Messages
99
Reactions
127
Curious question: I have a Sig P365XL with STANDARD capacity magazines of 12 rounds. After this law/rule is in place I will be unable to use those magazines when carrying this pistol for self defense for myself , property or others. The manufacturer is "Out of stock" for Compliant 10 round magazines for this pistol (I am not asking for websites they are in stock, as my point is the manufacturer cannot sell me the compliant magazine as of today), if something god forbid were to happen to my family, others, or property -When outside my home , mobile - as I was unable to carry my sidearm without a magazine because of this rule/law. Wouldn't that be exactly strong grounds for a legal case of "irreparable harm"? I also CANNOT buy a replacement compliant firearm without the needed permit that does not exist.
So 30 days after you were on notice this was going into effect, you searched one source for a 10 round magazine and couldn't find it? No, not "strong grounds for a legal case".
 
Messages
99
Reactions
127

Arnold GOA State S.Ct. Denial of Mandamus.jpeg
 
Messages
66
Reactions
88
It's really mind blowing and pathetic to see how far the state of Oregon's AG office is willing to go to try and block the Injunction filed by Judge Raschio in Harney County.

1) That the Plaintiffs in the GOA lawsuit against 114 haven't shown " irreparable harm"

2) Modern firearms aren't what was commonly used in self defense in 1857 and anything containing more than 10 rounds is considered " experimental and unreliable" according to their historians" ( page 15)

3) Citing a Case in San Diego where a 19 year old went into a Jewish Synagogue with the intent " kill as many jews as possible" because he had a 10 round magazine spared the lives of others. " A large capacity magazine would have not afford that opportunity" page 23)

https://www.doj.state.or.us/wp-cont...-MEMORANDUM-OF-LAW-22CV41008-joseph-et-al.pdf

View attachment 1325867
Elections have consequences.
 
Messages
66
Reactions
88
What concerns/bothers me most is how aggressively the AG is pushing for this (specifically the 10 round limit).

Shameless demonstration of true intent.

Do they not understand that this bm passed by the narrowest of margins, and now that the effects are out in the open, I think many who supported it have/are changing their minds.

In short, they are really risking their political career on this.
Since people keep voting them in time after time they no doubt don't think they are risking anything.
 
Messages
1,699
Reactions
2,074
Oregon's Supreme Court has 7 justices. 5 of them are Kate Brown appointees.
The other 2 are appointees of previous Democrat governors.
They refused to hear the AG's appeal to rescind the Temporary Restraining Order
blocking the implementation of 114.
I was shocked. Thought it was fake news or wishful thinking until I saw a copy
of the decision. Rethinking the existence of Santa Claus.
1670517193954.png
 
Messages
68
Reactions
79
Oregon's Supreme Court has 7 justices. 5 of them are Kate Brown appointees.
The other 2 are appointees of previous Democrat governors.
They refused to hear the AG's appeal to rescind the Temporary Restraining Order
blocking the implementation of 114.
I was shocked. Thought it was fake news or wishful thinking until I saw a copy
of the decision. Rethinking the existence of Santa Claus.
View attachment 1326380
I was just as shocked until it was pointed out that this injunction keeps the status quo while letting the law go into effect and then later ruling it is unconstitutional may cause even more harm.
 
Messages
1,699
Reactions
2,074
I was just as shocked until it was pointed out that this injunction keeps the status quo while letting the law go into effect and then later ruling it is unconstitutional may cause even more harm.
It delays implementation of the entire measure for 10 days so they can examine evidence
for a "preliminary injunction" that would block it in it's entirety until it goes through the courts.
Let's not forget---there are 3 other lawsuits out there, and they are the ones with serious horsepower. The Harney County TRO is just the beginning of a court battle that will
eventually lead to the whole thing being overturned.
 
Messages
5,418
Reactions
10,779
Its hypothetical, sorry for the confusion. Thankfully my family is currently safe.
If I were you I would continue to use to carry what you have. What’s more important…. The safety of your family/yourself or the .00000000001% that you get found with a “non-compliant magazine” and you get a misdemeanor charge.

Nowadays your more likely to get assaulted then you are to make contact with LE. Choose wisely.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
228
Reactions
566
Something interesting about the Harney County Court - there is only a SINGLE JUDGE in that court. That meant that the plaintiffs and their sponsors knew exactly which judge was going to hear the case. I think that implies the plaintiffs' sponsors evaluated all county courts and picked the one with what they feel is the best judge.

I have seen people complain about the lawyers in the federal court screwing up their case. Let me suggest that it is much more important which JUDGE hears the case, than having brilliant lawyers in combination with a bad judge. It would be difficult for me to believe that various plaintiffs and sponsors never talked to each other to come up with a comprehensive strategy. I speculate that that case in Harney County is designed to buy some time, while plaintiffs in the federal court go through the appeals process through the 9th Circuit. If the plaintiffs were strategizing together, they aren't going to announce it in public.
 
Messages
66
Reactions
141
I suspect the Oregon Supreme Court didn’t overturn the injunction because it is only 10 days.

Allowing the status quo to exist for 10 days vs overturning a duly elected judge from doing their constitutionally mandated job seems extreme to me. If the judge decides the injunction is permanent for the duration of the case then I expect them to revisit the issue to overrule him.
 
Messages
13,512
Reactions
22,707
Rrrrrright......
Another really productive use of the taxpayer's money.

BUT, But, but.......
At least it's NOT California.


Aloha, Mark
 
Messages
3,890
Reactions
5,894
I suspect the Oregon Supreme Court didn’t overturn the injunction because it is only 10 days.

Allowing the status quo to exist for 10 days vs overturning a duly elected judge from doing their constitutionally mandated job seems extreme to me. If the judge decides the injunction is permanent for the duration of the case then I expect them to revisit the issue to overrule him.
I read somewhere else that a writ of mandamus is a serious charge against a court. It's essentially slapping a judge and telling him to do his job correctly. I was under the impression that an appeal should have been the next step instead the extreme accusation, and that's why the supreme court reacted the way it did.
 

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top