Oregon TRO granted on 114!

[arakboss]

Surely you jest!

But seriously, I believe that after you boil down the states BS and rinse it off (glue, screw, rivet, limiter insert, etc.), the witnesses (ours AND theirs) made it clear that whatever method the average person could do to render a mag unable to accept more than 10rds, the average person would also be able to undo and convert it back to more than 10.

It was acknowedged there there are a few isolated mags that would not be capable of being convertered, but that the largely vast majority... or "common use" mags owned by 100's of millions of Americans... are easily and readily convertable to hold more than 10.

As a judge I would think defining "readily" and "permanate" would be pretty important info to have when making a decision on a ban. Are you aware of these terms being defined in other case law?


Edit: This is in regards to firearms:


However, the term "readily," with respect to the NFA, has been read by courts to "encompass several elements of restoration: (1) time, i.e., how long it takes to restore the weapon; (2) ease, i.e., how difficult it is to restore the weapon; (3) expertise, i.e., what knowledge and skills are required to restore the weapon; (4) necessary equipment, i.e., what tools are required to restore the weapon; (5) availability, i.e., where additional parts are required, how easily they can be obtained; (6) expense, i.e., how much it costs to restore the weapon; (7) scope, i.e., the extent to which the weapon has been changed . . . ; (8) feasibility, i.e., whether the restoration would damage or destroy the weapon or cause it to malfunction." United States v. one TRW Model M14, 7.62 Caliber Rifle from William K. Alverson, 441 F.3d 416 (6th​ Cir. 2006).


Source:

What Does “Readily Converted” Mean for Firearms?

Do you know what readily converted means when it comes to firearm parts? Find out now what the law says about readily converted parts.

gununiversity.com

 

[Yarome]

As a judge I would think defining "readily" and "permanate" would be pretty important info to have when making a decision on a ban. Are you aware of these terms being defined in other case law?

I have my own impression... by the judges questions and comments... of what he might consider "readily" or "permanent", but until we read his opinion I'm not going to make suppositions about what's rattling around in his mind.

My guess is it will probably be something like him just making a broad conclusion. IE., Finding that the majority of commercially available mags are either "easily convertable" or not.... VS.... any detail of what specific methods would be considered "permanent" and which would be considered "convertable".

That's really kind of outside of the scope of his job, anyway.

I am aware of other cases that defined "readily convertable", but not in the way you I think are asking about.

IE., A guy beat a charges because it was successfully argued that "readily available" would have to be the condition at the moment in time the offense occured. Meaning.... when he got caught with that mag, if he did not have a mag extension and the tools necessary to convert his mag to a higher capacity in his pocket at the time he was committing an offense, then it did not meet the conditions of being readily convertable.... at the moment he was being charged with the crime.

 

[Yarome]

If you meant more as to what "tests" he was considering, based on the questions, then it was stuff like:

Does the average person have the reasonable knowledge to convert one?
What level of expertise is required? IE., Would it require a gunsmith?
Does it require specialized tools?
Are the tools necessary readily available to the average person?
Are the means/extensions easily obtainable by an average person?

Paraphrasing, but along those lines.

 

[Big D23]

As long as three day releases are still allowed we will be ok but if the judge allows the three day releases to go bye bye we are screwed. The OSP will slow roll us all the way to the day permits are required.

So osp is doing 32 a day according to my FFL... He had a good idea if all 37457 people in the queue chips in 10 dollars and find a lawyer to file a suit against them for purposely restricting people getting there guns would probably have a big impact.
Not sure if better place to post this....

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

Did they agree on the definition of "Permanately altered"?

not to my knowledge

 

[tkdguy]

Yep, it's really simple:

State lawsuit

1) conservative Harney Co. judge = stay/injunction

2) Then it gets to liberal state Supreme Court = overturned

Federal lawsuits

1) liberal federal judge blatantly ignores Supreme Court precedents = m114 upheld

2) Then it gets to Scotus (conservative majority

0

Taking up a collection to fly Mas down to Burns.

Where do we sent and how much do you need? Is he to testify? He will testify under whose authority?

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

0

Where do we sent and how much do you need? Is he to testify? He will testify under whose authority?

I believe that the magazine limits portion has concluded for the hearing.

 

[PiratePast40]

Taking up a collection to fly Mas down to Burns.

During the OFF hearing, he was on standby to give testimony via remote. No reason you couldn't have the same option for the GOA case.

 

[arakboss]

I believe the three day rule ban should be enjoined with other aspects of permit to purchase. If the Plantiffs Attys are listening, make sure the judge hears about the lack of process for the 48hr notification requirement. FFLs will be in violation of the law if they fail to notify the "state" within 48hrs or releasing firearm to customer. As of yet nobody has indicated who in the "state" the FFL is suppose to be notified and how the FFLs are suppose to notify them.

(c) The transferor may not transfer the firearm unless the transferor receives a unique approval number from the
department and, within 48 hours of the completed transfer, the transferor shall notify the state that the transfer to the
permit holder was completed.


You could argue that the above shouldn't be enjoined with other parts of the Measure but the 48hr requirement is literally in the same sentence as the three day rule ban. At a minimum the judge should keep the TRO on this part of the measure until the 48hr requirement process is in place.

