Veteran of the Third Battle of Tannhauser Gate.
Joined:
Dec 2005
Posts:
87324
EE: 100% (6)
ID, USA
Posted: 7/26/2026 2:37:13 AM EDT
| what does this do for Oregon? Are you immediately impacted ro do you have to let your own judges look at it? |
87% of the time, any question starting with "Why..." is answered with "Money."
I am so tempted to lay down the melancholy burden of sanity...
"...and if you can't wait for dawn you can always light a fire."
I am so tempted to lay down the melancholy burden of sanity...
"...and if you can't wait for dawn you can always light a fire."
Veteran of the Third Battle of Tannhauser Gate.
Joined:
Dec 2005
Posts:
87332
EE: 100% (6)
ID, USA
| Setting up the expected circuit court split, the 3rd circuit strikes down NJ's AWB and mag ban. |
87% of the time, any question starting with "Why..." is answered with "Money."
I am so tempted to lay down the melancholy burden of sanity...
"...and if you can't wait for dawn you can always light a fire."
I am so tempted to lay down the melancholy burden of sanity...
"...and if you can't wait for dawn you can always light a fire."
|
Not sure how a ruling in the 3rd Circuit Court would have any impact on Oregon when we are under the 9th Circuit Court. The 9th has ruled a stay (put on hold) a ruling that overturned California's ban on assault weapons waiting for the SCOTUS to make a ruling. Being Oregon, those in charge won't do anything to benefit gun owners until forced to meaning here is no way they will recognize the ruling in the 3rd Circuit Court. Measure 114, which passed in 2022, would ban only magazines over 10 rounds. There is nothing in 114 limiting guns other than if they have a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds such as shotguns with mag tube extensions. Legislation passed earlier this year puts the implementation of 114 on hold until January 1, 2028. This is to give LEO, local, sheriff and state police, time to get the training and approval process in place to issue permits to purchase. An appeals court has ruled that 114 is constitutional but has an injunction against it in place because the permit to purchase process is not able to be put in place due to no funding or system in place to issue permits. The Oregon Supreme Court has heard arguments on 114 and is supposed to issue a ruling later this year to decide if it is constitutional or not under the Oregon constitution. Given how far left the judges are, I expect it to be upheld. This means we need SCOTUS to rule on magazine capacity and assault weapon ownership. |
|
The only way we could be impacted is if we are a member of a named party in the ruling. So, if you are a member of GOA or a customer of Silencer Co you would be covered. The bigger question is who would sell you anything even if you are a member or customer. The regulations will have to be flushed out so dealers are not putting their licenses in jeopardy. |
Joined:
Jan 2022
Posts:
1511
EE: 0% (0)
USA
|
"It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer was registered as required under federal law. [1989 c.839 §13a; 1997 c.749 §8; 1997 c.798 §1]" "as required by federal law" Well, if there is no longer a requirement...... |
Being willing to die to complete the mission didn't mean He's a pacifist, just tougher than nails. see also J3:16