Messages
1,523
Reactions
1,802
I had this same view until I started helping out an FFL. There is much more work involved in handling a transfer than I realized. And now Measure 114 is adding extra steps to the process. Tigard Pawn has been one of the least expensive around at $27 but they are going to have to raise their price and other FFLs will have to do the same.
If its so difficult they could have pushed against implementing the system.
 
Messages
536
Reactions
608
The judge says the Fitz case plaintiffs

"challenge only Measure 114's restrictions on large-capacity magazines and claim these restrictions violate their rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs do not challenge Measure 114's permit-to-purchase provision, the implementation of which this Court has stayed for thirty days following a request by Defendants."

EDIT: I think the Judge did more with another order in the OFF lawsuit. Sounds like she rejected consideration of OFF's filings on December 5 as being untimely. She says plaintiffs had notice of the provision for a long time. But left it open to consider that info later.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
19,607
Reactions
29,892
Screenshot_20221206-085906.png
 
Messages
3,561
Reactions
3,478
The judge does have a point that most mass shootings have involved bad people with capacity beyond 10 rounds however, on balance lawful citizens should not be disadvantaged.

Does not seem that new purchases can be cleared within the next 30 days. Lots of ffls will likely go out of business. Awful...
 
Messages
19,607
Reactions
29,892
Umm... how exactly is the 3day law pre-empted by a stay on the purchase permit requirement? The two are not related... AFIK.
The measure was broken down into two main parts, the mag ban and the permitting provisions. She didn't specify only putting a stay on part of the permitting provisions?
 
Messages
3,934
Reactions
7,955
How do we know the 3 day rule is not part of the permitting provisions? She only separated it into two parts, mags and permitting provisions?
Because... the measure did not provide a provision to stay the federal law nor instate a waiting period for firearm purchases. The judge also does not have the authority to stay a federal law.
 
Messages
16
Reactions
25
To some extent I'm not un-happy that the judge isn't going to stay the magazine-ban portion of BM-114. Not because I agree with it (I most definitely do not... her reasoning is completely specious), but because it just adds more ammunition to the multi-state effort to obtain a favorable federal ruling on the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of restrictions on magazines over whatever-arbitrary-capacity.

So far the judge is behaving exactly like a typical activist liberal, because that's exactly what she is. There's value in people acting so predictably. I think it's activist, liberal judges that the conservatives on the USSC have the biggest beef with right now.
 
Messages
828
Reactions
1,122
The measure was broken down into two main parts, the mag ban and the permitting provisions. She didn't specify only putting a stay on part of the permitting provisions?
The measure had much more than two parts. Beside a requirement that a permit to purchase was required for transfer it has a part that said an approval was required to transfer.
 

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top