Oregon Measure 114 under radar

[horseshoedot]

Got this notification this morning. Sounds like our govt is trying to push through without due legal process.


PEOPLE'S RIGHTS - CALL TO SHOW UP - Today 3/27 at the capital in Salem *12:30pm in Hearing Room D and/or *4;30pm in Hering Room A

See last night's email about SB348 for more details. Text 971.301.1073 if you didn't get it.

In short, the legislature is bypassing the judicial system to implement their own "emergency' version of Measure 114 with a last minute (Fri.) introduction of this "amendment." - Area Assistants (Reply STOP to END)

Read More

 

[SonicBlue03]

I submitted my testimony via uploaded .PDF for the record this morning. I look forward to testing Floyd's "qualified immunity" if he pushes forward with this.

 

[PiratePast40]

How many forum members were at the capitol this evening? How many testified by remote? How many watched the hearing?

 

[Stomper]

Bruen is gonna unravel all of this cock 'n bullsheite…. and they KNOW it.

The worm is about to turn in the 9th circuit, and pencil-neck Prozanski will have to SUCK IT!

 

[SonicBlue03]

I think @MichaelH is one of the in-resident attorneys on this site, so I pose the question to him:
Can you explain to us in layman's terms the mechanisms that protect politicians at the state level from civil judgements and where (theoretically) their exposures might lie if they knowingly or should be reasonably aware that they're pushing unconstitutional restrictions on the citizenry?

It's all hypothetical but I'd be curious what the general legal scholar take is on it.

 

[MichaelH]

I think @MichaelH is one of the in-resident attorneys on this site, so I pose the question to him:
Can you explain to us in layman's terms the mechanisms that protect politicians at the state level from civil judgements and where (theoretically) their exposures might lie if they knowingly or should be reasonably aware that they're pushing unconstitutional restrictions on the citizenry?

It's all hypothetical but I'd be curious what the general legal scholar take is on it.

Legislators are immune from legislative acts in pretty much all jurisdictions. Ever notice that in lawsuits to enjoin laws the bill's sponsors aren't named as defendants? The administrative officisls in charge of implementing and enforcing questionable laws are named. The legal remedy for passing unconstitutional laws is to have the laws declared unconstitutional. Even so the law isn't entirely settled in 2A matters so I expect that most legislators still objectively view what they're doing as constitutionally permissible.

That's probably not a bad thing or no laws, good or bad, would ever get passed. Every legislator would be in court all the time. Remember that even bad laws (depending on one's view) are expressions of the will of the majority of the people of the state—either directly or by representation—and the protections of the minority are the rights guaranteed by state and Federal constitutions. The courts are the backstop to protect the minority.

Oh, if you're unhappy with your legislators' job performance, your remedy is to convince your fellow citizens/residents to vote them out.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Legislators are immune from legislative acts in pretty much all jurisdictions. Ever notice that in lawsuits to enjoin laws the bill's sponsors aren't named as defendants? The administrative officisls in charge of implementing and enforcing questionable laws are named. The legal remedy for passing unconstitutional laws is to have the laws declared unconstitutional. Even so the law isn't entirely settled in 2A matters so I expect that most legislators still objectively view what they're doing as constitutionally permissible.

That's what I wondered but wanted a legal take on it. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[MichaelH]

That's what I wondered but wanted a legal take on it. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[aljames]

If the legislators are knowingly passing bills that won't pass constitutional muster they should be recalled or impeached. Not only is it a waste of time but I would argue that it further divides and incites people on both sides of the issue.

 

[MichaelH]

If the legislators are knowingly passing bills that won't pass constitutional muster they should be recalled or impeached. Not only is it a waste of time but I would argue that it further divides and incites people on both sides of the issue.

