Measure 114
—Third Amended Complaint.Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown, No. 2:22-cv-01815, Doc. 158 (District Court, D. Oregon), ¶8
— Id. ¶70</cite
The gist is that Measure 114 creates a permitting scheme that doesn’t work. It bans magazines and semi-automatic weapons and is another Bruen response spam bill.
State of Play
The case was opened on Nov 18, 2022. Shortly thereafter, the filed for an Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. A hearing for a Temporary Restraining Order was held on December 2nd. On December 6th, the motion for a TRO was denied.
If you want to read a transcript of the TRO hearing, you can find all 94 pages of it: Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown, No. 2:22-cv-01815, Doc. 58 (District Court, D. Oregon),
The legal stuff seems to be that when they asked for a Preliminary Injunction, the court looked at the schedule and decided they could not make that decision in time for the December 8th deadline. That meant the court looked at granting a TRO. The court then denied that TRO, leaving measure 114 in effect.
—Order and Opinion Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown, No. 2:22-cv-01815, Doc. 39 (District Court, D. Oregon), at 3,4
This is a complete denial of everything that the plaintiffs (good guys) were looking for. Of note, there are other cases moving through the state courts. That case did get an injunction stopping Measure 114 from the Oregon Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs appealed to the 9th Circuit Court on December 7th. They then withdrew that appeal because of an injunction granted by the Oregon Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit Court granted the motion for a voluntary dismissal on the 12th.
It’s the little things that matter
Measure 114 was a huge steaming pile. Unfortunately, the court system doesn’t do well with “huge steaming piles” at the lower court levels. They want to deal with those huge piles a bite at a time. And they demand that the parties present the issues in bite sized pieces.
That this means is at the worst case, this would require the plaintiffs challenging the law, to list each part of Measure 114 they are challenging. They would then have to argue each of those itemized pieces.
This is helpful to the state as they can still retain a “win” even if they lose most of those itemized pieces.
For example, Measure 114 talks about licensing agents. I believe I have that term correct from memory. The issue is that “licensing agent” isn’t well-defined in the law and, as such, it is possible for the state to outsource the task to some outside agency. Say “The Giffords Research, Investigation, and Fiduciary Team”, G.R.I.F.T. for short.
It also has parts about when an FFL can transfer a firearm and a many other parts.
At the TRO hearing, the state requested that the Court issue an order delaying the “permitting” requirements of Measure 114. In the December 20th, Joint Status Report, the defendants (the bad guys, the state) tell the judge that they didn’t request an injunction against the permitting process “just an order”.
And since the plaintiffs did not challenge the FFL transfer part of the permitting process, that can stay in place.
What this seems to mean, is that the state would still have to grant permission for a transfer to take place and the state could take as long as they wish to grant that permission.
Step, the next
The Court and the parties are preparing for a 5-day trial at the beginning of June. This means that the parties have to get their paperwork done before that happens.
Because multiple cases were combined into a single case, the plaintiffs filed “amended complaints”. The amended complaint states what the plaintiffs are challenging.
The state is required to answer these complaints. This is part of what one looks like:
- Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of paragraph 3 and therefore deny it.
- In response to paragraph 4, defendants admit that Measure 114 requires some individuals to have a permit to purchase a firearm. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in the second sentence and therefore deny it. Defendants deny the remainder of paragraph 4.
- In response to paragraph 5, defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the second sentence and therefore deny it. Defendants deny the remainder of paragraph 5.
- In response to paragraph 6, defendants admit that prior to Measure 114, Oregon law had a loophole that allowed some transferees of firearms to obtain a firearm before a background check was completed. Defendants deny the remainder of paragraph 6.
- In response to paragraph 7, defendants admit the first sentence. Defendants deny the remainder of paragraph 7.
- Defendants deny paragraphs 8-Defendants deny paragraphs 8-9.
- Defendants admit that a copy of Measure 114 is filed at ECF #68-1, pages 1-12 (labeled Exhibit A).
—Answer to Amended Complaint. Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown, No. 2:22-cv-01815, Doc. 141 (District Court, D. Oregon),
This went on and on with every question. Finally, the Senator, becoming very frustrated, asked “Is your name such and such?” The witness leaned over and spoke to his lawyer, sat up and said clearly “I decline to answer on the grounds I might incriminate myself”
The Senator blew up. “What do you mean, you might incriminate yourself by us asking if your name is such and such? Is your name such and such?”
The witness leans over, whispers with his lawyer, sits up and says clearly into the microphone “yes”.
There were no other questions asked that received an answer.
One of the things that is happening is that the plaintiffs keep asking for a “Protective Order”. Until April, the court denied them all. It turns out that the state was demanding financial information, which would be extremely damaging to some of the plaintiffs. The sort of disclosures that would give their competitors a huge advantage.
In mid-April, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
To review, the steps in a case are:
- File Complaint
- Request a TRO
- TRO is granted or denied
- Appeal is made
- Arguments are made with the superior court as to why the appeal should be heard
- Appeal court denies or grants the appeal hearing
- Appeal court gathers briefs, gathers the record from the inferior court, hears arguments
- Appeal court issues their decision
- Parties argue for a summary judgement
- Court denies the summary judgement
- Plaintiffs request a preliminary injunction
- more briefings
- Hearing for the preliminary injunction is held.
- Court issues their order denying or granting of the preliminary injunction.
- The preliminary injunction is appealed.
- Repeat the appeal court process
- The parties present more briefs, more experts, more exhibits, more emotional blackmail
- There is a trial. The parties present “evidence”.
- The court issues their opinion and order
- The appeal is request
This case has completed steps 1-12. It was about to enter the hearing phase. The court on April 14th said “No, I deny a preliminary injunction, we are now skipping to step 17 because I am going to have the trial in the same time frame as we were originally planning on having a hearing for a Preliminary Injunction.
Conclusion
There are no 2A wins in this case, so far. It feels like the court has denied every motion by the plaintiffs.
On the other hand, there has been a huge flurry of filings in the last week. This case feels like it is rushing towards a crescendo.
Meanwhile, reach out to OFF, FPC, GOA or SAF and give them a pizza worth of support. There is a lot going on in these cases, and none of it is cheap.
Good summary, heartily agree with the AWA weight loss plan. A pizzas worth of support indeed!