OSSA response to 114

[dinky450]

Came across this on Facebook I know some are not on that platform so i screen shot the pages.

https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ossa.org%2Fuploads%2F2%2F5%2F3%2F2%2F25326702%2Foregon_sheriffs_11-17-22.pdf&h=AT2iSKDb4gwhC0PYnxCFIbDcinPJPRM5-46mUTkR8Vgs9JzFKRuueyQbndQh-IMmeZSIVwoY8R6d5ssnGAjdwgp-G6XHslhlgloevTr1jexSooOSPqWm5ExH2xlIcrVrvXjc2zEO4P51nMiGJcx2

Read More

 

[dancinghippos]

The so-called "progressives" are slowly wrapping the cord around our necks while most residents sleep through it.

 

[dancinghippos]

What defines proof? People around here are old enough that receipts for 30-year old magazines are not legible.

 

[The Heretic]

What defines proof? People around here are old enough that receipts for 30-year old magazines are not legible.

Or there are or never were receipts - e.g., for mags bought from private parties, and/or with guns. Even where the gun was bought from an FFL, they may or may not have come with more than one mag and that often is not noted anywhere. Ditto for mags bought at gun shows.

As for 30 year old mags - I have mags older than that.

As I have said elsewhere, the whole thing about mags is probably being over thought. As long as a mag doesn't have any marks on it that show it was manufactured after 12/8/22 the owner is probably fine, and I doubt that anybody will be arrested for the possession of said mags as long as they don't do something stupid like open carrying an AR with a 30 rd mag in public places. Additionally, I don't think the mag ban will hold up in court.

 

[dancinghippos]

Or there are or never were receipts - e.g., for mags bought from private parties, and/or with guns. Even where the gun was bought from an FFL, they may or may not have come with more than one mag and that often is not noted anywhere. Ditto for mags bought at gun shows.

As for 30 year old mags - I have mags older than that.

As I have said elsewhere, the whole thing about mags is probably being over thought. As long as a mag doesn't have any marks on it that show it was manufactured after 12/8/22 the owner is probably fine, and I doubt that anybody will be arrested for the possession of said mags as long as they don't do something stupid like open carrying an AR with a 30 rd mag in public places. Additionally, I don't think the mag ban will hold up in court.

I think we both agree on the silliness of the law and hope it will be overturned. But nobody wants to be their test case in a state that by policy and politics blames gun owners for crimes of people they never met. I posted my question in case someone got a definitive answer somewhere I haven't seen.

 

[dinky450]

I think we both agree on the silliness of the law and hope it will be overturned. But nobody wants to be their test case in a state that by policy and politics blames gun owners for crimes of people they never met. I posted my question in case someone got a definitive answer somewhere I haven't seen.

I can tell you in the rural counties most of these sheriff will be voted out.

 

[N Monty]

as long as they don't do something stupid like open carrying an AR with a 30 rd mag in public places.

Imagine living in a timeline where carrying a standard firearm is somehow considered "something stupid."
I know what you mean, just... ugh.

 

[WillametteWill]

What defines proof? People around here are old enough that receipts for 30-year old magazines are not legible.

In all copies of the initiative that I have read it states this:

The large-capacity magazine was owned by the person before the effective date of this 2022 Act and maintained in the person's control or possession;​

OSSA wording is this:

"...can raise an affirmative defense if they can prove they owned the large capacity magazines before the measure took effect..."​

Notice the difference? One could argue that as an affirmative defense you are required proof of ownership. Going to seek out someone smarter than I am on this concept but think they are basically trying to work around that pesky burden of proof on the government and whole innocent into PROVEN guilty stuff.

 

[po18guy]

Remember the election for sheriff. And, give to SAF and all other foundations preparing lawsuits.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Or there are or never were receipts - e.g., for mags bought from private parties, and/or with guns. Even where the gun was bought from an FFL, they may or may not have come with more than one mag and that often is not noted anywhere. Ditto for mags bought at gun shows.

As for 30 year old mags - I have mags older than that.

As I have said elsewhere, the whole thing about mags is probably being over thought. As long as a mag doesn't have any marks on it that show it was manufactured after 12/8/22 the owner is probably fine, and I doubt that anybody will be arrested for the possession of said mags as long as they don't do something stupid like open carrying an AR with a 30 rd mag in public places. Additionally, I don't think the mag ban will hold up in court.

I am 41 and I have had a few mags 29 years. I got my 10/22 in 1993. A lot of my mags never had a receipt. They aren't regulated parts and for almost 30 years I haven't needed a receipt.

 

[po18guy]

Those with HK rifle military mags can show the manufacture date stamped into each.

But HOW SILLY. An injunction must stop this madness.

