Oregon SB 348 gutted and stuffed to rewrite Measure 114 3/34/23

[solv3nt]

Anyone willing to talk about that... be sure the 2yr statute of limitations on your most recent buy/sell has expired.

Just sayin......





[No comment....]

I believe the number of charged, if any, is very small.

 

[Yarome]

I believe the number of charged, if any, is very small.

Indeed!

I do think it's easy for them to say, "but we won't charge anyone" or that it hasn't happened... yet... but leaving them unchallenged leaves the door open to simple policy changes that "may" lead to prosecutions to the furthest extent. Just like we see with the weaponization of the alphabet against FFL's. Those rules being used today were always on the books but allowed a measure of leeway for non-intentional oversights... until the "zero tolerance" policy shift and intention to shut down as many FFL's as possible.

 

[Yarome]

In the woke world... this is how they see firearm owners and 348 is the solution.

 

[The Heretic]

Indeed!

I do think it's easy for them to say, "but we won't charge anyone" or that it hasn't happened... yet... but leaving them unchallenged leaves the door open to simple policy changes that "may" lead to prosecutions to the furthest extent. Just like we see with the weaponization of the alphabet against FFL's. Those rules being used today were always on the books but allowed a measure of leeway for non-intentional oversights... until the "zero tolerance" policy shift and intention to shut down as many FFL's as possible.

It's the old "trust us" game. If they don't intend to use/misuse it, it wouldn't be there. History shows that any power given to government not only can be misused, it will be misused - so when they say it won't, they are lying and they know it.

 

[_Will_]

Instead of the " voter approved" initiative process, how does the legislative process differ? I know ones public vote vs elected officials. Wouldn't a lawsuit and a TRO against SB348 work as it did against measure 114

 

[CZP07]

Instead of the " voter approved" initiative process, how does the legislative process differ? I know ones public vote vs elected officials. Wouldn't a lawsuit and a TRO against SB348 work as it did against measure 114

of course. But as the new SB is written, any challenges must be filed in a court within Marion County. Plus we have a finite amount of resources and fiscal amounts to keep fighting. Whereas they have an infinite amount since we are paying for it both ways.

 

[_Will_]

of course. But as the new SB is written, any challenges must be filed in a court within Marion County. Plus we have a finite amount of resources and fiscal amounts to keep fighting. Whereas they have an infinite amount since we are paying for it both ways.

Has to be filed in Marion County? That's complete bs.

 

[CZP07]

Has to be filed in Marion County? That's complete bs.

yep. final paragraph of the then 65 page SB 348

 

[Unka-Boo]

yep. final paragraph of the then 65 page SB 348

Is there any precident for that holding weight?
I don't see how that can stand up.

 

[_Will_]

My question is... Then what happens with the suit in Harney County Judge Raschio? In essence Salem maneuvered around this lawsuit and created a new bill in their favor that can't be challenged.

 

[CZP07]

Is there any precident for that holding weight?
I don't see how that can stand up.

I can't see how any of this bubblegum can stand up. Yet here we are

 

[CZP07]

My question is... Then what happens with the case in Harney County Judge Raschio? In essence Salem maneuvered around this lawsuit and created a new bill in their favor that can't be challenged.

it'll be challenged. and then when the blues see that there's a chance of it being overturned, they will write another measure that repeals this one. Just like they did with 114.
And that's exactly what Salem did. I agree with @Yarome in that this all seems like petty vindictiveness by those in power.

 

[The Heretic]

their thought process; "what the hell, let's try - no harm in trying, it just might work?"

 

[156256Hunter]

It's like when drafting a contract, throw in a lot of very favorable provisions for yourself, and see how much of it the other party can object to (if they have the time and the money)

 

[Yarome]

The marion county juridiction provision is utter absurdity. "We make statewide jurisdictional laws that can only be challenged in a single jurisidictional court." can't possibly hold up under any jurisdictional/venue challenge. It undo's every legal precedent and court jurisdictional law.

There would have to be additional legislative action taken to limit/remove all Oregon courts juridictional authority. IOW, complete statewide tyranny over the entire judicial system.

Limiting a specific court jurisdictional authority is a farce. It in no way removes any of the exisiting jurisdictional authority granted all the other state courts.

Kind of like having 6 LEO standing in a group and saying, "only officer X can arrest you"... when all 6 have the same authority to do so. To make that true... you would have to suspend/fire the other 5 officers to remove their arrest authority.

 

[raftman]

I understand what you are saying and that they are ignoring critical elements in their "reasoning" on purpose. Such as... reasonable knowledge, willful action and intent must exist in violation of a standing law.

In a defensive shooting a person knows that his/her firearm is capable of inflicting bodily injury, willfully decides to act by pulling the trigger and they have demonstratable intent of inflicting bodily injury on another. Therefore... in voiation of several laws currently in affect (brandishing, discharge of a firearm, assault, attempted murder, etc.)... which then requires demonstrating justifiable cause.

In the case of a mag purchase, there was no active law... obviating any knowledge, action or intent... so there can be no punishable crime to have to defend against. In the "real world" that is.

They have to know it won't stand, but it doesn't have to. The threat of it will have a chilling affect and defending any charge (bogus as it is) will be costly. Prompting some to act to avoid any risk. Not to mention, discourage some from even opting to purchase their first firearm simply due to the complexity of laws and potential associated risks of owning one.

IMHO, as I mentioned before, it really seems more like simply a vindictive punitive action against those that opposed their will with 114. That's how the woke mind works. "Destroy any that oppose us" is their mantra.

You could well be exactly right. I guess my explanation is more about how they sell it, rather than what they actually believe. Even to someone not especially invested in the issue, a law saying someone is presumed guilty until proven innocent could/would seem troubling, and so proponents would argue that the concept of "affirmative defense" does have legal precedent and justify it in such a manner.

 

[156256Hunter]

Just in case no one else already mentioned this, while they usually run for re-election unopposed, Circuit Court judges -- including those in Marion County -- are on the ballot and voted for.....by only voters in that county.

 

[Local Loader]

I'm sure they added the county thing to try and prevent things from being challenged in other counties because they are trying to rig any trial that happens plus increase costs for those that are challenging them.

 

[arakboss]

I'm sure they added the county thing to try and prevent things from being challenged in other counties because they are trying to rig any trial that happens plus increase costs for those that are challenging them.

I doubt AG teams enjoy traveling to places like Harney County either.

 

[Local Loader]

I doubt AG teams enjoy traveling to places like Harney County either.

Yeah, I don't really care if they like it or not, it's their job and they signed up for it.