the Constitution by the judicial system, is something that happened over time, starting not long after the Constitution was written, and it was slowly corrupted by all three government branches over the past 2+ centuries, to serve the purposes of those in power, and the institution of the government itself. The excuses the judicial system uses is precedent and/or that a decision serves a "reasonable" purpose of the government.

This has turned the Constitution on it head in many respects, to the point that returning to the original intent of the Constitution is called "extreme" and "radical".

You are so true. How do we go back to those days when the constitution was the law of land?

 

[SixgunSymphony]

You are so true. How do we go back to those days when the constitution was the law of land?

Vote Republican to get honorable judges like Scalia and Thomas. Democrats will only appoint liberal activist judges.

 

[arakboss]

I am still confused by the reference to ORS 166.055 regarding an affirmative defense, since that statute does not exist????

It was a typo.

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_161.055


The people talking about documenting their pre ban 11+ mags may be on to something.

"When a defense, declared to be an "affirmative defense" by chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, is raised at a trial, the defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence."

 

[The Heretic]

preponderance of the evidence

To prove an element by a preponderance of the evidence simply means to prove that something is more likely than not. In other words, in light of the evidence and the law, do you believe that each element of his/her [claim/counterclaim] is more likely true than not?

So yeah - the EXIF data could be removed, but is it likely? No.

All kinds of evidence can be faked, but not necessarily more likely than not.

 

[The Heretic]

Oregon gun access measure narrowly passes, bringing joy and sadness

For many on both sides, the passage of Measure 114 feels deeply personal and will change day-to-day life.

www.opb.org

So the difference between a civil rights lawyer and a criminal lawyer is that the latter has actual experience with criminals - the kind of people who don't give a bubblegum about breaking laws - and the former is one that has no clue about criminals?

 

[RedRover]

View attachment 1316131

Oregon gun access measure narrowly passes, bringing joy and sadness

For many on both sides, the passage of Measure 114 feels deeply personal and will change day-to-day life.

www.opb.org

So the difference between a civil rights lawyer and a criminal lawyer is that the latter has actual experience with criminals - the kind of people who don't give a bubblegum about breaking laws - and the former is one that has no clue about criminals?

I read that crap the other day. I just about spit my coffee out.

What an absolute dingleberry.

 

[Howard1955]

I have a question someone here might be able to answer.

Since magazines don't have serial numbers, and aren't firearms - what's to stop people from buying/selling/trading components of mags?

There's not much to the things. I'm guessing some enterprising soul might start 3D printing the mag bodies, while other folks sell springs and followers.

There wouldn't be any way to prove that someone had purchased a magazine (or mag components) after a certain date.

I understand that simply owning a higher-capacity mag could become problematic, until 114 is ruled unconstitutional. But I don't see how the powers-that-be can control the buying and selling of parts.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I have a question someone here might be able to answer.

Since magazines don't have serial numbers, and aren't firearms - what's to stop people from buying/selling/trading components of mags?

There's not much to the things. I'm guessing some enterprising soul might start 3D printing the mag bodies, while other folks sell springs and followers.

There wouldn't be any way to prove that someone had purchased a magazine (or mag components) after a certain date.

I understand that simply owning a higher-capacity mag could become problematic, until 114 is ruled unconstitutional. But I don't see how the powers-that-be can control the buying and selling of parts.

They did something similar in Colorado. LEOs and everyone else considered the capacity limit a joke. Dealers sold 10 round mags along with parts kit so people could make it back to normal when they got home.

 

[RifleEnthusiast]

I have a question someone here might be able to answer.

Since magazines don't have serial numbers, and aren't firearms - what's to stop people from buying/selling/trading components of mags?

There's not much to the things. I'm guessing some enterprising soul might start 3D printing the mag bodies, while other folks sell springs and followers.

There wouldn't be any way to prove that someone had purchased a magazine (or mag components) after a certain date.

I understand that simply owning a higher-capacity mag could become problematic, until 114 is ruled unconstitutional. But I don't see how the powers-that-be can control the buying and selling of parts.

I honestly don't know how a prosecutor would actually take a case to a judge and try to charge someone for owning a high capacity mag (unless you are using it outside of range/house according to the law). Unless you are caught buying it after the day that the law goes into effect, this is utterly completely worthless.
1. There is a presumption of innocence, you are innocent until proven guilty.
2. To be found guilty, it has to be, beyond reasonable doubt.
3. There is no way to to track magazines.

So someone finds you on the range shooting a high capacity magazine and decides to tell on you, and prosecutor decides to go forward, alright. He says "he is using a high capacity magazine which I believe he acquired illegally after the law was passed", and my response is "No, I bought it before the law was passed, if you think I acquired it illegally after the law was passed, prove it.".
To even issue a warrant there needs to be probable cause, seeing someone with a firearm shooting with a high capacity magazine is not, especially with them being legal just up to 12/7. To me the prosecutor would be making a joke of himself and wasting everyone's time, I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem that any barely competent lawyer would have this thrown out and charges dropped, there is nothing for prosecution to stand on, absolutely nothing.
Now, if you were seen transacting in high capacity magazines, that's a completely different issue, or if you're seen using them where you're not supposed to post 12/8.

