JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
If the judge is too far woke, inept at her job and refused to uphold the oath of her office.... enough not to know that SC case law states that mags are 2A protected, that standard capacity mags are in common use and that there is no text and history to support a capacity ban..... it doesn't matter what's put before her. If she's determined to give SCOTUS and the citizens of OR a firm, "screw you!!"... it's a lost cause in her court.
 
If the judge is too far woke, inept at her job and refused to uphold the oath of her office.... enough not to know that SC case law states that mags are 2A protected, that standard capacity mags are in common use and that there is no text and history to support a capacity ban..... it doesn't matter what's put before her. If she's determined to give SCOTUS and the citizens of OR a firm, "screw you!!"... it's a lost cause in her court.
I think I'm gonna take her off my Christmas card list.
 
It is going to be a long battle folks, make your donations to legal funds, complete your preps, work on your networking, and keep pushing.
 
If the judge is too far woke, inept at her job and refused to uphold the oath of her office.... enough not to know that SC case law states that mags are 2A protected, that standard capacity mags are in common use and that there is no text and history to support a capacity ban..... it doesn't matter what's put before her. If she's determined to give SCOTUS and the citizens of OR a firm, "screw you!!"... it's a lost cause in her court.
Technically, not standing up for her, but she left the door open for the OFF plaintiffs to submit more (better) information. She rejected some additional information OFF filed on December 5, saying it wasn't timely. But, there's a way to go so that info can be re-submitted later.
 
Technically, not standing up for her, but she left the door open for the OFF plaintiffs to submit more (better) information.
That's pretty much prefunctory in most cases at the point they are at right now... but it really doesn't mean much if her mind is already made and no matter what they present will be rejected out of hand.

"Lip service", IMHO.
 
A question regarding a gun purchase caught in this limbo. I am familiar with the text of 114.
I have applied for the background check on a firearm at a FFL. It likely will not be cleared prior to the 8th. It is sold/comes with mag capacity exceeding 10 rounds. So i do have potentially 30 days for the background clearance, but will this get kicked back denial since it is now in violation of the 10 plus round limit? Will OSP likely not allow approval? Is there a provision where the firearm itself could be transferred/sold to me w/o the magazine. Can the seller simply remove the mag? The limitation is on the mag capacity/not the firearm. But i fear the firearm as being described with a 18 round mag will be disallowed? I realize there may be all kinds of speculation on this, but i see 11 other states have 10 plus mag round limits so I'm guessing I'm not the first person facing this situation.
 
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.
At the hearing on Friday, the attorney for Fitz agreed to combine but the attorney for OFF did not.
 
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...
This is 100% wrong. The judge does not have a point because a balancing test of "good for society" vs "right of the individual" is not to be used. This was expressly stated by SCOTUS in Bruen. The balancing test was done at the time of the passing of the second amendment.

It's kind of like saying "things are more peaceful if poeple don't speak out against the government", therefore the public good is better than the individuals right, so we will take away the right of free speech if they speak out against the government.

This judge is blatently ignoring the specific instructions from SCOTUS.

Also how can you say lawful people will not be disadvantaged if they are limited to 10 rounds?
 
Last Edited:
So.....I'm just a simple minded schmuck doing the best I can with what little I have left.

Imagine....Next weekend I head to the woods with my new AR and some 30 round mags to sight the rifle in. Also in my possession are a number of my old 3rd generation S&W semi-autos (police trade-ins) with 12 and 16 round mags.

I set up some steel targets and I'm having all sorts of fun.

As luck would have it I am given an opportunity to explain myself to OSP/local law enforcement.

I say "What's the problem? I'll police the brass when I'm done".

Will I make it back to the house in time for Happy Hour?
 
Last Edited:
So.....I'm just a simple minded schmuck doing the best I can with what little I have left.

Imagine....This weekend I head to the woods with my new AR and some 30 rounds mags to sight the rifle in. Also in my possession are a number of my old 3rd generation S&W semi-autos with 12 and15 round mags.

I set up some steel targets and I'm having all sorts of fun.

As luck would have it I am given an opportunity to explain myself to OSP or local law enforcement.

I say "What's the problem? I'll police the brass when I'm done".

Will I make it back to the house for Happy Hour?
Sure - no part of 114 takes effect until Dec 8. Since it's still just the 6th, you're fine.

But, if you mean NEXT weekend, all bets are off.

(Sorry - 'this' and 'next' weekend phrasing are ambiguous without precise dates; my wife and I have these discussions ...)
 
So.....I'm just a simple minded schmuck doing the best I can with what little I have left.

Imagine....This weekend I head to the woods with my new AR and some 30 rounds mags to sight the rifle in. Also in my possession are a number of my old 3rd generation S&W semi-autos with 12 and15 round mags.

I set up some steel targets and I'm having all sorts of fun.

As luck would have it I am given an opportunity to explain myself to OSP or local law enforcement.

I say "What's the problem? I'll police the brass when I'm done".

Will I make it back to the house for Happy Hour?
Yes, high capacity mags are allowed for recreational shooting after it takes effect. Just make sure you have the mags in a seperate locked container when transporting to there and back (unless you don't think it's much of a risk of getting cited while driving with them, or don't care about the risk; but to follow the letter of the law they should be in a separate locked container).

See sections 5(c)(C) and 5(c)(E):

469438B8-265B-4638-B67D-7C8AA926890C.jpeg
 
Last Edited:
So.....I'm just a simple minded schmuck doing the best I can with what little I have left.

Imagine....This weekend I head to the woods with my new AR and some 30 rounds mags to sight the rifle in. Also in my possession are a number of my old 3rd generation S&W semi-autos with 12 and15 round mags.

I set up some steel targets and I'm having all sorts of fun.

As luck would have it I am given an opportunity to explain myself to OSP or local law enforcement.

I say "What's the problem? I'll police the brass when I'm done".

Will I make it back to the house for Happy Hour?
That'll depend upon how the appeals go and when…

As of right this minute, there's a TRO on the whole of 114, that'll be appealed by the AG's office just as quickly as they can put the paperwork together…

Imagine we as tax payers get to foot the bill for the state arguing to take away constitutional rights…. Oregon has gone full Kalifornian….

And yes…

You need to secure those magazines greater than 10 rounds in locked containers and separate from the firearms….
 
Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. Not hard to fathom.

Let's see how long this drags on for.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top