Messages
68
Reactions
79
It says there are three things they want to remain in place.

DOJ's letter explained that other parts of the measure should take effect as scheduled, including the process for applying for permits, the restrictions on large capacity magazines, and the requirement that background checks must be completed – and not just requested"

What does this one mean:

"including the process for applying for permits"
I took that as you can start applying for permits as they claim to have the blueprint started for that. I am not sure how you can getting the training done though which is a prerequisite when the standards haven't been established.
 
Messages
536
Reactions
608
The AG in the letter argues that the lawsuits [edit heard on friday] hadn’t challenged whether a permit application process would be ready by the 8th, which presumably gives the AG leeway to backpedal in the letter.

I thought maybe there’d be more lawsuits after the 8th, when no one could effectively fill out the paper application because they couldn’t fulfill the training requirement
 
Last Edited:
Messages
13
Reactions
38
It will be interesting to see if the if bgc's get slow walked until the permit process is in place; if the 3 day rule ceases. I expect a lawsuit targeting this. A right delayed is a right denied.

The magazine capacity limit is low hanging fruit for lawyers to go after post Bruen, and it's not surprising that's what the OFF lawsuit targeted. It will be interesting to see if the Judge grants injunction on this.

BUT, 2A lawyers should be salivating at the chance to go after the constitutionality of permits post Bruen. I believe they will regardless of the court's decision this week.
 
Messages
369
Reactions
574
The AG in the letter argues that the lawsuits hadn’t challenged whether a permit application process would be ready by the 8th, which presumably gives the AG leeway to backpedal in the letter.

I thought maybe there’d be more lawsuits after the 8th, when no one could effectively fill out the paper application because they couldn’t fulfill the training requirement
Not quite; the DOJ letter says
Together, the various cases make three basic challenges to Measure 114:
1. Facial challenges to Measure 114's restrictions on large capacity magazines (Oregon Firearms, Fitz, and Eyre);
2. Facial challenges to Measure 114's permit-to-purchase provisions (Oregon Firearms and Eyre); and
3. Challenges based on whether the permit-to-purchase provisions can be implemented by December 8, 2022 (Eyre and Azzopardi).
The hearing last Friday addressed the first two types of challenge, the first in more depth than the second. But because neither Oregon Firearms nor Fitz raised any claims based on whether Measure 114 could be implemented on December 8, the third type of challenge was not addressed. Plaintiffs in Eyre and Azzopardi, however, have moved for provisional relief based on anticipated implementation difficulties. The State's response to those motions is due by 9:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 6.
Judge Immergut did not hear anything (official) from Eyre or Azzopardi on Friday. I don't actually know if either of those have been assigned to a judge, both having been filed on the weekend, so more hearings should pop up shortly.
 
Messages
536
Reactions
608
Not quite; the DOJ letter says

Judge Immergut did not hear anything (official) from Eyre or Azzopardi on Friday. I don't actually know if either of those have been assigned to a judge, both having been filed on the weekend, so more hearings should pop up shortly.
No, the AG is saying the hearing on Friday dealt with issues 1-2, not 3 which is the viability of the permitting system by the 8th
 
Messages
369
Reactions
574
No, the AG is saying the hearing on Friday dealt with issues 1-2, not 3 which is the viability of the permitting system by the 8th
That's exactly what I quoted -
The hearing last Friday addressed the first two types of challenge, the first in more depth than the second. But because neither Oregon Firearms nor Fitz raised any claims based on whether Measure 114 could be implemented on December 8, the third type of challenge was not addressed
And then he goes on to say
Plaintiffs in Eyre and Azzopardi, however, have moved for provisional relief based on anticipated implementation difficulties. The State's response to those motions is due by 9:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 6.
So he's trying, feebly, to get out in front of those.
 
Messages
318
Reactions
977
No chance the permitting process is active by February, they just think letting sales continue will let the public outrage die down a bit and potentially give the judge an opening to dismiss. Ill conceived and badly written, don't we all by now believe this unconstitutional bill has one main purpose? The Leftists need the necessary protocol to remain stillborn and non-functional to prevent ANY gun sales in Oregon, thereby forcing all gun stores out of business and the sporting goods/department store chains to reallocate square footage to non firearm inventory. Families lose their businesses and employees lose jobs. And cars, and houses.
Again our socialist state gov attacks the average family (not the 'Keep Portland Weird' crowd of course, just normal people) to push a tyrannical agenda. NO MORE MAIL IN VOTING! IMPLEMENT A STATEWIDE COUNTY ELECTORAL COLLEGE!
Please.
Do it to leave a better world for the children. And Keith Richards.
 
Messages
99
Reactions
127
“Specifically, the State agrees that the Court should enter an order providing a limited window in which Oregonians will be able to purchase firearms even if they do not have a permit, while also allowing Oregonians to apply for and be issued permits. We intend to reach out to Plaintiffs in Eyre and Azzopardi within the next day to discuss a proposed stipulation that allows this window.”
 