 

[OrPackrat]

I honestly don't know how a prosecutor would actually take a case to a judge and try to charge someone for owning a high capacity mag (unless you are using it outside of range/house according to the law). Unless you are caught buying it after the day that the law goes into effect, this is utterly completely worthless.
1. There is a presumption of innocence, you are innocent until proven guilty.
2. To be found guilty, it has to be, beyond reasonable doubt.
3. There is no way to to track magazines.

So someone finds you on the range shooting a high capacity magazine and decides to tell on you, and prosecutor decides to go forward, alright. He says "he is using a high capacity magazine which I believe he acquired illegally after the law was passed", and my response is "No, I bought it before the law was passed, if you think I acquired it illegally after the law was passed, prove it.".
To even issue a warrant there needs to be probable cause, seeing someone with a firearm shooting with a high capacity magazine is not, especially with them being legal just up to 12/7. To me the prosecutor would be making a joke of himself and wasting everyone's time, I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem that any barely competent lawyer would have this thrown out and charges dropped, there is nothing for prosecution to stand on, absolutely nothing.
Now, if you were seen transacting in high capacity magazines, that's a completely different issue, or if you're seen using them where you're not supposed to post 12/8.

I thought 114 changed the burden of proof from the goverment proving you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to you having to prove your innocent...

 

[RifleEnthusiast]

I thought 114 changed the burden of proof from the goverment proving you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to you having to prove your innocent...

I know that's how it's worded in the law, but I genuinely don't think it would stand if challenged in court. It seems to be one of these "how can we complicate this law even more and make it scary" situations when it won't stand if challenged...
For reference: https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/resources/pattern2003/html/patt4cfo.htm#:~:text=Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt&text=It is a cardinal principle,is not a mere formality.

From that link:

if, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find him guilty. If on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must give him the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty.

And this...

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that the burden of proof is always on the government to satisfy you that [defendant] is guilty of the crime with which [he/she] is charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The law does not require that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt; proof beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict. This burden never shifts to [defendant]. It is always the government's burden to prove each of the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. [Defendant] has the right to rely upon the failure or inability of the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt any essential element of a crime charged against [him/her].

And this...

presumption of innocence

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Alexx1401]

I have a question someone here might be able to answer.

Since magazines don't have serial numbers, and aren't firearms - what's to stop people from buying/selling/trading components of mags?

There's not much to the things. I'm guessing some enterprising soul might start 3D printing the mag bodies, while other folks sell springs and followers.

There wouldn't be any way to prove that someone had purchased a magazine (or mag components) after a certain date.

I understand that simply owning a higher-capacity mag could become problematic, until 114 is ruled unconstitutional. But I don't see how the powers-that-be can control the buying and selling of parts.

Nothing. If anyone gets in a "jam" over this it will be by sheer stupidity. Some will go to another state, buy the mags they want, nothing will ever happen. Some will put together parts to make what they want, nothing will ever happen. Someone will be sure to start selling them to everyone and anyone though. Either by buying large quantities in another state and or making them. They will make such a big deal out of flaunting the law that some AG will make an example out of them. For the normal people who keep thinking the sky is falling, nothing will happen. This is going to be one of those laws you will have to really work at it to get in trouble with up until they just say you can no longer even own them.

 

[GrayGoose]

I thought 114 changed the burden of proof from the government proving you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to you having to prove your innocent...

...which further makes it unconstitutional, as it violates the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments too.

 

[arakboss]

I thought 114 changed the burden of proof from the goverment proving you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to you having to prove your innocent...

It does. If you want to claim that you owned them before the ban then you can take the stand in your own defense. Hopefully the jury finds you testimony persuasive.

 

[RifleEnthusiast]

It does. If you want to claim that you owned them before the ban then you can take the stand in your own defense. Hopefully the jury finds you testimony persuasive.

114 does say that, but by that same logic, a cop can walk to you and say "you stole that money that you have in your pocket, prove that you didn't do it", hence being quite questionable, the burden to prove that someone committed a crime is on the prosecution, is on that entity bringing the charge. As I said , I know 114 says the opposite hence being shaky from that angle as well.

 

[arakboss]

114 does say that, but by that same logic, a cop can walk to you and say "you stole that money that you have in your pocket, prove that you didn't do it", hence being quite questionable, the burden to prove that someone committed a crime is on the prosecution, is on that entity bringing the charge. As I said , I know 114 says the opposite hence being shaky from that angle as well.

They actually do that to a degree.

These states let police take and keep your stuff even if you haven't committed a crime

Hard to believe, but it's true.

www.google.com

 

[arakboss]

114 does say that, but by that same logic, a cop can walk to you and say "you stole that money that you have in your pocket, prove that you didn't do it", hence being quite questionable, the burden to prove that someone committed a crime is on the prosecution, is on that entity bringing the charge. As I said , I know 114 says the opposite hence being shaky from that angle as well.

Historically, the Supreme Court has held that it is constitutionally permissible for legislatures to establish affirmative defenses to criminal charges and place the burden of proof with respect to these defenses on the defendant.Jan 17, 2020



Source:

1732. Protection Of Government Processes -- Constitutionality -- 18 U.S.C. 1512(d)

www.justice.gov