OR residents, m114 is coming buy, buy, buy

[saxon]

i don't think

November 21, 2023, Judge Robert Raschio of the Oregon Circuit Court granted a permanent injunction based on a finding that the law was facially unconstitutional under Oregon's state constitution

means what you think it means.......

 

[lucusloc]

i don't think

November 21, 2023, Judge Robert Raschio of the Oregon Circuit Court granted a permanent injunction based on a finding that the law was facially unconstitutional under Oregon's state constitution

means what you think it means.......

I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but that permanent injunction is only as permanent as the next higher court is willing to let it be. If they overturn then that "permanent" injunction means bupkis. We are still at the mercy of an appeal.

 

[saxon]

I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but that permanent injunction is only as permanent as the next higher court is willing to let it be. If they overturn then that "permanent" injunction means bupkis. We are still at the mercy of an appeal.

A permanent injunction is a court order requiring a person to do or cease doing a specific action that is issued as a final judgment in a case.

ergo " the state trying to petitioned the Oregon supremes to have M114 go into effect while the appeal moves forward" is a violation of LAW
the Court MUST vacate the injunction in order for the LAW to go into effect

 

[R3dundantC]

I'm cornfused.

OP knows a guy who knows a guy who heard from some guy that didn't offer evidence that something could happen

Fearmongering and spreading baseless rumors. Disregard the thread.

"Spread the rumor and, before anyone knows, it's a fact" -Lilian Braun

 

[lucusloc]

A permanent injunction is a court order requiring a person to do or cease doing a specific action that is issued as a final judgment in a case.

ergo " the state trying to petitioned the Oregon supremes to have M114 go into effect while the appeal moves forward" is a violation of LAW
the Court MUST vacate the injunction in order for the LAW to go into effect

Yes, and a higher court can vacate that injunction any time they wish, even before finding a final resolution to the appeal before them. Once they have accepted the case they can basically do whatever they please with it, as they have higher authority than the lower court. This is not over until either SCOTUS rules on the issue or the state declines to take up any appeal they are due.

 

[TTSX]

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Looks like the Oregon supreme court turned down the appeal. We're safe for now.

 

[lucusloc]

Looks like the Oregon supreme court turned down the appeal. We're safe for now.

Source? That is bloody awesome news. What is the next appeal the state has? Federal something I am sure, but since this was decided on state constitutional grounds I am not sure the feds would want to get involved even if asked?

 

[Yarome]

UPDATE on the KGW article. Checking in with Tony... it's bogus. Mistaken or misdated reporting. Seeing how he's the attorney on the case, he would know.

Ignore!

 

[lucusloc]

UPDATE on the KGW article. Checking in with Tony... it's bogus. Mistaken or misdated reporting. Seeing how he's the attorney on the case, he would know.

Ignore!

We need a "very disappointed" reaction emoji.

 

[CamoDeafie]

We need a "very disappointed" reaction emoji.

 

[solv3nt]

UPDATE on the KGW article. Checking in with Tony... it's bogus. Mistaken or misdated reporting. Seeing how he's the attorney on the case, he would know.

Ignore!

So the date is wrong, or the state supreme rejecting it is wrong?

 

[Yarome]

So the date is wrong, or the state supreme rejecting it is wrong?

It happened and is accurate, but it's citing the Feb, 2023 occurrence after St. Raschio first ordered the preliminary injunction.

Possibly a lazy reporter noticed previous Feb 2023 reports and somehow thought it was new/current and just regurgitated it(?)

 

[solv3nt]

It happened and is accurate, but it's citing the Feb, 2023 occurrence after St. Raschio first ordered the preliminary injunction.

Possibly a lazy reporter noticed previous Feb 2023 reports and somehow thought it was new/current and just regurgitated it(?)

So did the Supremes reject it again, or are we still in limbo?

 

[Yarome]

So did the Supremes reject it again, or are we still in limbo?

Still in limbo.

What the report says was accurate... in Feb 2023... but there has been no news yet regarding the states most recent and currently pending petition.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Now is still the time to buy.

 

[toast]

The KGW article from Feb. 10, 2024 cites an OPB article from Feb. 9, 2023.

Fair to assume some lazy reporter just got confused by the coincidence of similar dates while googling for news in lieu of doing actual investigative journalism. "Breaking news: OPB reports..."

KGW should publish a retraction.

 

[solv3nt]

KGW should publish a retraction. eat a bag of dicks.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Source? That is bloody awesome news. What is the next appeal the state has? Federal something I am sure, but since this was decided on state constitutional grounds I am not sure the feds would want to get involved even if asked?

Oregon Supreme Court upholds order blocking Measure 114 gun control law

Though the justices acknowledged “the legal status of Measure 114 is of significant concern to many Oregonians,” they declined to get involved at this point.

www.kgw.com

 

[lucusloc]

Oregon Supreme Court upholds order blocking Measure 114 gun control law

Though the justices acknowledged “the legal status of Measure 114 is of significant concern to many Oregonians,” they declined to get involved at this point.

www.kgw.com

Yeah, that is the article that has been confirmed as incorrect for citing an out of date source. OSSC did decline to put the injunction on hold last year while the case was ongoing. There has been no update since the state said they were going to appeal. This article is incorrect to assert that this is current information when it is about a year out of date.