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

[compressorguy]

What I see going on nationwide is blatant effort to exhaust the funding for challenging evermore egregious legislation. They keep dumping evermore stupid bills on the people with the intent of overwhelming the legal system with court challenges until our advocates can't afford to respond anymore. Kind of a "Death of a thousand cuts." Look at what is going on in California right now. The Supreme Court bounced the Duncan v Bonta decision back down to the 9th circuit and they immediately bounced it back down to Benitiz who had already ruled. Now he has to rule again (demonstrating that he has followed the SCOTUS guidelines) This causes a delay. When he rules again, the state will appeal to the 9th circuit and be heard by a three judge panel, if they rule against the state it will be appealed to the en banc 9th circuit and then, no matter which side wins it will be appealed to the SCOTUS. All of this takes money, lot's of money! The state has essentially unlimited funding to argue these cases, our side not so much. Now multiply this by every kind of unconstitutional affront that every petty jurisdiction can cook up repeatedly and you have bankrupted every pro-gun organization that is fighting for us.

 

[Librarian]

In sorting through the nonsensical legalese, is it correct to interpret that the permit to purchase scheme wouldn't go into effect till 7/1/24 is this bs passes?

That's correct, for this version of the bill.

 

[arakboss]

In sorting through the nonsensical legalese, is it correct to interpret that the permit to purchase scheme wouldn't go into effect till 7/1/24 is this bs passes?

Correct! But the mag ban will be retroactively applied back to Dec 8th, 2022. Lots of FFLs will have violated the mag ban restriction in SB 348. Hopefully the ATF looks the other way when doing their audits.

 

[dancinghippos]

What I see going on nationwide is blatant effort to exhaust the funding for challenging evermore egregious legislation. They keep dumping evermore stupid bills on the people with the intent of overwhelming the legal system with court challenges until our advocates can't afford to respond anymore. Kind of a "Death of a thousand cuts." Look at what is going on in California right now. The Supreme Court bounced the Duncan v Bonta decision back down to the 9th circuit and they immediately bounced it back down to Benitiz who had already ruled. Now he has to rule again (demonstrating that he has followed the SCOTUS guidelines) This causes a delay. When he rules again, the state will appeal to the 9th circuit and be heard by a three judge panel, if they rule against the state it will be appealed to the en banc 9th circuit and then, no matter which side wins it will be appealed to the SCOTUS. All of this takes money, lot's of money! The state has essentially unlimited funding to argue these cases, our side not so much. Now multiply this by every kind of unconstitutional affront that every petty jurisdiction can cook up repeatedly and you have bankrupted every pro-gun organization that is fighting for us.

The Left has decided that they are the One True Faith, so there are no rules.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Correct! But the mag ban will be retroactively applied back to Dec 8th, 2022. Lots of FFLs will have violated the mag ban restriction in SB 348. Hopefully the ATF looks the other way when doing their audits.

Even the zealots who got 114 on the ballot said that they thought it would not take effect until 1/1/2023!

 

[arakboss]

From Dennis Linthicum's website regarding SB 348-3 & HB 2005:

Unraveling their Schemes

What is the Ballistic Fingerprint business all about, is that nonsense in one of the Oregon bills?

 

[raftman]

Correct! But the mag ban will be retroactively applied back to Dec 8th, 2022. Lots of FFLs will have violated the mag ban restriction in SB 348. Hopefully the ATF looks the other way when doing their audits.

I'm not so familiar with what in all goes into such an audit; does the documentation for what an FFL purchases for their inventory include info on what capacity mag a firearm shipped with (if any)? I realize that info may sometimes be included on invoices/receipts, but is that what they ask to see, or is it some logbook that doesn't include that info? I figure if the latter, they don't really know if any guns shipped in with 10+ mags and since 4473's don't have this info, no way to know if any went out. That still leaves the matter of stocking end selling mags by themselves but since mags aren't federally regulated, would they be concerned with that?

 

[arakboss]

I'm not so familiar with what in all goes into such an audit; does the documentation for what an FFL purchases for their inventory include info on what capacity mag a firearm shipped with (if any)? I realize that info may sometimes be included on invoices/receipts, but is that what they ask to see, or is it some logbook that doesn't include that info? I figure if the latter, they don't really know if any guns shipped in with 10+ mags and since 4473's don't have this info, no way to know if any went out. That still leaves the matter of stocking end selling mags by themselves but since mags aren't federally regulated, would they be concerned with that?

Generally SKU numbers can indicate what mags came with a particular model.





I have no idea how the State plans to enforce SB 348 or to what degree. If the anti gunners were smart they would shop and purchase the 11+ mags at every FFL in the State and document the purchase. The AG could then bring charges against FFL and contact ATF after each conviction.

 

[Local Loader]

Generally SKU numbers can indicate what mags came with a particular model.

View attachment 1396572



I have no idea how the State plans to enforce SB 348 or to what degree. If the anti gunners were smart they would shop and purchase the 11+ mags at every FFL in the State and document the purchase. The AG could then bring charges against FFL and contact ATF after each conviction.

Please don't give them ideas, this all sucks enough as is.

