JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Apparently, the Oregon State Constitution is dead???

Being 114 is clearly unconstitutional…
The NFA is unconstitutional if we're going by the "shall not be infringed" federal definition. But people don't care. Infringements seem to be A-ok.
 
All this talk about what the constitution says is not relevant any more. It was violated when the SOS okayed this for the ballot with multiple issues.

They have shown that they don't care what is constitutional or not.

Jack
 
...

They have shown that they don't care what is constitutional or not.

Jack
I would say that has shown that SOS is hanging out there a mile and can easily be sued.

Since election related matters are so serious, I wonder if the following things could also happen if a skilled lawyer pursued it:

(1) measure 114 thrown out due to SOS bias (which is an absolute no-no in election-related matters)

(2) measure 114 thrown out due to petition rule about single subject. If this happened and she took no action then imo that is legal cause to throw m114 out.

(3) lose her job or maybe even be charged? for election fraud, or incompetency, or knowingly violating the OR State constitution.

I really wish there was a good lawyer group that is active on the m114 lawsuit on this forum so we could discuss this stuff (even if it has to be done mostly through pms).
 
I saw a gun store purchase agreement that said if the background check fails the customer pays a $100 restocking fee out of their refund. If they are all like that it will discourage sales near the deadline.
Oregon Rifleworks makes you sign an agreement that says just that for private transfers. Beware if you ever consider a private transfer there.
 
Oregon Rifleworks makes you sign an agreement that says just that for private transfers. Beware if you ever consider a private transfer there.
Wow. I don't object to their right to charge whatever they want but that would drive me away if I was selling a gun to a buyer I didn't know. Good to know thx!
 
The NFA is unconstitutional if we're going by the "shall not be infringed" federal definition. But people don't care. Infringements seem to be A-ok.
NFA - 1934
GCA - 1968

NFA was decades before I was born and the GCA I was in grade school. Our ancestors certainly sold us and future generations out. But the SCOTUS needs to strike both down, in their entirety, and restore the Second Amendment to a first class right, just like freedom of speech…
 
I would say that has shown that SOS is hanging out there a mile and can easily be sued.

Since election related matters are so serious, I wonder if the following things could also happen if a skilled lawyer pursued it:

(1) measure 114 thrown out due to SOS bias (which is an absolute no-no in election-related matters)

(2) measure 114 thrown out due to petition rule about single subject. If this happened and she took no action then imo that is legal cause to throw m114 out.

(3) lose her job or maybe even be charged? for election fraud, or incompetency, or knowingly violating the OR State constitution.

I really wish there was a good lawyer group that is active on the m114 lawsuit on this forum so we could discuss this stuff (even if it has to be done mostly through pms).
So where are these pro 2A amendment attorney's? I feel like many are waiting till the dust settles. Including Sheriff's. Only a few have put themselves on the line.
 
NFA - 1934
GCA - 1968

NFA was decades before I was born and the GCA I was in grade school. Our ancestors certainly sold us and future generations out. But the SCOTUS needs to strike both down, in their entirety, and restore the Second Amendment to a first class right, just like freedom of speech…
Because they were not done in your time, they are not your "sins" and therefore, shrug, oh well? It's shall not be infringed or it isn't. "Shall not be infringed further" is... Well, you know. Selling out. Just like they did.
 
So where are these pro 2A amendment attorney's? I feel like many are waiting till the dust settles. Including Sheriff's. Only a few have put themselves on the line.
I think other threads here have convos on that. None of this is in any way legal advice, but seems like a lawsuit could get started to file for a preliminary injunction to prevent 114 from going into effect until the State can pull its head out of the sand. If it does when so many people have put out so much money to purchase a firearm in the current system (but having to wait on their BGC to clear), and then can't get the firearm even if they do clear because they won't have the correct permit, then that's quite the potential group of class members.

I think to get a prelim injunction the plaintiff has to show among other things they're likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied, they're likely to prevail later on the merits of their actual claim, the equities favor them, and the public interest favors granting the preliminary injunction. The State might reply that there won't be "irreparable" harm -- just the "passage of time" (like VP Kamala Harris likes to say). But I'm sure other people can think of other types of harm and monetary damages that may arise if 114 becomes effective on December 8 and everyone (perhaps including me) are out of $$ but can't get their firearm (property).
 
I think other threads here have convos on that. None of this is in any way legal advice, but seems like a lawsuit could get started to file for a preliminary injunction to prevent 114 from going into effect until the State can pull its head out of the sand. If it does when so many people have put out so much money to purchase a firearm in the current system (but having to wait on their BGC to clear), and then can't get the firearm even if they do clear because they won't have the correct permit, then that's quite the potential group of class members.

I think to get a prelim injunction the plaintiff has to show among other things they're likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied, they're likely to prevail later on the merits of their actual claim, the equities favor them, and the public interest favors granting the preliminary injunction. The State might reply that there won't be "irreparable" harm -- just the "passage of time" (like VP Kamala Harris likes to say). But I'm sure other people can think of other types of harm and monetary damages that may arise if 114 becomes effective on December 8 and everyone (perhaps including me) are out of $$ but can't get their firearm (property).
This. Including people who purchased even before election day who have been stuck in the queue the whole time. At this point I worry it won't clear until after the December deadline.
 
Oregon state constitution says it can be enacted no sooner than 30 days after the vote is certified
US Constitution says "Only State legislatures can change voting laws" that did not work out too well back in 2020 now did it?

There are no repercussions
There is no chance they will lose power

Welcome aboard Brother :s0060:
 
Article IV, Section 1(4)(d) of the Oregon Constitution reads: Notwithstanding section 1, Article XVII of this Constitution, an initiative or referendum measure becomes effective 30 days after the day on which it is enacted or approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon. A referendum ordered by petition on a part of an Act does not delay the remainder of the Act from becoming effective.

My reading is that this is the election day not the vote certification day (and I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night).
 
Article IV, Section 1(4)(d) of the Oregon Constitution reads: Notwithstanding section 1, Article XVII of this Constitution, an initiative or referendum measure becomes effective 30 days after the day on which it is enacted or approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon. A referendum ordered by petition on a part of an Act does not delay the remainder of the Act from becoming effective.

My reading is that this is the election day not the vote certification day (and I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night).
If it hasn't been certified, how was it elected?
 
Article IV, Section 1(4)(d) of the Oregon Constitution reads: Notwithstanding section 1, Article XVII of this Constitution, an initiative or referendum measure becomes effective 30 days after the day on which it is enacted or approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon. A referendum ordered by petition on a part of an Act does not delay the remainder of the Act from becoming effective.

My reading is that this is the election day not the vote certification day (and I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night).
They are still counting the votes.
 
That's exactly what it says. Oregon's Secretary of State won't certify official election results until Dec. 15. 30 days later Jan 15.

So where's are all these hot shot lawyers I keep hearing about ?
This would be a good warm up lap for them, or are they all afraid of being first at bat ?
 
So where's are all these hot shot lawyers I keep hearing about ?
This would be a good warm up lap for them, or are they all afraid of being first at bat ?
Probably need to get a big law firm from out of state to associate with a local attorney. Likely here in Oregon, not a lot of law firms are going to want to touch this and then be labeled as "pro gun rights". Might be bad for some of their other clients and cause them to lose business. I think back East there's a prestigious law firm that takes on sometimes socially "unpopular" clients for civil lawsuits.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top