Oregon Regarding Standard Capacity Magazines in Oregon

[Richo877]

dont know if thats possible

I'm not an expert, and I'm just speculating, but I would imagine retroactive laws would only be allowed to modify charges for existing erroneous cases that have occurred between the start date and present. If there's no mfg dates on mags, there's no way to prove guilt and the arbitrary charges would waste too much time in court for them to try anyone.
Also, they would be allowed to charge anyone carrying with a magazine or discharging a firearm using a said magazine in public regardless of when the magazines were purchased. It would still be legal to have "grandfathered" mags at home or at the range, and I hardly think they'd have a budget to go from range to range asking to see receipts for mags like ticket checkers on a bus.

 

[bzltyr]

I'm gonna order some KCI mags for my Glock 19X as range mags. I've bought KCI before and there is no time stamp, and they are metal lined like the Glock factory mags.

KCI! I'd take magpuls instead.

 

[Koda]

Also, they would be allowed to charge anyone carrying with a magazine or discharging a firearm using a said magazine in public regardless of when the magazines were purchased. It would still be legal to have "grandfathered" mags at home or at the range, and I hardly think they'd have a budget to go from range to range asking to see receipts for mags like ticket checkers on a bus.

The only time it would be an issue is if one used their gun in self defense. Even in a justifiable shoot one would get charged with the unlawful magazine possession. I cant think of any other reason an officer could legally search your gun, possibly a traffic stop but I would never give permission to search the gun or car, Im not certain how that would play out.

 

[Richo877]

It's outrageous that possession of a standard magazine could fall in with the likes of this

But if it's that or my life, I guess I'd catch charges.

 

[1911Fanatic]

KCI! I'd take magpuls instead.

Yeah, but at 10 bucks a piece, the KCI's are fine. I've got a couple now. They are just range mags. Same with the ETS clear mags. 11 bucks for a 33 round range mag.

 

[orygun]

I didnt get so lucky with the pmags I bought, all my pmags have a time stamp but none of my Glock mags have a timestamp.

The one I checked was from the batch I bought after 114 was "voted in" but before it was supposed to be enacted, so it's fairly new. Kinda surprised the manufacturers are date stamping them... It's like they don't want to help us.

 

[PiratePast40]

Keep in mind that this bill is similar to SB348 from the 2023 session and is necessary for implementation of M114. The effective date for magazines is still the same.Their rebuttal toa retroactive law will be that eM114 DID pass and being held up in court doesn't change that.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I'm not an expert, and I'm just speculating, but I would imagine retroactive laws would only be allowed to modify charges for existing erroneous cases that have occurred between the start date and present. If there's no mfg dates on mags, there's no way to prove guilt and the arbitrary charges would waste too much time in court for them to try anyone.
Also, they would be allowed to charge anyone carrying with a magazine or discharging a firearm using a said magazine in public regardless of when the magazines were purchased. It would still be legal to have "grandfathered" mags at home or at the range, and I hardly think they'd have a budget to go from range to range asking to see receipts for mags like ticket checkers on a bus.

The way the law is written the only thing they have to prove is that you are currently in possession. That's all.

You will have to prove you owned them prior to the effective date to use an affirmative defense. Prosecutor does not have to prove you acquired them after that date.

Similar to WA SBS law. In WA you can own a sbs if you have a fed stamp and owned before 1994. If caught in possession today you have 3 choices: (1) plead guilty, (2) plead not guilty and try to say you didn't really posses it, or (3) say you possessed it but it's legal (ie affirmative defense). You show a stamp before 1994 and you are exonerated. Or you show preponderance of evidence you owned it before 1994 and also a later stamp.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

The way the law is written the only thing they have to prove is that you are currently in possession. That's all.

You will have to prove you owned them prior to the effective date to use an affirmative defense. Prosecutor does not have to prove you acquired them after that date.

Similar to WA SBS law. In WA you can own a sbs if you have a fed stamp and owned before 1994. If caught in possession today you have 3 choices: (1) plead guilty, (2) plead not guilty and try to say you didn't really posses it, or (3) say you possessed it but it's legal (ie affirmative defense). You show a stamp before 1994 and you are exonerated. Or you show preponderance of evidence you owned it before 1994 and also a later stamp.

Here is the piece of bubblegum law fyi. There are no exceptions written into the law. Instead you can use an affirmative defense if you can show you owned it prior to effective date plus other circumstances shown below:

 

[Dozer99]

There should be an OPSEC reminder at the beginning of each thread dealing with "Laws". A subtle reminder to not say to much.

 

[Koda]

The one I checked was from the batch I bought after 114 was "voted in" but before it was supposed to be enacted, so it's fairly new. Kinda surprised the manufacturers are date stamping them... It's like they don't want to help us.

I cant say when Magpul started date coding their mags but they are probably just unaware how it affects 2A rights in mag ban states. Date coding is very advantageous to manufacturers if they need to deal with design flaws or recalls in production lots.