 

[arakboss]

Please don't give them ideas, this all sucks enough as is.

They are not going to learn anything new from my primitive brain. I am barely above the discovering fire stage.




The anti gunners are funded by some of the wealthiest people in the nation. I will assume they didn't obtain that wealth by being stupid.

The anti gun movement is likely a class war Issue. That is why you don't see "conservative" rich people with opposing organizations.

 

[PiratePast40]

From Dennis Linthicum's website regarding SB 348-3 & HB 2005:

Unraveling their Schemes

Excellent. Thank you. LOTR reference was chilling.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

What is the Ballistic Fingerprint business all about, is that nonsense in one of the Oregon bills?

I believe the point is that giving a firearm a unique ID, e.g. a serial number (HB 2005 punishes possessing, offering for sale, selling or transferring firearm without serial number …) or "ballistic fingerprint" , coupled with registration, has been shown to neither stop nor solve any crime.

 

[The Heretic]

Correct! But the mag ban will be retroactively applied back to Dec 8th, 2022. Lots of FFLs will have violated the mag ban restriction in SB 348. Hopefully the ATF looks the other way when doing their audits.

I really have to wonder how they think the ex post facto aspect of that bill will past muster in any court.

Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

No Bill of attainder or Ex post facto law shall be passed.

The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10.

Section 10: Limits on the States[edit]

Clause 1: Contract Clause[edit]

Main articles: Contract Clause, Letter of marque, and Bill of credit

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

 

[Yarome]

I really have to wonder how they think the ex post facto aspect of that bill will past muster in any court.

Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

No Bill of attainder or Ex post facto law shall be passed.

The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10.

Section 10: Limits on the States[edit]

Clause 1: Contract Clause[edit]

Main articles: Contract Clause, Letter of marque, and Bill of credit

It almost seems more like a "F'all you that attempted to oppose our will" punitive action... doesn't it? Laws, "good faith" actions on behalf of the people and citizens rights be damned.

All that oppose them must pay!

 

[CZP07]

Retracting. Stupid statement out of frustration

 

[PiratePast40]

I missed the beginning of the Judiciary committee work group. What happened with 348 and 527? Pass to the floor? ammendments entered? Referral to another committee?

 

[bcp]

Oregon Constitution:

Section 21. Ex-post facto laws; laws impairing contracts; laws depending on authorization in order to take effect; laws submitted to electors. No ex-post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall ever be passed, nor shall any law be passed....

Bruce

 

[Librarian]

It almost seems more like a "F'all you that attempted to oppose our will" punitive action... doesn't it? Laws, "good faith" actions on behalf of the people and citizens rights be damned.

All that oppose them must pay!

That's probably closest.

But, and this is complicated, 348 is not an ex post facto law.

It has a lot of problems, but e-p-f is not one of them.

It has to do with when the black-letter law went onto the books, which was one of those days in December 2022; call it constitutionally effective, where the rules at Section II, part 4(d) were followed and administrative processes have completed. We know that happened, because

The Constitution is here published as it is in effect following the approval of amendments and revisions on November 8, 2022. At the 2022 general election, the people adopted amendments to section 34, Article I, and section 15, Article IV, and adopted a new section 47 to Article I.

Bills and Laws OrConst

www.oregonlegislature.gov

That's entirely a different concept from when such law might be enforceable, which is what Judge Raschio's injunction addresses. Call that legally effective.

So, folks doing things that the 114 magazine law prohibits were/are in fact engaging in (newly) criminal behavior according to 114's black letter law, but cannot currently be prosecuted because of the injunction. If the injunction should be lifted, I don't see how the since-114 actions can be prosecuted then, either, but I'm not tricky enough to be a prosecutor.

But potential punishment for behavior now that is forbidden by law now is not e-p-f. 348's language does not criminalize behavior performed in, say, July of 2022; that would be e-p-f. All those purchases and sales before the election are fine. But buying and selling and things like carrying a LCM outside the specified locations here in April is a crime according to that law, even though enjoined from enforcement.

Consider this hokey example.

I have a kilo of NewDrug - it's not on any list or schedule. I bought 2 kilos today, and I resold half of it to my neighbor (we use it on our roses). So, I bought, sold, and possess.

Legislature says 'my goodness, NewDrug is not paying us enough bribe money, so we will make it illegal to buy, sell and possess' and passes a law that is effective July 1, 2023.

On June 30, possession of NewDrug is not a crime. On July 1, if I continue to possess, that would be a crime, but my purchase and sale today would not be crimes - attempting to use a July law to punish prior-April behavior would be e-p-f.

As set up, SB348-3 wants to punish post-December-date behaviors after the post-December-date constitutionally effective law.

 

[solv3nt]

So can SB348 be enjoined, or will a new lawsuit be necessary?

 

[street]

As set up, SB348-3 wants to punish post-December-date behaviors after the post-December-date constitutionally effective law.

I hear ya... but...[IMO] such behavior is legal until it isn't, and never was illegal because the (unconstitutional) provisions were enjoined by J. Raschio and as such never were 'constitutionally effective.' That said, it's all a steaming pile of bull manure...