 

[Camelfilter]

I believe the three day rule ban should be enjoined with other aspects of permit to purchase. If the Plantiffs Attys are listening, make sure the judge hears about the lack of process for the 48hr notification requirement. FFLs will be in violation of the law if they fail to notify the "state" within 48hrs or releasing firearm to customer. As of yet nobody has indicated who in the "state" the FFL is suppose to notify and how they are suppose to notify them.

(c) The transferor may not transfer the firearm unless the transferor receives a unique approval number from the
department and, within 48 hours of the completed transfer, the transferor shall notify the state that the transfer to the
permit holder was completed

I believe 114 should be thrown out in toto as unconstitutional.

 

[Yarome]

I believe the three day rule ban should be enjoined with other aspects of permit to purchase. If the Plantiffs Attys are listening, make sure the judge hears about the lack of process for the 48hr notification requirement. FFLs will be in violation of the law if they fail to notify the "state" within 48hrs or releasing firearm to customer. As of yet nobody has indicated who in the "state" the FFL is suppose to notify and how they are suppose to notify them.

(c) The transferor may not transfer the firearm unless the transferor receives a unique approval number from the
department and, within 48 hours of the completed transfer, the transferor shall notify the state that the transfer to the
permit holder was completed.


You could argue that the above shouldn't be enjoined with other parts of the Measure but the 48hr requirement is literally in the same sentence as the three day rule ban. At a minimum the judge should keep the TRO on this part of the measure until the 48hr requirement process is in place.

As to who to notify... that's what one of the changes on the 4473 is for. "Do you live within city limits?" That way the FFL will know to contact either the city or county LE offices.

I think it should be enjoined too. It would suck if they entire thing get's thrown out but stays on the book simply to nullify the 3day rule and give OSP and NICS system to delay approvals to their hearts content.

 

[dinky450]

As to who to notify... that's what one of the changes on the 4473 is for. "Do you live within city limits?" That way the FFL will know to contact either the city or county LE offices.

I think it should be enjoined too. It would suck if they entire thing get's thrown out but stays on the book simply to nullify the 3day rule and give OSP and NICS system to delay approvals to their hearts content.

I think since the permit process is the replacing the whole current bgc and 3day. I can't see any judge changing any of that side of the law till the prove their system is up and running. He already stated he wont prevent people from their rights of buying a firearn. 3day rule is the only thing we got gett our guns to people. judge also never said once the system is up and running he will let 114 pass, he will need to review the process and make sure it follows the constitution.

 

[arakboss]

As to who to notify... that's what one of the changes on the 4473 is for. "Do you live within city limits?" That way the FFL will know to contact either the city or county LE offices.

I think it should be enjoined too. It would suck if they entire thing get's thrown out but stays on the book simply to nullify the 3day rule and give OSP and NICS system to delay approvals to their hearts content.

Don't get me started on the 4473 revisions for 2023.

The current 2020 version is complicated enough. I lost count of how many times people have checked a box on the last question after they answered no on the second to last question. You can tell them to read the questions carefully and take your time but they still goof that one.

The 2023 revisions are going to be creating more confusion and I believe that is the main reason for the changes. There are going to be lots of horizontal lines and initials next year.

 

[Yarome]

I think since the permit process is the replacing the whole current bgc and 3day. I can't see any judge changing any of that side of the law till the prove their system is up and running. He already stated he wont prevent people from their rights of buying a firearn. 3day rule is the only thing we got gett our guns to people. judge also never said once the system is up and running he will let 114 pass, he will need to review the process and make sure it follows the constitution.

Exactly! I dunno what the odds are, but it would just make my year if the state spends 4 or 6 months putting the thing together and then the judge slaps them with a, "nice try, but... that just ain't gonna work for me." - Goodbye!

 

[Kruel J]

I'm looking forward to a final decision so all this speculation can end.

 

[dinky450]

Exactly! I dunno what the odds are, but it would just make my year if the state spends 4 or 6 months putting the thing together and then the judge slaps them with a, "nice try, but... that just ain't gonna work for me." - Goodbye!

His expression and body language tells me that lol. He seem like a guy doing the process but already knows his decision.

 

[dinky450]

I'm looking forward to a final decision so all this speculation can end.

No doubt.

 

[OrPackrat]

The current 2020 version is complicated enough. I lost count of how many times people have checked a box on the last question after they answered no on the second to last question. You can tell them to read the questions carefully and take your time but they still goof that one.

The most common missed question is 18a, and when I tell the customer, they immediately point to their answer for 18b.

So I point to the section 18b for their answer and then to the 18a section and tell them its 2 separate questions.

Had one customer ask what would happen if he didn't want to answer it, so I told him, incomplete form, purchase canceled...

Even telling them, the last question on page 2, there is a small section in "()" and if applicable, mark as such....

Even with that, most people still check the box...

 

[arakboss]

The most common missed question is 18a, and when I tell the customer, they immediately point to their answer for 18b.

So I point to the section 18b for their answer and then to the 18a section and tell them its 2 separate questions.

Had one customer ask what would happen if he didn't want to answer it, so I told him, incomplete form, purchase canceled...

Even telling them, the last question on page 2, there is a small section in "()" and if applicable, mark as such....

Even with that, most people still check the box...

Yeah I have seen many people not answer both the 18 questions too. At least that one doesn't require a line out and initials.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Yeah I have seen many people not answer both the 18 questions too. At least that one doesn't require a line out and initials.

I like the iPad 4473 that skips the non applicable questions for you.