Oregon Regarding Standard Capacity Magazines in Oregon

[MymuttBear]

My magazines are legal and were when purchased. Laws can't go backwards. It is still legal drive a pre 1968 car that didn't come with seat belts from the factory with out said seat belts.

Apologies if this has been already covered.
What difference, if any, is Washington versus Oregon law regarding grandfathered large capacity magazines?
Can you actually USE them as opposed to just possessing them?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

My magazines are legal and were when purchased. Laws can't go backwards. It is still legal drive a pre 1968 car that didn't come with seat belts from the factory with out said seat belts.

It's not legal to own a sbs in WA unless you can prove ownership prior to 1994 and has a tax stamp, irregardless of when it was purchased.

It's not legal to own a machine gun purchased a long time ago unless it meets certain conditions (NFA registered, law enforcement, etc). If it was purchased when legal say 1965 it does not matter.

Legal at the time of purchase only applies if there is a grandfather exemption in the law. M114 has no grandfather exemption. It says it's illegal to possess. Prosecutor only has to prove possession that's all.

The only thing in the law is an affirmative defense where you can say yes I possessed it but it's legal because I owned it prior to the effective date AND under the specific conditions outlined in the law (Fe traveling to a range in separate locked contained). You have to prove both those things. The prosecutor does not have to prove you acquired the mag after the effective date.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Apologies if this has been already covered.
What difference, if any, is Washington versus Oregon law regarding grandfathered large capacity magazines?
Can you actually USE them as opposed to just possessing them?

Wa is totally different. It has a grandfather exemption which means you can possess and use.

Please see post #44, page 3 of this thread. If you skip to the spot in the video, the gun attorney explains the difference between WA and OR. How you can possess and use them in OR is shown in the photo in post #29, on page 2 of this thread.

 

[oremike]

It's not legal to own a sbs in WA unless you can prove ownership prior to 1994 and has a tax stamp, irregardless of when it was purchased.

It's not legal to own a machine gun purchased a long time ago unless it meets certain conditions (NFA registered, law enforcement, etc). If it was purchased when legal say 1965 it does not matter.

Legal at the time of purchase only applies if there is a grandfather exemption in the law. M114 has no grandfather exemption. It says it's illegal to possess. Prosecutor only has to prove possession that's all.

The only thing in the law is an affirmative defense where you can say yes I possessed it but it's legal because I owned it prior to the effective date AND under the specific conditions outlined in the law (Fe traveling to a range in separate locked contained). You have to prove both those things. The prosecutor does not have to prove you acquired the mag after the effective date.

You fight your battles your way and I'll fight mine my way. Wolverines!

 

[ilikegunspdx]

You fight your battles your way and I'll fight mine my way. Wolverines!

For me the trick is to not have to fight the battle at all because one is prepared and leaving little or nothing to chance. Which in this case is fairly easy to do. Prosecution is unlikely to prosecute if they think they have little chance of winning.

 

[Jcon268]

For me the trick is to not have to fight the battle at all because one is prepared and leaving little or nothing to chance. Which in this case is fairly easy to do. Prosecution is unlikely to prosecute if they think they have little chance of winning.

How exactly does one prepare for such a battle at all? Hide them? Bury them? If so, they've effectively won anyways.

 

[Richo877]

As long as you'd voluntarily relinquish them to an officer

Prior to the commencement of ... citation or formal charge

No crime exists.
Which is complete bubblegum anyway. Anyone caught battling semantics with an officer is going to end up unduly arrested and charged with some other bullbubblegum charges that you'd have to fight your way out of in court.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

How exactly does one prepare for such a battle at all? Hide them? Bury them? If so, they've effectively won anyways.

Simple. Let's pretend Cop pulls you over AND sees the mags such as laying on the seat (don't do that is smart of course). Or to really simplify it let's say you had a container marked "30 round mags" in plain sight. Let's say he is hell bent on charging you and prosecutor is the same.

#1 You say you are on the way to the range. #2 You produce photos of mags and/or any other evidence you have that you owned prior to the effective date. Now you have met both provisions of affirmative defense so almost impossible to prosecute you.

Note that I'm not going to get into the "locked container" nor "you can fake the photos" stuff because that has been argued ad nasuem in other threads and would be a waste of time here I think.

