Last year the people of Oregon, by a bare majority, voted in a truck load of infringements. These included permit to purchase, gun registries, magazine bans, and many other Bruen FU’s.

This was Measure 114. The measure was so bad that even the political class didn’t want it to go into effect immediately.

It did.

Having gone into effect, it was challenged. Because it was a direct infringement case the suit was filed in the federal district court of Oregon. In one of the first cases, Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown (2:22-cv-01815) the district court first denied the motion for a TRO and for a Preliminary Injunction.

The plaintiffs(Good Guys) appealed the District Court’s decision to the Ninth Circus court. This appeal was withdrawn by the plaintiffs.

A number of other cases where joined with this as the lead case.

While all of this was going on in the district court, another case was filed in state court. That state court found FOR the plaintiffs(good guys) and enjoined part of Measure 114. The state appealed to the state supreme court which declined to hear the case.

What this means is that all or part of Measure 114 is enjoined from being enforced. It is stopped.

Of course the state can’t have a lose on any infringement.

They decided to “moot” the cases currently in district court. There are things that the legislature can do which will allow them to claim that the dispute before the court no longer exists.

If the cases reference Measure 114 then if it becomes a bill/regulation it might moot. If some of the wording changes, it might moot the cases.

This is exactly what the legislature in Oregon is doing:

There are more infringements but they threw in this kicker:

The state calls it “forum shopping” if you are filing the case in your home county. The state isn’t “forum” shopping when they pick the state court where challenges must be filed.

There are a number of things going on in these cases, hopefully we’ll see some good progress soon.

Legal challenges to state gun control bill would be restricted to Marion County, new amendment says

A last-minute amendment that would restrict future legal challenges only to Marion County Circuit Court was added to the Senate Judiciary bill that largely mimics the voter-approved gun control Measure 114.

Watching the lies coming out of all of the infringers made me think of “that song about liars”

Not about lying but still.

It has been a long week of reading lots and lots of court documents. Hopefully useful to you all. Managed to find a bug in the site I used. Sent in an error report and made sure the documents I had paid for were properly uploaded. Made an off hand request for a feature and the lead developer said “Feel free to add it”. It was very nicely done.

So I’ve completed my first contribution to his project. I have more to do but it is a start.

Regardless, I just don’t have the energy to read and analyze another case right now so you all get a link dump. Enjoy.

Nashville cops who shot Audrey Hale are Marine vet and ‘precision policeman’

Nashville cops Michael Collazo and Rex Engelbert are being hailed as heroes for gunning down Covenant School shooter Audrey Hale. They’ve done it before.

Youngkin signs gun safe tax credit bill, garners support from both sides of gun debate

Gov. Glenn Youngkin put pen to paper on a new bill making it easier and more affordable to lock up firearms.

This is what real “gun safety” looks like.  Encouraging people to buy and use gun safes.

Oregon’s stalled gun control Measure 114 gets new life as state bill

State Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Monday presided over hearings on a new bill that incorporates many of the gun control regulations voters approved under Measure 114, yet changes some of its provisions.

The state legislature has gone as far as inserting language into the bill to require that any suit filed must be brought in Marion County.  This is to keep anybody from challenging in red counties.  Marion County is very very left leaning.

Protest gathers at Capitol lawn in support of gun rights

Dozens gathered at the Capitol lawn on Saturday to call for lawmakers to “stop infringing on their gun rights.

Amazing how they took that photo designed to show just how small the protest is.  Compared to watching them bunch Moms Demand into a tight tight cluster to make it look like a larger protest.

New Measure 114 case filings involve hearing, trial and plaintiffs’ notice for default judgment

New filings in a lawsuit against the State of Oregon for its pending gun control measure involves three new case entries Sunday.

Cincinnati takes a swing at gun reform with a lawsuit and new ordinances

In an effort to curb gun violence, Cincinnati has two proposed ordinances for City Council to consider and filed a lawsuit against the state.

Dems expect Whitmer’s gun safety proposals to pass

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s three gun safety proposals could become the law of the land as Democrats control a trifecta in state government for the first time in nearly 40 years.

Senators renew call for investigation of smaller AR-15 rifle they claim is targeted toward children

Senators renew call for investigation of smaller AR-15 rifle targeted toward children

Supreme Court report sparks suspicions about Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito

SCOTUS’ failure to identify who leaked the Dobbs draft has raised eyebrows among those who believe one of the court’s conservative justices was behind it.

We were asked “Why don’t we see juries involved in all of these Second Amendment cases? The simple answer is “they are not needed”. Read on for why.

Court cases are decided in two different ways, on the merits of the case, and procedurally.

Consider the question “Does the District of Columbia’s restriction on having a functional firearm within the home violate the Second Amendment?”

Prior to 2008 many courts were using the collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment. With this in mind the most of these cases were dismissed for procedural reason. I.e. if you were not the militia challenging the restriction you did not have standing. Standing is a procedural issue.

Cases that are decided on a procedural basis can be brought up again once the procedural issue is corrected.
Read More

Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the United States District Court Southern District of California has granted a Preliminary Injunction against California’s Unsafe Handgun act.

He enjoined the chamber loaded indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism, microstamping, and three-for-one removal provisions.

The judge then stayed the injunction pending appeal or further hearing on the matter.

It is highly likely that this case and Boland will be combined at the Ninth Circuit Court.

We keep winning. The infringers are losing ground constantly. We are going to win, it just takes time.

Case 3:20-cv-02190-DMS-DEB

On 2023-03-31 United States District Judge Katherine Menendez issued summary judgement for the plaintiffs(good guys) allowing young adults to receive government permission to carry handguns in Minnesota.

The state claimed Minnesota’s permit to carry statute is facially constitutional as a matter of law. — Memorandum in support for Summary Judgement for the defendants at P. 14. They get their claim by contending that the Supreme Court has approved infringing on the rights of 18-20 year olds.
Read More

The Ninth Circus Court three judge panel has again displayed its dislike for the rights of The People by staying the district courts preliminary injunction against the state.

The District Court found that the plaintiffs(good guys) were likely to succeed on the merits and had all the other requirements to be granted a preliminary injunction. In order to keep things from yo-yoing the court put a 14 day stay in order for the state to appeal to the Ninth Circus Court.

The preliminary injunction is stayed as to the chamber load indicator and magazine disconnect mechanism requirements of California’s Unsafe Handgun Act. — Order of the Ninth Circuit Court

The Ninth Circus Court is ordering opening brief by April 28, 2023 (bad guys). Answering brief by May 26, 2023 from the good guys. And the reply from the bad guys within 21 days of the answering brief being filed.

This means that the Ninth Circus will not hear the case until at least June, likely longer. In the meantime only the microstamp requirement is enjoined.