Oregon Oregon AG Petitions Oregon Supreme Court to Overturn Judge Raschio

[CountryGent]

"Koch countered in court filings Friday that Raschio made "fundamental legal" errors and acted beyond his discretion.

Oregon Constitution's Article 1, Sec. 27, protects only the right to bear arms commonly used by Oregonians for self-defense in 1859 and earlier, and doesn't relate to magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, Koch argued."

LOL

Interesting line of reasoning from Salem considering New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022):

We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment's historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to "arms" does not apply "only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century." 554 U. S., at 582. "Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." Ibid. (citations omitted). Thus, even though the Second Amendment's definition of "arms" is fixed according to its historical understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

20,000? Nothing like arbitrary and capricious. Yet, 20K is far better than 20M.

In the Caetano case it was estimated that there were at least 200,000 stun guns in private hands as of 2009. Since they were affirmed to be in common use, the 200,000 number has been used ever since then.

Rhode Island’s Stun Gun Ban Challenged in Federal Court

Rhode Island is one of only two states that still prohibit civilian stun gun and Taser ownership.

reason.com

 

[po18guy]

Why is judicial notice never taken of the fact that the common element in all crimes is the criminal?

 

[3MTA3]

Deleted

 

[oa98pistol512]

I don't think we needed a permit to purchase and multiple background checks to buy a gun in 1859 even if you were just released from prison. So that beign said everything they are trying to pull is null and void.

 

[po18guy]

It is clear that the New World Order, the Great Reset, the World Economic Forum's plans, the greening of the planet does not involve armed citizens.

They think.

 

[lcb97269]

It is clear that the New World Order, the Great Reset, the World Economic Forum's plans, the greening of the planet does not involve armed citizens.

They think.

It only involves their version of Gestapo, KGB, rogue FBI and other such trash.

 

[lcb97269]

"Koch countered in court filings Friday that Raschio made "fundamental legal" errors and acted beyond his discretion.

Oregon Constitution's Article 1, Sec. 27, protects only the right to bear arms commonly used by Oregonians for self-defense in 1859 and earlier, and doesn't relate to magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, Koch argued."

LOL

Rosenbaum is a Berkeley hippy lawyer spreading her bs beliefs.

 

[bradsteen]

I don't think we needed a permit to purchase and multiple background checks to buy a gun in 1859 even if you were just released from prison. So that beign said everything they are trying to pull is null and void.

In 1859 a gun was considered a tool. You needed a gun if you lived outside of major settlements because wild animals and roving bands of criminals were both common problems. There was no BGC, no ID check, nothing.

The only difference between then and now is our politicians are less cognizant of the ugly realities the non-affluent must face. To them violent crime is a distant thing that happens to other people.

 

[ob1]

@CountryGent

We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment's historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to "arms" does not apply "only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century." 554 U. S., at 582. "Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

Bingo

 

[PiratePast40]

I was told that there may be an announcement from the supremes in the next day or so. No idea which way it willl go, just passing along a fairly well vetted rumor.

 

[Yarome]

I was told that there may be an announcement from the supremes in the next day or so. No idea which way it willl go, just passing along a fairly well vetted rumor.

That would be nice (maybe). "Perpetual limbo" kinda sucks just the not knowing.

They usually release opinions/orders on Wednesdays, so no word today I kinda figured it would at least be another week. I guess we'll see.

The brief deadlines for the state is tomorrow, and a progress conference is scheduled 02/09 so maybe the backdoor talks are concluding and the SC is releasing something to coincide with the fed court activity tomorrow(?)

Too much sneaking around on the left it seems. I highly doubt our representatives were included in the state/defendants/immurkraut/SC "buddy buddy" talks.

 

[Librarian]

I was told that there may be an announcement from the supremes in the next day or so. No idea which way it willl go, just passing along a fairly well vetted rumor.

Saw the rumor on reddit. Eh? I dunno. I guess we'll see.

 

[Greenbug]

I heard that rumor too.

Doesn't sound good. I don't have much faith in an Oregon Supreme Court entirely staffed by Kate Brown.

 

[Librarian]

Kevin at OFF posts the same expectation of something from the OR Supremes. I guess watch https://www.courts.oregon.gov/publications/coa/pages/default.aspx for their opinion.

EDIT
From a reddit thread, GOA lawyer facebook post

Received at 9:55 am. We will most likely have a decision tomorrow on Defendants' Petition for Mandamus. This decision will ultimately determine whether or not the Preliminary Injunction and TRO that Gun Owners of America secured for the people of Oregon will stay in place. It may also determine whether Plaintiffs' or Defendants' interpretation of the Oregon Supreme Court's caselaw on Article I, Section 27 is correct, although the Oregon Supreme Court can deny mandamus without doing so. Be on the lookout for the decision!

Also, https://ktvl.com/news/local/measure...state-police-crime-judge-permit-applications#

Part of the measure would enlist the FBI to conduct federal background checks so people can acquire a permit to purchase a gun.

However, the Oregon State Police submitted written documents in one of the federal lawsuits challenging the measure. The document states the FBI "will not perform fingerprint-based background checks for permit applicants based on their determination that Ballot Measure 114 does not meet the requirements of Pub. L 92-544."

Time would be extended, cost probably would go up if this was final from FBI.

 

[Yarome]

Kevin at OFF posts the same expectation of something from the OR Supremes. I guess watch https://www.courts.oregon.gov/publications/coa/pages/default.aspx for their opinion.

Could be, but I kinda think it's more likely to be made public via one of the plaintiffs rather than the appeals court opinions link. They typically are only made public via there once a week (every wednesday).

Don't matter where it comes from though and sure can't hurt to keep eyes on their website.

Thanks for putting in the work and the postings! Much appreciated.

Time would be extended, cost probably would go up if this was final from FBI.

That cost would be on the taxpayers wouldn't it? Doesn't 114 cap the fee at 60 bones... IIRC(?)

 

[zomie]

Oregon Judicial Department : Supreme Court Media Releases : News Center : State of Oregon

Supreme Court Media Releases

www.courts.oregon.gov

"Joseph Arnold, et al. v. Tina Kotek et al., (CC 22CV41008) (SC S069998) Contact: Steve Armitage Staff Attorney [email protected] On petition for a writ of mandamus filed January 13, 2023; considered and under advisement on January 31, 2023. The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice.

The motion for stay is dismissed as moot without prejudice. Opinion of the Court Per Curiam. Today, the Oregon Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the state, which had asked the Court to vacate two preliminary orders entered in a pending trial court action challenging Ballot Measure 114 (2022), enacted by the voters at the November 2022 General Election. "

 

[Dust2Dollars]

 

[zomie]

Tony L. Aiello, Jr. - Civil Attorney

Arnold v. Kotek, Petition for Mandamus #2… DENIED!!! This is a big deal for Oregonians! Thank you GOA!!! #stopmeasure114 #Measure114 #gunownersofamerica #One27

www.facebook.com

 

[fmvolume86]

I don't think we needed a permit to purchase and multiple background checks to buy a gun in 1859 even if you were just released from prison. So that beign said everything they are trying to pull is null and void.

I find it ridiculous they ban people who have committed non violent crimes from their 2nd ammendment right. They love handing out felonies for dumb life mistakes, and I'm talking mistakes one time bubblegum in your life non violent.... i mean you can get a felony for lying for example and they strip you of your 2nd ammendment right. That is wrong !!! I'm for denying firearms to people who have been charged with violent crimes not in self defense and convicted.