If you can produce that stuff at the time of being pulled over that woudl be ideal (cuz it's likely to stop right there) but not realistic for most of us probably. Being able to produce it later is more realistic I think. I could produce enough at the time of pullover but could produce more evidence later on if needed.

 

[Jcon268]

Simple. Let's pretend Cop pulls you over AND sees the mags such as laying the seat (don't do that is smart of course). Let's say he is hell bent on charging you and prosecutor is the same.

#1 You say you are on the way to the range. #2 You produce photos of mags and/or any other evidence you have that you owned prior to the effective date. Now you have met both provisions of affirmative defense so almost impossible to prosecute you.

Note that I'm not going to get into the "locked container" nor "you can fake the photos" stuff because that has been argued ad nasuem in other threads and would be a waste of time here I think.

If you can produce that stuff at the time of being pulled over that woudl be ideal (cuz it's likely to stop right there) but not realistic for most of us probably. Being able to produce it later is more realistic I think. I could produce enough at the time of pullover but could produce more evidence later on if needed.

Assuming you had photos of all your magazines that could be timestamped to before effective date and that you could clearly distinguish such magazines in a photo from anything that looked similar (markings, etc), it's still up to the courts to decide if that is a good enough defense. If the officer is "hell bent" as you stated, it's going to be taken into court.
Also let's say it was used in a defensive shooting, wouldn't it be admitted into evidence? Still in the hands of a (likely very liberal) court.
Most magazines don't have definitive markings or ways of tracing to date of purchase, only maybe date of manufacture at best. Expecting people to have a photo file of all of their magazines and then BACKDATING that, is what makes this so ridiculous. People don't do that. And then on top of all of that, what do you with a firearm that's allowed but ONLY accepts restricted mags?

 

[Here2SellMyP07]

You would have to voluntarily relinquish it to prior to arrest or prosecution. Agree would probably need a lawyer to tell us exactly when "transfer by arrest" occurs.

"Prior to the commencement of prosecution for the possession, use or transfer by arrest, citation or a formal charge."

My guess is their intent was to get people to turn them in right away once they know they are "illegal". But that's only a guess.

Oh good catch I misread, disregard me

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Assuming you had photos of all your magazines that could be timestamped to before effective date and that you could clearly distinguish such magazines in a photo from anything that looked similar (markings, etc), it's still up to the courts to decide if that is a good enough defense. If the officer is "hell bent" as you stated, it's going to be taken into court.
Also let's say it was used in a defensive shooting, wouldn't it be admitted into evidence? Still in the hands of a (likely very liberal) court.
Most magazines don't have definitive markings or ways of tracing to date of purchase, only maybe date of manufacture at best. Expecting people to have a photo file of all of their magazines and then BACKDATING that, is what makes this so ridiculous. People don't do that. And then on top of all of that, what do you with a firearm that's allowed but ONLY accepts restricted mags?

Yea lots of variables. To address only the backdated photos one you mention, as I said probably 10-20 times in other threads prior to Dec.8 2022, imo peopel should think about taking photos and emailing them to yourself, uploading on your Google drive etc that dates it, use the $3 time stamp photo app, gather receipts if you want, etc.

The defendant has to show preponderance of the evidence that they owned it prior to effective date. They don't necessarily have to prove beyond any doubt. If you took the time to make documentation prior to Dec 8, 2022 like myself and many others did that may be valuable evidence that can help you if the need ever arises. And woudl put you in a much stronger position than just hoping the jury takes your word for it with no effort at documentation.

Again similar to the WA law on SbS. If I were in WA and had a sbs with a stamp prior to 1994 I would have peace of mind should anyone ever try to prosecute me for it. It would be very hard for them to prosecute me for it. So hard that they would never bother imo. If they did try irregardless, I would have one hell of a defense ready to go.

 

[Jcon268]

Yea lots of variables. To address only the backdated photos one you mention, as I said probably 10-20 times in other threads prior to Dec.8 2022, imo peopel should think about taking photos and emailing them to yourself, uploading on your Google drive etc that dates it, use the $3 time stamp photo app, gather receipts if you want, etc.

The defendant has to show preponderance of the evidence that they owned it prior to effective date. They don't necessarily have to prove beyond any doubt. If you took the time to make documentation prior to Dec 8, 2022 like myself and many others did that may be valuable evidence that can help you if the need ever arises. And woudl put you in a much stronger position than just hoping the jury takes your word for it with no effort at documentation.