 

[The Heretic]

While the law says that it requires an "affirmative defense", I doubt that this will hold up in court due to all the issues. Besides the fact that most mags don't have dates on them, and that few people kept receipts for some/many of their mags, or never had receipts - there is the issue with the law effectively being retroactive; we had not warning in years past that we would have to account for proving the ownership/possession of a magazine within Oregon at some point in the future.

This is why I have said, the most likely part of this law to get thrown out would be the mag ban, at the very least the "affirmative defense" part of it. And yes, I am well aware of the "civil forfeiture" in rem laws on the books and that history - but those are facing pushback, in the public, in the media, the courts and various states are putting restrictions on them - plus it is not quite the same thing; the property in civil forfeiture cases is accused of a crime - whereas magazines are generally not, at least not quite the same.

We shall see.

 

[dancinghippos]

While the law says that it requires an "affirmative defense", I doubt that this will hold up in court due to all the issues. Besides the fact that most mags don't have dates on them, and that few people kept receipts for some/many of their mags, or never had receipts - there is the issue with the law effectively being retroactive; we had not warning in years past that we would have to account for proving the ownership/possession of a magazine within Oregon at some point in the future.

This is why I have said, the most likely part of this law to get thrown out would be the mag ban, at the very least the "affirmative defense" part of it. And yes, I am well aware of the "civil forfeiture" in rem laws on the books and that history - but those are facing pushback, in the public, in the media, the courts and various states are putting restrictions on them - plus it is not quite the same thing; the property in civil forfeiture cases is accused of a crime - whereas magazines are generally not, at least not quite the same.

We shall see.

It isn't just a few court cases or congressional wins. The culture needs to wake up to the good side of gun ownership. Nothing happens to disappoint the power people unless there is a ton of public pressure. People who don't know much about guns must decide they are a good thing rather than a bad thing only owned by nut cases and civil war veterans. To overcome peer pressure in the newsroom and political world you need pressure from millions of people who see gun ownership in a positive light.

 

[po18guy]

We keep hearing that voting is good. Well then, all in Oregon should be required to show proof of voting. But voting is no good unless you can prove that you received the government shot. Hilarious. But it's coming.

 

[Lethal Defense]

In all copies of the initiative that I have read it states this:

The large-capacity magazine was owned by the person before the effective date of this 2022 Act and maintained in the person's control or possession;​

OSSA wording is this:

"...can raise an affirmative defense if they can prove they owned the large capacity magazines before the measure took effect..."​

Notice the difference? One could argue that as an affirmative defense you are required proof of ownership. Going to seek out someone smarter than I am on this concept but think they are basically trying to work around that pesky burden of proof on the government and whole innocent into PROVEN guilty stuff.

Above is correct. We all know LEO enforce the law, not interpret it. We also know the citizens during the stop are subject to that specific LEOs understanding (or department position) of that law. I have not read the final bill language as passed, whether it placed the burden on us or on government. I am sorry this has passed.

 

[ma96782]

IMHO.......
Some of you don't get it.

• An affirmative defense is a justification for the defendant having committed the accused crime. It differs from other defenses because the defendant admits that he did, in fact, break the law. He is simply arguing that he has a good reason for having done so, and therefore should be excused from all criminal liability.

In other words........
The Govt still has the burden of PROOF (to prove that you are guilt of a CRIME).

I didn't stay at a Holdiay Inn last night and I'm NOT a lawyer. In other words: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.

So then......
Being accused of some CRIME?




Aloha, Mark

 

[72scoutman]

I can tell you in the rural counties most of these sheriff will be voted out.

Can you expound on this a little? What exactly do you mean by this?

 

[dancinghippos]

I can tell you in the rural counties most of these sheriff will be voted out.

Some maybe. Other Sheriffs said they will not enforce the ban. I assume that is the magazine ban. Even that much resistance makes them popular with the no 114 others.

 

[dinky450]

Some maybe. Other Sheriffs said they will not enforce the ban. I assume that is the magazine ban. Even that much resistance makes them popular with the no 114 others.

Eh some said they won't but even Yamhill a "2A sanctuary" didn't say much about it. The mag ban 1/3 of the issue of 114 and not one will be able to not enforce the rest as it will be all state level. They might be able to release permits a little earlier but might be facing criminal charges if they don't follow state guidelines. Most county sheriff also said they will leave it up to the situation and every interaction will be up to the troops discretion.

 

[Yarome]

One helpful tid bit.... they seemed to clarify the issue with an ongoing BGC. They all stop on the 8th.

I read it as... OSP will not continue processing a BGC without a purchase permit. So to me... that means the permit is not only required at the time of purchase/transfer of property, but to even submit a 4473... retroactively...!

Ain't that a kettle.

I guess that means when the clock strikes midnight you can kiss your BGC/transfer fees goodbye and better get to work on a refund for the firearm purchase.

Bucking Fastards!