 

[Richo877]

Here is the piece of bubblegum law fyi. There are no exceptions written into the law. Instead you can use an affirmative defense if you can show you owned it prior to effective date plus other circumstances shown below:
View attachment 2020310
View attachment 2020311

I read all of that, but I could find nowhere written in the bill (or m114) where it states the affirmative defense requires proof of purchase or transaction receipts to show proof of possession before date. Think about how many millions of magazines have been in circulation and obtained in trades and cash transactions that never provided such documentation. The affirmative defense still stands unless they can prove the mags are post date.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I read all of that, but I could find nowhere written in the bill (or m114) where it states the affirmative defense requires proof of purchase or transaction receipts to show proof of possession before date. Think about how many millions of magazines have been in circulation and obtained in trades and cash transactions that never provided such documentation. The affirmative defense still stands unless they can prove the mags are post date.

Affirmative defense does not work that way. They don't have to prove the mags are post date. In affirmative defense you affirm the "crime" of possession and are exonerated if you can prove the affirmative defense conditions.

They can charge you if you have possession, not "if you possession of mags that are post effective date". There are no exceptions written in the law.

As shown in my post above where I pasted the law, possession after the date is the "crime", not possession of post effective date magazines. It's just like if you shot someone. If you can show it's in self defense then that's an affirmative defense. "Yes I shot him but it was in self defense".

This is one of the reasons why m114 is so bad.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I read all of that, but I could find nowhere written in the bill (or m114) where it states the affirmative defense requires proof of purchase or transaction receipts to show proof of possession before date. Think about how many millions of magazines have been in circulation and obtained in trades and cash transactions that never provided such documentation. The affirmative defense still stands unless they can prove the mags are post date.

I understand that everyone wants it to work that way, but it does not. The key to an affirmative defense is that the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that there is something (in this case the date the mags were purchased) to negate the charges against them.

ETA: Dang! beaten by a faster typer

 

[Jcon268]

I see that we have a bill pending that will repeal M114 and replace it. I've read that it will leave us with a mag ban retroactive to 2022. If this is the case, is there any point in saving my receipts for said mags that I've recently purchased (still legal at this time). And is there any disadvantages to keeping the new spare mags in their original packaging?

I don't plan on selling or trading any of them. Would it look better for me if I opened them all up and ditched the packaging and the receipts? I am running out of storage space and they would condense down better without the packages. If the 10 round limit passes, well I won;t use the standard cap mags outside of my home or the range, and will probably carry a 1911 or revolver for EDC.

If the new bill passes, with mags purchased before the law takes effect be "grandfathered"?.

My thoughts (not a lawyer) is that if they are going to place the burden of proof on the individual as to when they purchased the magazines, they would have to create a standard for "proof." If you owned the gun that accepts the magazine prior to their ban, plausible deniability seems to come into play. Why would you own the gun without the proper magazine for it?
I honestly think the backdate thing is bogus and is one of the first things that would have to be revised. If 114 was injuncted and eventually is repealed, the timeline to it is no longer applicable. What's next? We were "thinking" about making this law 10 years ago so we can now backdate it to then? They're really reaching and even a liberal judge should see that.

 

[arakboss]

Depends on the magazine, if it has a timestamp on it like Magpuls.

mfg April 2021..
View attachment 2020198

Those will need some dremel work.

 

[oremike]

I'm sorry your honor, I can not enter a plea because my constitutional right to be innocent until proven guilty is being violated. Just for fun I also have the right to not incriminate myself, but I do swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

[Jcon268]

I understand that everyone wants it to work that way, but it does not. The key to an affirmative defense is that the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that there is something (in this case the date the mags were purchased) to negate the charges against them.

ETA: Dang! beaten by a faster typer

This is true but might makes this whole thing look a lot worse in higher courts. Usually, ceding a grandfather clause is how they sidestep the courts. They even opened a gap in California's magazine ban that allowed purchase for a small window of time.
This would be a lot like the ATF directly telling people braces were okay to own and then suddenly trying to make them illegal and turn people into felons overnight. They were legally purchased. Bump stocks were legally purchased. If they would have aimed at halting production and forward dating a ban of sales or imports, they probably would have had gotten their way. Pettiness cuts both ways.

 

[orygun]

I cant say when Magpul started date coding their mags but they are probably just unaware how it affects 2A rights in mag ban states. Date coding is very advantageous to manufacturers if they need to deal with design flaws or recalls in production lots.

I understand that, but this can be done without a date. Just ask any other manufacturer.
You don't see ammo manufacturers recalling ammo by date, it's all by lot number. Having the date on the mag isn't a positive.

 

[Koda]

I understand that, but this can be done without a date. Just ask any other manufacturer.
You don't see ammo manufacturers recalling ammo by date, it's all by lot number. Having the date on the mag isn't a positive.

Yes, but lot numbers require maintaining a database. Date codes don't require anything.
I dont know why they chose date codes but its cheaper.
Magpul mags are reliable, and half the cost. It does suck they have date codes.