Oregon Testing The Incoming Oregon 11+ Mag Ban.

[arakboss]

I was thinking of a less risky method to test the incoming 11+ mag ban. A person could modify a post ban mag to accept 10 or less rounds and send it to the State Police for a legality check. If the State Police say it's not legal or won't return it to the owner, the owner could sue the State Police to get it back. This could raise the issue of what readily convertible means to the courts. The risk of prosecution would be low and you could even send in a pre-ban mag under the guise of being a post ban mag to reduce risk further. Or we can all pretend we know what readily convertible means to ourselves.

Read More

 

[Colt Carbine]

Let us know how that works out for you.

 

[arakboss]

I believe the risk of prosecution would be almost zero. If you sent the mag in, you no longer possess it. The law allows for turning in illegal mags to law enforcement without prosecution. The biggest risk is they ignore you. I would do it myself but I don't have the money to sue the department.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Some things to consider here....

It takes time and money to do so.
I would guess that whoever would make the decision here over what i "readily convertible " means....
Has more time , money and resources that you do.

Also....
Is simply a case of one...and not all.
As in that one particular magazine was altered in a certain way....which may make it one way or the other.
However....not every magazine may not , can not or will be altered in that certain way.
Andy

 

[Member 66568]

If you want to go that route, I know some magazines this can be done with without modification (for instance, 9mm in a 10 round 40 cal glock mag). This would be a great way to challenge the ban if it's unable to define "number of rounds" or atleast give owners some wiggle room on the ban.

You need a legal team
You need support

 

[PiratePast40]

The passive aggressive motions are ineffective, disingenuous, and only exasperate the situation. If you want to get in the fight, do as the appellate court talks about, actually litigate the preemptive clause by getting arrested for it and then argue it in court. Be the test case instead of shadow boxing around the edges. I'll even advocate for funding the case if you decide to go that route.

 

[Joe13]

Just do what the smart folks in WA did….


Buy a bunch of mags for every gun you think might ever want and then start praying there is a massive change for the better in the future.

I own a lot of mags that I do not have the guns for yet…. I can always sell them for a (maybe) small loss in the future if I change my mind down the road.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Just do what the smart folks in WA did….


Buy a bunch of mags for every gun you think might ever want and then start praying there is a massive change for the better in the future.

I own a lot of mags that I do not have the guns for yet…. I can always sell them for a (maybe) small loss in the future if I change my mind down the road.

I've bought guns just because I found a single round of ammo for a gun I didn't own yet, nothing wrong with buying something to hold that single round until I can find a gun it fits

 

[Koda]

The problem with this idea is the same problem as going to the police for legal advice.
Its not their job to tell you whats legal or not. And even if they do, they often get it wrong.

The litmus test will be the first case law ruling.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I was thinking of a less risky method to test the incoming 11+ mag ban. A person could modify a post ban mag to accept 10 or less rounds and send it to the State Police for a legality check. If the State Police say it's not legal or won't return it to the owner, the owner could sue the State Police to get it back. This could raise the issue of what readily convertible means to the courts. The risk of prosecution would be low and you could even send in a pre-ban mag under the guise of being a post ban mag to reduce risk further. Or we can all pretend we know what readily convertible means to ourselves.

OP, all outa lemons?

 

[Mokum]

The problem with this idea is the same problem as going to the police for legal advice.
Its not their job to tell you whats legal or not. And even if they do, they often get it wrong.

The litmus test will be the first case law ruling.

yep. this. Cops barely know the gun laws anywhere.

 

[Hotdog 7]

It is my understanding that the legislature has never set out to define what it means for something to be "readily capable". In 2008, The Oregon Supreme Court laid out the following definition in State v. Briney in regards to firearms;

We agree that "readily" does not necessarily mean "immediately," but in our view, the resolution of this case does not turn on that unremarkable proposition. Although the term "readily" may not mean presently or immediately, it encompasses a temporal quality as it used in ORS 166.210(3). Many of the qualifiers used within the dictionary definition, e.g., "with fairly quick efficiency," "without needless loss of time," and " reasonably fast" (emphases added), suggest as much. However, our conclusion in that regard does not, without more, establish that the legislature intended the term's elasticity to encompass the 12- to 24-hour delivery interval that necessarily would have had to have elapsed here before the pistol could have been made capable of use as a weapon...

...we think that, in order for a firearm to be "readily capable of use as a weapon" for the purposes of ORS 166.250(1)(a), the legislature intended that the firearm either be operational or promptly able to be made so at the time that an individual is alleged to be unlawfully carrying it concealed.

The record here establishes that a firing pin necessary to make the pistol operational was unavailable locally, and was at least an overnight delivery interval away, approximately 12 to 24 hours. Because the pistol could not promptly be made to fire at the time defendant was alleged to have unlawfully carried it, defendant was not guilty of carrying a concealed firearm in violation of ORS 166.250(1)(a), and the trial court should have granted defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.

