A Harney County judge on Thursday issued a preliminary injunction that will block enforcement of the high-capacity magazine ban in Oregon's Measure 114 until a full trial can be held.

The ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition was one of two key components of the gun control package that Oregon voters narrowly approved last month; the other piece was a new permitting system for gun purchases.

The measure would have taken effect Dec. 8, but the group Gun Owners of America challenged it in court and Judge Robert S. Raschio issued a temporary restraining order on Dec. 6, blocking it from going into effect until a preliminary injunction hearing could be held to assess its constitutionality.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/oregon-measure-114-high-capacity-magazine-ban-blocked/283-f470484a-aef7-483d-bf4d-628e7f0654d7

Good

Good

The worrying thing is that they get this to the US Supreme Court and they rule that capacity bans are Constitutional.

I'm happy for OR, fuck the anti-gun pussies, etc.

That's why this is never a loss for them.  They keep passing the laws & even if they keep getting overturned by the SCOTUS eventually there will be so many for them to review, they'll stop & eventually them not reviewing it means the lower courts ruling will stand.  Even as it is, the feds aren't enforcing states to stop violating peoples 2nd amendment protected rights & few state & local LEO agencies do either, most support it, at least in those blue states/cities.

“Until a full trial can conclude”

They will go judge shopping and then ram it through.  Then in never years from now, it’ll make it to the Supreme Court

This is good for the citizens. But don’t let this catch you sleeping. Better order more now just in case. Don’t be creating threads in the future asking where to buy some of the ban goes back in effect

Do the feds have the authority to overrule a state constitution? Because that's what this case is based on.
Attached File


Also from the court doc

Attached File


Attached File


Attached File

Yes, where it concerns a constitutionally-protected right that has been incorporated against the states or some authority vested to the federal government as found in the Constitution (like border security, printing money, etc.).

I'm with Clarence Thomas in that I believe that the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause is a poor vehicle through which to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states, and that the Privileges or Immunities Clause (not to be confused with the Privileges and Immunities Clause) and the Citizenship Clause are the better vehicles toward that end.

Nonetheless, that's the extreme minority view, and the judicial doctrine that has prevailed for the past 100+ years is that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment is the means through which the bulk of the Bill of Rights is used to constrain state govs. All but the Third Amendment and Seventh Amendment (and a few errant parts of others, like the grand jury provision of the Fourth Amendment) have been incorporated against the states. As such, yes, the Supreme Court can overrule a state constitutional provision that violates the U.S. Constitution.

The Second Amendment has been incorporated against the states. So a state law or Constitutional provision which runs afoul of the Second Amendment can be declared unconstitutional. By way of contrast, let's say that the Oregon constitution has a provision that says you have no right to a trial by jury for suits at common law. Well, that is in direct conflict with the Seventh Amendment, but the Seventh Amendment hasn't been incorporated against the states, so the feds have no way to declare the Oregon provision unconstitutional. It literally isn't, under the prevailing incorporation doctrine.  

I would recommend that everyone read the McDonald v. Chicago opinion and then read Thomas's concurrence. It's a nice overview of issue.

Lastly, the highlighted parts you're referencing appear to suggest that the court is saying that the federal Constitution need not even be invoked, since the law in question violates the Oregon Constitution.

Legal stuff always gets confusing

I do know that this particular lawsuit is based on the OR constitution, where the federal cases are based on the 2A, and the federal judge basically gave us the finger.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Oregon-gets-a-break-on-114/5-2606702/

Meanwhile in nj...

Yes, exactly. The Judge's comments in the ruling Thursday 12-15-22, leads me to believe that there is evidence that both parts of Measure 114 violate the Oregon Constitution and eventually the entire law will be ruled unconstitutional and invalid.

Read Measure 114 Injunction at the following link:
Preliminary injunction issued by Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio, indefinitely blocking the high-capacity magazine portion of Measure 114.: https://www.scribd.com/document/614903443/Measure-114-Injuction

“That the large capacity magazine bans promote public safety is mere speculation,” Raschio wrote. “The court cannot sustain restraint on constitutional right on mere speculation that the restriction could promote public safety.”

Excerpts from the Opinion:
Article l, Section 27 Analysis: Oregon Constitution provides the right for the people to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state. Oregon Constitution Article l, section 27. As pointed out by the Defendants, the Oregon Constitution has content independent of that of the federal constitution. State v. Soriano, 68 Or App 642,645 (1984). Therefore, any irreparable harm of BM114 must be considered separately under Oregon law and is not dependent on a federal determination. The pleading before this court focused solely on the Oregon Constitution.

e) Preliminary Conclusion on Likelihood of Success. Under these findings and legal analysis, there can be no reasonably likely circumstance in which application of [section 11] would pass constitutional muster. The statutory scheme is very burdensome on lawful firearm owners who possess large capacity magazines legally now. Clear from the preliminary record, magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds come standard with many popular firearms and firearm platforms on the market today and are possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The measure criminalizing currently lawful conduct creating presumed criminals out of 1 in every 5 Oregonians. ln other words, under Christian, the regulations are unduly burdensome on currently lawful conduct and are without a public safety promotion. The court is clearly persuaded the plaintiffs have a likelihood of success of showing BM114, section 11 is unconstitutional under Article l, section 27. The court will not turn to the federal constitution.

