Oregon Oregon DOJ requests delay in some Ballot 114 provisions.

[arakboss]

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.

She put a stay on permitting provisions that is plural meaning more than one provision. Which permitting provisions have been stayed?

 

[wombatz]

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?

Interesting point. If you search on the word "unique" in the 114 language it does seem to support the idea that this is a sub part of the permitting language and thus falls under the 30 day hold. But if FFLs were hesitant to use it before then I am sure that will be only more so now. But then, if they use the 3 day rule then we get 30 days of a fully insane buying frenzy.

 

[156256Hunter]

Oh no no, you can still HAVE them.....you just can't BUY them.

LEVO knew what they were doing. Devious weasels.

 

[arakboss]

Interesting point. If you search on the word "unique" in the 114 language it does seem to support the idea that this is a sub part of the permitting language and thus falls under the 30 day hold. But if FFLs were hesitant to use it before then I am sure that will be only more so now. But then, if they use the 3 day rule then we get 30 days of a fully insane buying frenzy.

This is really important to understand which provisions have been stayed? The part about requiring an approval before releasing a firearm was part of the permitting provisions, it was not part of the mag ban provisions.

What about the 48hr notification rule? That was part of the permitting provisions too.

 

[Yarome]

The 3-day is closed by the measure. The DOJ specifically wanted the 3-day ban to go into effect but the permit requirement to be delayed.

But it't not. Not in the measure that I've seen. The AG might have requested it, but in the conclusion posted, it says nothing in there about putting a stay on it (although there might be somewere in the full opinon(??)), which, even if she wanted to, she doesn't have the authority to do. A waiting period could be enacted at the state level, but a district judge can't strike down any federal law they choose within their jurisdiction.

 

[cameron25]

So, basically, if you don't have a CHL guns are essentially banned as of now for Oregonians.





Or if you have a pretty unique name, I'm seeing those approved instantly without the CHL. I just released a couple to a friend with a CHL that has been stuck at around 8500 in the queue since I submitted it as well

 

[dude young]

How can they cherry pick parts of a law that the majority of Oregons citizens approved? Isn't it all or nothing at all? Wouldn't this constitute election fraud? Shouldn't the amended measure go back to the voters?

 

[Pepe-lepew]

This is really important to understand which provisions have been stayed? The part about requiring an approval before releasing a firearm was part of the permitting provisions, it was not part of the mag ban provisions.

What about the 48hr notification rule? That was part of the permitting provisions too.

I hope I am wrong. The DOJ's request mentions permitting provisions, mag ban provisions and other provisions like completing the BGC before transfer (3rd to last paragraph in letter) The judge is granting only 30 of the 60 days they requested for the permitting provisions.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

There will be no relief until SCOTUS. Her statement confirms what I suspected in her earlier questioning of the attorneys. She is like most "woke" people that have never used guns, "why do you need this?". She doesnt get it and never will. She also looks to be in lockstep with the CA ninth circuit which is notoriously anti gun. Note that the 9th is where the appeals will go to after her future anti-gun rulings.

No relief til SCOTUS. However the CA mag ban case will give us a head start on the long wait until SCOTUS for mag bans, and we may even get some "freedom weeks" -just as CA will- a sh!tty consolation at best.

 

[156256Hunter]

I hope I am wrong. The DOJ's request mentions permitting provisions, mag ban provisions and other provisions like completing the BGC before transfer (3rd to last paragraph in letter) The judge is granting only 30 of the 60 days they requested for the permitting provisions.

But the judge left it open for another postponement. Though with the 30 day ruling she's optimistic the OSP will be GTG with a brand new permit application process between now and Jan 7, with 2 holidays in between.

Maybe she forgot that a lot of "office" people don't work much through the holidays. Esp. with Christmas Eve on a Saturday, that'll be a 4 or 5 day weekend for most people. Then it's off for New year's.

 

[Yarome]

The part about requiring an approval before releasing a firearm was part of the permitting provisions

The measure is very poorly written, but I think you are reading too much implied meaning into it. On the surface.. not related to 114... most will stipulate that your firearm can not be released without an approval (the same as 114 says)... however... that is within the framework of the federal laws that govern BGC's.

IE., They have 3 days to make a determination on a BGC request. AKA, approval, delayed, denied.

The law then allows that if they exceed that time and have not provided a response of any kind that the firearm may be transferred to the buyer. The final disposition of the BGC is still coming, and if it's not an approval then the firearm will be confiscated.

So it's "correct" that you must have an approval, but that does not negate the ability to recieve your firearm if they exceed the 3 days they are allowed to respond.

Measure 114 says an approval is required. It should be implied that those approvals are subject to federal law... unless it states otherwise... which the state doesn't have the authority to void/add to/modify those federal laws.

If they want to nullify/circumvent federal laws regarding BGC's in that respect... then they have to do something like... a mandatory waiting period. Of which 114 does not do.

