Oregon MORE BAD NEWS FROM OFF

[helloyatches]

I agree with you. Its difficult to talk logically with many of my friends when it comes to 2A issues. They just automatically think things will get better if no one is allowed to buy a firearm.

They are not friends, they are acquaintances...

 

[moroza]

If I was a firearms dealer I''d be asking the Federal courts for an injunction on implementation, based on the fact that no one in Oregon can get a permit to exercise one's 2A rights and as a seller suffering irreparable economic harm. I'll live, but maybe not my LGS.

Didn't something similar happen with the 1937 Marihuana [sic] Act? They established a legally required tax but no way to pay it, which amounted to a de facto prohibition. It took over 30 years for the act to be repealed, by which point the political winds had shifted to make its replacement an explicit, de jure prohibition. Such precedent doesn't bode well for this case, I'm afraid.

 

[Provincial]

Gee, Heller was 14 years ago. We shouldn't expect our leaders and Federal/State Justice Department workers to be aware of such recent rulings!

When considering the enactment of laws, and their enforcement relating to violation of civil rights, the current status seems to be, "OK, try it and let the courts work it out. In the meantime, go ahead and violate those rights, and make the victims pay for getting them overturned." There is no culpability for attempting to violate civil rights.

In an objective sense, any law (no matter is sourced by legislative or initiative action) must be reviewed and if any possible violation of civil rights is present, must be enjoined until legally reviewed, and that review shall include the government paying the expenses of the appellant.

If you question my reasoning, remember that the government is required to pay for an attorney to represent an indigent client. In this case, the clients are the citizens, and their taxes pay for the government to attack their rights, so it is reasonable that he government should pay the full cost of their defense, too.

Immunity standards for legislators and government workers should be revised to allow action when violating civil rights.

Part of the problem is that legislators and Justice Department workers are mostly lawyers. Lawyers look at things from a perspective that minimizes morality. They have "ethics", which boil down to doing whatever you can get away with. If everything was black & white, there would be no gray area to argue, and be employed for. That is a major reason the Courts will not consider the costs of litigation to unwind a law that infringes on a civil right an "injury."

 

[rabidmullet]

Didn't something similar happen with the 1937 Marihuana [sic] Act? They established a legally required tax but no way to pay it, which amounted to a de facto prohibition. It took over 30 years for the act to be repealed, by which point the political winds had shifted to make its replacement an explicit, de jure prohibition. Such precedent doesn't bode well for this case, I'm afraid.

No different than the NFA/Hughes Amendment... They've figured out when you can't ban something, requiring a tax that is impossible to paid works just as well. The government shouldn't be allowed to call something a tax if they don't collect any revenue. Simply calling something a tax doesn't mean that it is.

 

[arakboss]

Off topic, I've been grabbing hi-capacity magazines like crazy to have them, but it's dawning on me that I now need five 10 rounders for every gun I own…

They will still be there after Dec 8th.

 

[GrayGoose]

... I now need five 10 rounders for every gun I own…

The only 10 rounders I need are for my 1911's. If they want me to carry 10 rounders, then I guess I need to up-size from my current 7 rounders.