(2) lmminent and lrreparable Harm. Plaintiffs show implementation of BM114 would, if their challenge is successful, cause an irreparable harm to gun owners and those seeking to purchase firearms for self defense. Any depravation of a constitutional right, even temporarily, constitutes an irreparable injury. The Plaintiffs have shown there is a likelihood that the court will find the section facially unconstitutional. There are no circumstances where section could be constitutional. The Defendants state as a practical matter, Plaintiffs can continue to 'keep and bear arms. Defendant's response, pg. 12.14 On its face, that statement may seem persuasive, but that is borne by the facts. The state can only fetter the right to bear arms with a clear showing that the regulation promotes public safety and is not unduly burdensome. BM114, section 11 fails to meet either legal standard. Defendants have not shown how delaying implementation would cause imminent and irreparable harm. This is particularly emphasized by the delay in implementation of the permit-to-purchase program. The status quo is not improved by implementation of the BM114, section 11.

This isn’t family law court with a rotating circus of magistrate judges. A case like this is not normally removed from the court that is initially hearing the claims. The same judge and court will likely oversee the trail.

@thylaughingman

Too bad Washington couldn’t get some of this legal lovin’.
It’s embarrassing & demoralizing to live in a ban/defeated state.

I did post screenshots from that document a few posts up, but I was too lazy to type, or fix the formatting on my phone

I owe that judge a drink.

Looks good, hopefully they are successful.

The leftist talking point that those who wrote the Constitution wouldn't have allowed semi-auto, large, capacity, military style, etc, that they would have only wanted us to have black powder muskets or whatever,  is totally asinine. They know it's a dishonest talking point, yet they never give it up.

The 2nd amendment, and State versions, were written with an intent and a purpose mind, not for the mere possession of specific limited arms of the day. Limitation of small arms, is a obvious violation of their intent.

Good news

I'm pretty sure it's sticking with him as well. I mean he even set specific dates. Only waiting for the state to put the license shit in place before ruling.

Attached File

Heller and Bruen confirmed that not only is it UnConsitutional to ban firearms or weapons, any part, piece or attachment such as a magazine is a weapon in itself, thus protected.  Oregon is just wasting time and money for something that will be found UnConstitutional.  Quit the fear mongering here.

Judge Raschio is legit.

Copied from the doc from the injunction, citations removed for formatting.

u-haul time, bud

Attached File

Deafening silence from the NRA?

What makes OR's law any different than any of the other dozen or so mag cap limits in other states?

CA
NJ
NY
MA
CO
MD
CT
DE
HI
WA
RI?
VT?

Edit: Not that I'm not rooting for you OR, because I am, I just don't see how this is new ground?

@KnuckleSandwich

The difference is that this case is based on the Oregon Constitution, not the 2A.

OR constitution as written


Judges writing

Yeah, I know, words. But our judge used actual history and references to pp slap the state/anti-gunners.

It's because the law violates Oregon's Constitution, that's the difference. I doubt the states mentioned in the above post have a similar State Constitution.

Excellent

And when they get control the Republicans never roll back any of it.

Take notes Washington

Thank you, that explains it very nicely! Go get em!

Assume the same SCOTUS I can’t see how a ban on the most common magazines available will survive Bruen.

We will get them. Whatever it takes!

I don’t have it in front of me but the WA state constitution upholds the right to arms. The communists just don’t care.

There's no running from it anymore. It's coming to you.

I do not understand why none of the plaintiffs ever bring up the amount of rounds, fired by police officers in a police involved shooting. They’re almost always more than 10. And if the officer has been absolved, and it’s been concluded, it was a good shoot, there’s your evidence that 10 round magazines are insufficient for self-defense, this is completely legitimate, and is undeniable their own record should be held against them
So the only conclusion would be to limit the police to the same amount as a civilian, or not denying civilian, the same amount of rounds in a magazine as a police officer

Dupe

So is this just for his county ? Does a county judge usually have jurisdiction over state laws ?

Exactly.  When the R's are in control they say they want to work with the dems to pass "compromise" legislation, but when the D's are in control they never say they want to work with R's to do anything unless it's exactly what they want & if they don't get their way, they shut down the govt. & get the MSM to say it's republicans fault.

Only county jurisdiction.

It ain’t coming here.

A small start.  Indefinitely till trial is indeterminate.

GOA>NRA

Good. Fuck the king.

Nice