 

[Bsteinhauer28]

The Orguns subreddit is popping off about how inept OFF was in this and that they have possibly screwed the pooch for FPC.

 

[arakboss]

The measure is very poorly written, but I think you are reading too much implied meaning into it. On the surface.. not related to 114... most will stipulate that your firearm can not be released without an approval (the same as 114 says)... however... that is within the framework of the federal laws that govern BGC's.

IE., They have 3 days to make a determination on a BGC request. AKA, approval, delayed, denied.

The law then allows that if they exceed that time and have not provided a response of any kind that the firearm may be transferred to the buyer. The final disposition of the BGC is still coming, and if it's not an approval then the firearm will be confiscated.

So it's "correct" that you must have an approval, but that does not negate the ability to recieve your firearm if they exceed the 3 days they are allowed to respond.

Measure 114 says an approval is required. It should be implied that those approvals are subject to federal law... unless it states otherwise... which the state doesn't have the authority to void/add to/modify those federal laws.

If they want to nullify/circumvent federal laws regarding BGC's in that respect... then they have to do something like... a mandatory waiting period. Of which 114 does not do.

States can have stricter requirements, that provision will get rid of 3 day rule for Oregon FFLs.

 

[pogi]

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.

People that complain about pricing structure have no clue about the requirements/expense that dictate the price.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

The Orguns subreddit is popping off about how inept OFF was in this and that they have possibly screwed the pooch for FPC.

As I said in an earlier post, I was concerned about this, but don't know enough about it other than to say a legal expert should chime in on it to really understand did they do harm. My gut feel is nothing will matter until the Bruen lawyers take the NSSA-NRA suit to SCOTUS. This judge will rule anti-gun each time if there is the slightest opportunity to do so (based on what she said in the oral arguments and in this decision).

First to file may not mean much. Effectiveness is the only thing that counts...

I do wonder if a fast filing that is poorly done may do more damage than good? Not sure on that. Need someone with legal background to tell us I suppose.

It seems to me we need effective, extremely well written arguments that will work. I haven't read all the OFF docs, have only seen snippets in news articles. I was not impressed by what I saw fwiw.

 

[Jade Falcon]

The Orguns subreddit is popping off about how inept OFF was in this and that they have possibly screwed the pooch for FPC.

We really don't have the brightest lawyers working for us and rarely ever do. They are stuck in 2005 legalese-speak. They need to get with the times, IE: talk about poor people and "people of color" and how they are being victimized with this. And don't forget to throw in "LGBTQ+-XLDJLSJELUR whatever" in there too.

They are activist judges.....lower yourself to their level. You're not going to win arguing over mag capacity and why we fought the British.

 

[Pepe-lepew]

The measure is very poorly written, but I think you are reading too much implied meaning into it. On the surface.. not related to 114... most will stipulate that your firearm can not be released without an approval (the same as 114 says)... however... that is within the framework of the federal laws that govern BGC's.

IE., They have 3 days to make a determination on a BGC request. AKA, approval, delayed, denied.

The law then allows that if they exceed that time and have not provided a response of any kind that the firearm may be transferred to the buyer. The final disposition of the BGC is still coming, and if it's not an approval then the firearm will be confiscated.

So it's "correct" that you must have an approval, but that does not negate the ability to recieve your firearm if they exceed the 3 days they are allowed to respond.

Measure 114 says an approval is required. It should be implied that those approvals are subject to federal law... unless it states otherwise... which the state doesn't have the authority to void/add to/modify those federal laws.

If they want to nullify/circumvent federal laws regarding BGC's in that respect... then they have to do something like... a mandatory waiting period. Of which 114 does not do.

The measure does not say an approval is required, it say transferor may not transfer a firearm unless the transferor receives a unique approval number from the department. It is a stricter than federal law.

 

[pogi]

But the judge left it open for another postponement. Though with the 30 day ruling she's optimistic the OSP will be GTG with a brand new permit application process between now and Jan 7, with 2 holidays in between.

Maybe she forgot that a lot of "office" people don't work much through the holidays. Esp. with Christmas Eve on a Saturday, that'll be a 4 or 5 day weekend for most people. Then it's off for New year's.

Especially bureaucrats. Hell, they have trying to fix the DOE system for over 10 years and OHA has no way to effectively fund all that rehab promised.

 

[Yarome]

States can have stricter requirements, that provision will get rid of 3 day rule for Oregon FFLs.

I think you're probably right. "...prior to receiving a unique approval number..." would do that. My bad.

 

[Librarian]

Just as long as I do not have to apply for a permit. I am hoping for an injunction and the case goes for a formal trial or hearing.

Unless a case might be dismissed for some reason I cannot anticipate, we're going to get one or more trials about the permanent injunction.

So far, looks like Judge Immergut would like to combine Fitz and OFF, the first two filed, but I believe the parties have to agree. Since the later two complain about more things, perhaps combining one or both of Eyre and/or Azzopardi with OFF/Fitz might not work.

Annoyingly, there's lots of time to muck around with that.