I am not aware of any other case law in Oregon which defines "readily capable". If someone knows of any cases, please let me know. Obviously magazines are not firearms, but they are an important component of firearms that are not single shot. I think this case gives the best insight for how we could expect "readily capable" to be interpreted by the judicial system.

 

[Zingularity]

All this effort, wasted, pathetic. Get out and raise awareness, join the opposition, fight.

 

[waitery]

Only my thoughts here and I am not an attorney, so here goes.....if a policeman/deputy/trooper pulls you over and you have your CCL and carry weapon that has 10+ rounds in a 10+ magazine, I don't suspect that they would try and prosecute and/or seize your magazines. Think about how many Sheriff's offices around the state who have said that they are not going to enforce BM114. There are far too many weapons with magazines/drums, etc that are in circulation to ever prosecute someone legitimately. Additionally, think about how many police officers have personal weapons with magazines/drums over 10 rounds. They would lose their jobs if they got a Misdemeanor, because "Conviction of any offense classified as a misdemeanor under Oregon Law while employed as a Police Officer shall be disqualifying."

If you start seeing the cops surrendering their stuff, be worried. Outside of that happening, the only time this could be an issue is if you're a felon in possession and you have a high capacity magazine. At that point, you would be arrested, your gun, magazine and ammo would be seized and you would be prosecuted.

I am not taking a Pollyanna approach to this and I don't believe in or endorse BM114 in any way, but I do think that law enforcement will not act on it, unless there is a real reason to do so.

 

[1775usmc]

Only my thoughts here and I am not an attorney, so here goes.....if a policeman/deputy/trooper pulls you over and you have your CCL and carry weapon that has 10+ rounds in a 10+ magazine, I don't suspect that they would try and prosecute and/or seize your magazines. Think about how many Sheriff's offices around the state who have said that they are not going to enforce BM114. There are far too many weapons with magazines/drums, etc that are in circulation to ever prosecute someone legitimately. Additionally, think about how many police officers have personal weapons with magazines/drums over 10 rounds. They would lose their jobs if they got a Misdemeanor, because "Conviction of any offense classified as a misdemeanor under Oregon Law while employed as a Police Officer shall be disqualifying."

If you start seeing the cops surrendering their stuff, be worried. Outside of that happening, the only time this could be an issue is if you're a felon in possession and you have a high capacity magazine. At that point, you would be arrested, your gun, magazine and ammo would be seized and you would be prosecuted.

I am not taking a Pollyanna approach to this and I don't believe in or endorse BM114 in any way, but I do think that law enforcement will not act on it, unless there is a real reason to do so.

4th amendment.

Also you can be a cop with misdemeanors. Atleast in Portland. Which isn't surprising.

 

[waitery]

4th amendment.

Hopefully I am right and that Beta Mag isn't in plain sight/view.

 

[Cavedweller]

They would lose their jobs if they got a Misdemeanor, because "Conviction of any offense classified as a misdemeanor under Oregon Law while employed as a Police Officer shall be disqualifying."

Also you can be a cop with misdemeanors. Atleast in Portland. Which isn't surprising.

View attachment 2068193

Could be there's a difference between having a misdemeanor on one's record prior to hiring (not disqualifying) and being convicted of one while employed (disqualifying).

 

[Koda]

Only my thoughts here and I am not an attorney, so here goes.....if a policeman/deputy/trooper pulls you over and you have your CCL and carry weapon that has 10+ rounds in a 10+ magazine, I don't suspect that they would try and prosecute and/or seize your magazines. Think about how many Sheriff's offices around the state who have said that they are not going to enforce BM114. There are far too many weapons with magazines/drums, etc that are in circulation to ever prosecute someone legitimately. Additionally, think about how many police officers have personal weapons with magazines/drums over 10 rounds. They would lose their jobs if they got a Misdemeanor, because "Conviction of any offense classified as a misdemeanor under Oregon Law while employed as a Police Officer shall be disqualifying."

If you start seeing the cops surrendering their stuff, be worried. Outside of that happening, the only time this could be an issue is if you're a felon in possession and you have a high capacity magazine. At that point, you would be arrested, your gun, magazine and ammo would be seized and you would be prosecuted.

I am not taking a Pollyanna approach to this and I don't believe in or endorse BM114 in any way, but I do think that law enforcement will not act on it, unless there is a real reason to do so.

All it takes is one liberal cop. Part of the whole defund movement was to replace conservative cops with liberal cops. There is no way to know if any cop wont ticket you for your magazine. No officer, you cannot search my vehicle or my person.

 

[1775usmc]

Hopefully I am right and that Beta Mag isn't in plain sight/view.

Well then…. Plain view doctrine and that individual is an idiot. If you're gunna break the law (if it passes) don't do it out in the open.

 

[1775usmc]

Could be there's a difference between having a misdemeanor on one's record prior to hiring (not disqualifying) and being convicted of one while employed (disqualifying).

That may be true. Good point. Although cops break the law on a regular basis and simply get a slap on the wrist.