I'd argue that in most cases they think that the legislation they pass is constitutional or at least butts right up against constitutionality. Regardless of your view of it that's how Roe v Wade was overturned: arguably all of those restrictions red state legislators passed violated Roe or Casey (Supreme Court decisions) which is why they wound up before the Supreme Court. From the con law perspective an individuals right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment has only been the law for 20 years and the Justice who drafted that opinion in Heller v DC, Antonin Scalia, did include language that permitted legislators and lawyers to infer that some regulation of firearms would still be constitutionally permissible under the US Constitution. Before I get another lecture I know that many members of this forum believe that the "plain language" of the Constitution should be absolute but our Federal Courts and the Supreme Court don't share that view. The First Amendment is pretty absolute in its wording too, but there are all kinds of laws regulating or criminalizing speech that legislators pass with good intentions that get challenged and are struck or upheld. A current example is a federal law that criminalizes encouraging immigrants who are undocumented from remaining in the country that the Supremes were pretty skeptical of in oral argument last week. Others like civil defamation laws and false advertising laws are commonly understood to be perfectly fine.

 

[jackrv]

In my own humble opinion, I think they know this crap won't pass muster but they don't care.

Jack

 

[fmvolume86]

I'm very sad they are trying to pass this again, basically a duplicate M114 while it's being held up in court. This is just crazy. What's even crazier is the people voting for these people who only care about their own agendas than Oregonians as a whole.

 

[AshWilliams]

I'd argue that in most cases they think that the legislation they pass is constitutional or at least butts right up against constitutionality. Regardless of your view of it that's how Roe v Wade was overturned: arguably all of those restrictions red state legislators passed violated Roe or Casey (Supreme Court decisions) which is why they wound up before the Supreme Court. From the con law perspective an individuals right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment has only been the law for 20 years and the Justice who drafted that opinion in Heller v DC, Antonin Scalia, did include language that permitted legislators and lawyers to infer that some regulation of firearms would still be constitutionally permissible under the US Constitution. Before I get another lecture I know that many members of this forum believe that the "plain language" of the Constitution should be absolute but our Federal Courts and the Supreme Court don't share that view. The First Amendment is pretty absolute in its wording too, but there are all kinds of laws regulating or criminalizing speech that legislators pass with good intentions that get challenged and are struck or upheld. A current example is a federal law that criminalizes encouraging immigrants who are undocumented from remaining in the country that the Supremes were pretty skeptical of in oral argument last week. Others like civil defamation laws and false advertising laws are commonly understood to be perfectly fine.

Right, regarding the first amendment the right to freedom of speech is incontrovertible, yet jurisdictions make unconstitutional rulings all of the time in this regard.

 

[cbabcock686]

I am very interested to see how this all plays out. I hope it does not pass.

 

[fmvolume86]

I am very interested to see how this all plays out. I hope it does not pass.

I have no faith that it will not pass. It'll pass because they do not care. And when its stopped in courts again they are going to say LOOK !!! Seeeeee they only care about guns and your saftey while house democrats last week VOTED NO on 7 bills specifically created for making schools safer.

 

[Jay Walk]

I have no faith that it will not pass. It'll pass because they do not care. And when its stopped in courts again they are going to say LOOK !!! Seeeeee they only care about guns and your saftey while house democrats last week VOTED NO on 7 bills specifically created for making schools safer.

Then it will be tied up in the courts for years following the Ban of 11+ mags.
We are living it right now across the river.

 

[ma96782]

Federal judge finds Oregon’s new gun control Measure 114 is constitutional

U.S District Judge Karin J. Immergut ruled that the measure's ban on the sale or manufacture of large-capacity magazines and permit to purchase a gun requirement are constitutional.

www.oregonlive.com

Aloha, Mark

 

[GrayGoose]

Judge Karen obviously doesn't understand the Constitution.

 

[fmvolume86]

they do this on purpose, because they KNOW IT WILL FAIL !!!! BUT THEY CAN KEEP saying Seeeeeee wer're trying to do it but THEY !!!! it's THEY that won't allow it!!! and that is their pathway to rile up their side to push to change our constitution and destory our supreme court.
It will never change unless there was another Civil War.....or the Supreme Court starts sending US Marshals to these cities/States/ local judges and kick them out of their seats for continuing to bubblegum on our constitution.

 

[Jade Falcon]

Judge Karen obviously doesn't understand the Constitution.

She doesn't care. To her, arguing mag limits is petty and beneath her. She likely doesn't own a gun, so a permit process doesn't affect her either.