The law is on the books, but the enforcement is put on hold.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
- Messages
- 16,482
- Reactions
- 35,145
And I dont think there's anything in the current laws that says the State can't enforce and prosecute back dating to after Dec 8th, 2022.
Nope. They don't have enough attorneys already, so I'm not too worried.
- Messages
- 2,199
- Reactions
- 5,389
- Thread Starter
- #104
This is correct. The problem is that unlike the passing of a law, which has an explicit date everyone can plan for attached to it, this hiatus can end at any moment, meaning stuff that was legal a moment ago is suddenly illegal with no prior warning. This means that transactions that are in flight are suddenly in a legal grey zone that potentially carries with it the full weight of the law.
And that is to say nothing of the transactions that happened unambiguously after any hiatus was lifted, but possibly before anyone else became aware of it (like the business executing the transaction through their website). Those will likely fall clearly under the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" principle. This may be why some sites seem to take so long on some Oregon orders; they may very well be stacking up a pile of boxes and then checking the status of the law right before they load the whole lot onto a single truck. This would give them the greatest legal cover should the status of the law change while the boxes were in flight; it was legal when it left the building, which is the last time they had any real control over the transaction.
So the problem here is not what it is or is not legal in this very moment but rather how quickly that status can change from moment to moment.
- Messages
- 46
- Reactions
- 109
It is unconstitutional to punish individuals in the present for lawful actions that were committed in the past. It is explicitly laid out in Article 1, Section 9 and 10 of the US Constitution. I'd love for the state to arrest me for purchasing magazines while the injunction was in place because I'd be getting a fat payday on behalf of the state after I sued the pants off them.
- Messages
- 3,980
- Reactions
- 9,954
So, @Hotdog 7 -- Your understanding is it is completely legal for Oregonians to buy high cap mags right now?
It's a fantastic shade of gray.
It's called selective prosecution. They may let a gang member with an illegally modified Glock walk without bail in Portland, doesn't mean they won't throw your bubblegum in prison if a liberal DA suspects you are a conservative voter.
- Messages
- 16,482
- Reactions
- 35,145
See Michael Strickland case for example.
- Messages
- 2,199
- Reactions
- 5,389
- Thread Starter
- #111
Pretty sure this is settled case law. You cannot be prosecuted for "illegal actions" when the law defining those actions is enjoined from enforcement, even if the law were to be upheld at a later date. If you continue those actions after the enjoinment ends then you can be prosecuted for such actions from that date forwards. So yes, it is legal to sell and purchase any magazines in Oregon at this moment in time. As soon as a court ends the enjoinment (even if the case is not settled yet) the act will become illegal, at least until the law is struck down or enjoined again. But even then prosecution will likely be postponed until a final decision on the law is made, as if the law is declared unconstitutional all prior convictions will be (or, in some cases should be but aren't) voided.
There is some other funny legal stuff that can go on too. I am not exactly sure how they define an actions illegality for time periods before an enjoinment goes into effect (I am pretty sure there was a brief period of time when 114 was standing law and selling prohibited magazines was illegal for example). Sometimes the enjoinment nullifies prosecution for those periods too, even if the law is upheld later, but I think maybe sometimes it does not as well? IANAL, I just follow a bunch of them on YouTube/blogs.
- Messages
- 46
- Reactions
- 109
I am not a lawyer but I play one on TV.
In all seriousness I am no legal expert but I did take a few criminal and civil law classes in college. While technically M114 was passed, it's enactment (December 8th, 2022 if I recall) was placed on hold by a judge. This means that despite it technically being on the books that it is unenforceable while the legitimacy of the measure is questioned in court. The issue I am speaking specifically about is the rumor that people will be prosecuted for purchasing magazines during the time frame the measure was placed on hold [the "injunction period"]. In the common law system there is generally regarded to be protections from conduct which is now illegal, if it was committed at a time the conduct was NOT illegal. For example, let's say there was no laws against drunk driving and you routinely drove drunk. The state enacts laws to ban drunk driving. They can't come back to you and say "you're being charged with drunk driving because it is now illegal" because the conduct was committed at a time it wasn't illegal. This protection is specifically enshrined in the US Constitution under Article 1, Sections 9 and 10, as the ex post facto exemption to criminal conduct - which has been clearly established by SCOTUS for over 200 years.
At this time, it is legal to purchase and posses high capacity magazines because of the injunction. Them [the State] trying to turn around and say "Nope, anything purchased after December 8th is illegal" is a clear attempt to make past legal behavior punishable by criminal penalties. They can try all they want to backdate the magazine ban but they would get pp slapped extremely hard in court and whoever they try to do that to will be getting a nice payday.
I welcome the actual input of a lawyer (if we have any on the forum) because at this point everything I've stated is indeed just theory based off my understanding from college classes I took years ago.
- Messages
- 2,199
- Reactions
- 5,389
- Thread Starter
- #113
Has anyone noticed if any of the shippers in the "no" column have switched now that 114 has a "permanent" injunction against it? I bought my last batch of mags a week or so ago and do not need more at the moment.
- Messages
- 2,601
- Reactions
- 9,970
All of those "no" shippers said "F_ck Oregonians" and are therefore permanently on my blacklist. My money goes to those shippers who stayed the "yes" course.
MidwayUSA is now shipping to Oregon again, where they werent as of last week. But they are dead to me, have found other vendors who shipped throughout and are still shipping, and will be giving them my business. I find it almost more interesting the vendors who are STILL not shipping to Oregon. . .
- Messages
- 413
- Reactions
- 787
I made a big stink with them about it yesterday and left a one-star review with their CS. I wonder if it got through?
Well, wasnt expecting this- have purchased from Gunprime many times. Placed an order this weekend for 6 standard capacity AR mags. Got this email stating that they cannot ship 'hi cap' mags to Oregon. I emailed them back just now, and included links to the Judges ruling last week. I am hopeful they will review and change their mind. If not however, then need to add Gunprime to the list not shipping 'hi-cap' mags to Oregon. Man thought we were going to have a reprieve for a while from all this . . .
- Messages
- 6,554
- Reactions
- 12,815
Lame
- Messages
- 2,199
- Reactions
- 5,389
- Thread Starter
- #119
And hear I thought this thread would be dead. Guess I will go update the OP again. . .
- Messages
- 413
- Reactions
- 787
Yeah that's BS. I bought a 10-round 92FS from them back in September (I had standard-cap mags already for the gun so it wasn't a big deal to me) and they were awesome. I have two guns saved in my shopping cart on there. They will lose a customer unless they fix that.
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Horse head folding knifemade in japan- Started by blackbandet
- Replies: 0
-
-