Again similar to the WA law on SbS. If I were in WA and had a sbs with a stamp prior to 1994 I would have peace of mind should anyone ever try to prosecute me for it. It would be very hard for them to prosecute me for it. So hard that they would never bother imo. If they did try irregardless, I would have one hell of a defense ready to go.

All sounds pretty silly to me, no offense to you. Just the whole thing. If it gets passed and doesn't get sued into oblivion, I'll have my eyes set on a free state eventually. I've got a few years left here to get my ducks in a row but it all sounds like it's pitted against you and anyone sensibly following the rules.
And no offense to your post originally mentioned, but I shouldn't have to do what you mentioned back then. Frankly I had a lot bigger fish to fry back then, like was my business going to survive and having a healthy 1 year old child.

 

[oremike]

Simple. Let's pretend Cop pulls you over AND sees the mags such as laying on the seat (don't do that is smart of course). Or to really simplify it let's say you had a container marked "30 round mags" in plain sight. Let's say he is hell bent on charging you and prosecutor is the same.

#1 You say you are on the way to the range. #2 You produce photos of mags and/or any other evidence you have that you owned prior to the effective date. Now you have met both provisions of affirmative defense so almost impossible to prosecute you.

Note that I'm not going to get into the "locked container" nor "you can fake the photos" stuff because that has been argued ad nasuem in other threads and would be a waste of time here I think.

If you can produce that stuff at the time of being pulled over that woudl be ideal (cuz it's likely to stop right there) but not realistic for most of us probably. Being able to produce it later is more realistic I think. I could produce enough at the time of pullover but could produce more evidence later on if needed.

I don't play "lets pretend".

 

[Bobbygun]

Eh, I'm closing in on the point where the jury would view me "as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."

 

[40nascar]

Eh, I'm closing in on the point where the jury would be view me "as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."

In other words, a Dementia Democrat.

 

[1911Fanatic]

It's not legal to own a sbs in WA unless you can prove ownership prior to 1994 and has a tax stamp, irregardless of when it was purchased.

It's not legal to own a machine gun purchased a long time ago unless it meets certain conditions (NFA registered, law enforcement, etc). If it was purchased when legal say 1965 it does not matter.

Legal at the time of purchase only applies if there is a grandfather exemption in the law. M114 has no grandfather exemption. It says it's illegal to possess. Prosecutor only has to prove possession that's all.

The only thing in the law is an affirmative defense where you can say yes I possessed it but it's legal because I owned it prior to the effective date AND under the specific conditions outlined in the law (Fe traveling to a range in separate locked contained). You have to prove both those things. The prosecutor does not have to prove you acquired the mag after the effective date.

Wonder how that applies to the Mossberg Shock wave? The ATF doesn't classify it as a shotgun. It's listed as "other" I guess, whatever that means.

 

[1911Fanatic]

All sounds pretty silly to me, no offense to you. Just the whole thing. If it gets passed and doesn't get sued into oblivion, I'll have my eyes set on a free state eventually. I've got a few years left here to get my ducks in a row but it all sounds like it's pitted against you and anyone sensibly following the rules.
And no offense to your post originally mentioned, but I shouldn't have to do what you mentioned back then. Frankly I had a lot bigger fish to fry back then, like was my business going to survive and having a healthy 1 year old child.

If my son actually does move back to Oklahoma to be a police officer, I will eventually wind up there myself.

 

[Jcon268]

If my son actually does move back to Oklahoma to be a police officer, I will eventually wind up there myself.

I'm kinda in the opposite situation. My parents live here and are getting to be elderly and I'm choosing to stay here to be around them / take care of them until they pass, at which point I'll likely be moving near Boise, ID close to my brother or DFW, TX where my in-laws will be. Those in-laws are originally from Tulsa, OK and although I haven't visited there, I'd have some family around if I decided to move there as well.

 

[1911Fanatic]

I'm kinda in the opposite situation. My parents live here and are getting to be elderly and I'm choosing to stay here to be around them / take care of them until they pass, at which point I'll likely be moving near Boise, ID close to my brother or DFW, TX where my in-laws will be. Those in-laws are originally from Tulsa, OK and although I haven't visited there, I'd have some family around if I decided to move there as well.

Yeah, I'm taking care of my mom too. When she dies I will leave and rent out the houses here.