Messages
99
Reactions
127
No chance the permitting process is active by February, they just think letting sales continue will let the public outrage die down a bit and potentially give the judge an opening to dismiss. Ill conceived and badly written, don't we all by now believe this unconstitutional bill has one main purpose? The Leftists need the necessary protocol to remain stillborn and non-functional to prevent ANY gun sales in Oregon, thereby forcing all gun stores out of business and the sporting goods/department store chains to reallocate square footage to non firearm inventory. Families lose their businesses and employees lose jobs. And cars, and houses.
Again our socialist state gov attacks the average family (not the 'Keep Portland Weird' crowd of course, just normal people) to push a tyrannical agenda. NO MORE MAIL IN VOTING! IMPLEMENT A STATEWIDE COUNTY ELECTORAL COLLEGE!
Please.
Do it to leave a better world for the children. And Keith Richards.
You are creatively envisioning a complex set of intentions. No, the left just wants to do what the measure says, which is damage enough. This measure would not be the way to shut down gun shops, as this measure never had a chance of going into effect on the 8th, and no LGS was in danger of closing due to lack of sales.
 
Messages
19,601
Reactions
29,887
Messages
99
Reactions
127
I read the letter and do not see the 2 month part listed. What paragraph is the 2 month part listed in?
It’s not in the letter. It’s in a statement from the AG quoted in the article:
"Postponing the permit requirement by approximately two months should give Oregon law enforcement time to have a fully functional permitting system in place. If Judge Immergut agrees to the postponement, then starting in February anyone who purchases a gun in Oregon will be required to have a permit," said Attorney General Rosenblum.
 
Messages
19,601
Reactions
29,887
It’s not in the letter. It’s in a statement from the AG quoted in the article:
"Postponing the permit requirement by approximately two months should give Oregon law enforcement time to have a fully functional permitting system in place. If Judge Immergut agrees to the postponement, then starting in February anyone who purchases a gun in Oregon will be required to have a permit," said Attorney General Rosenblum.
Thank you.
 
Messages
780
Reactions
2,017
It’s not in the letter. It’s in a statement from the AG quoted in the article:
"Postponing the permit requirement by approximately two months should give Oregon law enforcement time to have a fully functional permitting system in place. If Judge Immergut agrees to the postponement, then starting in February anyone who purchases a gun in Oregon will be required to have a permit," said Attorney General Rosenblum.
So I guess all of the (and I quote) "Unneccessary Deaths" will be on her hands, I suppose. :rolleyes:
1670241178161.png
 
Messages
3,851
Reactions
5,822
Wondering who actually has the authority to delay implementation of legislation. I get that a judge can delay it based on constitutional grounds, but what about this particular request from the DOJ? The Secretary of State works for the executive branch and made the decision to implement on Dec 8th. The AG is a part of the judiciary and is asking the federal court to delay based on inability to perform as directed, not constitutionality.

So is the state judiciary branch is asking a federal judge to override the state executive branches orders? Why doesn't SOS or Governor just issue a letter saying they're going to delay until they're ready? The pleas against the measure have been made in a federal court and I, sort of, understand why the defense is making the request to that court, but is it really necessary when the delay could be handled by the people that set the deadline?

It's a little after 4am and I'm not finished with my first cup of coffee yet, so hoping my questions make sense.
 
Messages
3,930
Reactions
7,946
Wondering who actually has the authority to delay implementation of legislation. I get that a judge can delay it based on constitutional grounds, but what about this particular request from the DOJ? The Secretary of State works for the executive branch and made the decision to implement on Dec 8th. The AG is a part of the judiciary and is asking the federal court to delay based on inability to perform as directed, not constitutionality.

So is the state judiciary branch is asking a federal judge to override the state executive branches orders? Why doesn't SOS or Governor just issue a letter saying they're going to delay until they're ready? The pleas against the measure have been made in a federal court and I, sort of, understand why the defense is making the request to that court, but is it really necessary when the delay could be handled by the people that set the deadline?

It's a little after 4am and I'm not finished with my first cup of coffee yet, so hoping my questions make sense.
It makes sense.

I think doing it this way is an attempt to stave off at least one of the suits and maintain control over the timeline.. vs... having the courts decide that and leave them no wiggle room to stomp on the peoples.... 👍

Not forgetting that a stay on all parts of the measure were requested in multiple suits. Having the judge deny at least those portions in all could be the desired affect on the political perception front. Just supposin....

There is also the element that if one portion doesn't stick it can weaken the perceived strength of the other provisions requested in those petitions.

I don't entirely get what they are trying to accomplish either, but I DO know they are up to "some" kind a backdoor sneaka** game. It's what they do!

Even with 2 months... it aint gonna happen. It will take them longer than that just to get he appropriate funding for the permit system. Then personnel hiring/training and reviewing potential courses for certifications... They're dreaming!
 
Messages
3,930
Reactions
7,946
Actually, that's a good question. Kate Brown has never been shy about using the executive order pen with anything else. Why is she MIA on this one?
Possibly because it's already a court matter and has to play out there, regardless where she decides to stick her pen(?) She could but the judge is still going to rule on it(?) Not sure....
 
Last Edited:

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top