Federal judge rules Oregon’s tough new gun law is constitutional

usaral63 said:
She is in the 9th............why is anyone here agast! It's gotta be the water on that side of the divide!
Click to expand...
She is a district court judge who was a Democrat from NY, attended UC Berkeley law school and changed political party after getting married - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karin_Immergut
  • Born: December 22, 1960, New York City, New York, U.S.
  • Education: UC Berkeley School of Law
  • Political party: Democratic (Before 1998), Independent (1998–2003), Republican (2003–present)
 
Last edited:
Seems to me that in modern times, the slow pace of the courts isn't acceptable. If Scotus makes a major decision, it has to have a quick path where THEY take up violations of their decision in real time. Not waiting for the lower courts, circuit courts, remands, refusing to take up TROs. etc. Just saying that they are keeping their eye out, is pure BS. It is a year since NYS passed the CCIA in revenge and it hasn't even made it through the lower levels and the back and forth appeals. When basic rights are violated you can just go yachting or fishing. AWBs are passed, mag bans are passed and the trout are running? Oh, WAH, they have so many cases - you can discern the basic rights violation and those laws that negate your decision fairly quickly.

Folks are still waiting for them to da DAH, wipe out all the bad laws being passed. Or they say, well it took years to enforce Brown vs. Board of Ed. so we should be happy to wait decades for Bruen to free us. What baloney! Just excuses. As I said before, I think Clarence and Alito don't have the votes. That's what happened with Heller not really changing the concealed carry, mag bans, AR type bans in most places. They never went back to it for a long time.
 
GEM said:
Seems to me that in modern times, the slow pace of the courts isn't acceptable. If Scotus makes a major decision, it has to have a quick path where THEY take up violations of their decision in real time ... Folks are still waiting for them to da DAH, wipe out all the bad laws being passed.
Click to expand...
It took decades for the Supreme Court to rule on various First Amendment cases before permanent enforcement was applied as federal/state laws - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

I anticipate similar with a lot of resistance from some states continuing to fervently pass anti-2A laws like how some states passed many anti-1A laws then getting sued.

If the Second Amendment is not a "second class right", then same will happen for the Second Amendment followed by permanent enforcement.
 
Last edited:
natman said:
It has all the usual gun ban distortions of what Heller and Bruen actually said, that "historical tradition" includes recent history instead of just the time of the founding and that "in common use" means "only for self defense" instead of "in common use for lawful purposes", which includes ALL lawful purposes. Just another stalling tactic.
Click to expand...
I had a chance to read more of the actual ruling and there are some more real whoppers. The judge not only considers self defense the only use covered, but also defines "used in self defense" for "large capacity" magazines if the gun is actually fired - more than 10 times! She says that there's no definition for common use, ignoring the hard numbers cited in Caetano.

She argues that "LCMs" are dangerous AND unusual:

this Court finds that Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant have shown that LCMs represent a “dramatic technological change” from the technology available at the Founding. The evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly shows that large-capacity repeating firearms—defined as firearms capable of firing more than ten rounds without requiring the shooter to reload—were extremely rare at the adoption of the Second Amendment.

In doing so she somehow manages to ignore the conclusion of Heller, repeated in both Caetano AND Bruen:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. DC v Heller, page 8

In short, this ruling is a convoluted mess of poor logic that ignores crystal clear instruction from the Supreme Court in order to support a foregone conclusion.
 
I guess the judge isn't much of a history buff. High capacity magazines goes way, way, back 3 hundred years or more
 
Thomasss said:
I guess the judge isn't much of a history buff. High capacity magazines goes way, way, back 3 hundred years or more
Click to expand...
We already have Heller/Caetano rulings that "modern" arms that didn't exist during colonial days are protected under the Second Amendment with increasing court rulings stating magazines are "arms".

This is a district court ruling that will likely be challenged in 9th Circuit/Supreme Court.
 
230RN said:
I'm hoping that's not going to become a new strategy/tactic of the whiffly members of SCOTUS, that is:

Recommending that a case be remanded to a lower court to avoid doing the job they're paid for.

My recollection and understanding is that's what happened in the 1930s Miller case on the constitutionality of part of the NFA 34 law. SInce there was no oral presentation by the plaintiff's lawyer, they remanded it back to the lower court for review, and the lower court did zero, leaving the 1934 National Firearms Act status quo.

That's the way I understood it, someone correct me in substance.
Click to expand...

OK, I will. Miller was heard by the Supreme Court and they did come to a decision. As you said, there was no representation for Miller, the decision was based entirely on the government's case.
 
230RN said: ↑

She may be thinking she's only supporting the voice of the people*.
Click to expand...

jmorris said:
This is likely correct as well as wrong. There are already two other branches of .gov for that.
Click to expand...

I wish I had clarified that, so thanks! You'd think high-level law experts such as Judges would have that foremost in mind, but noooooooo....

Terry, 230RN
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

"(In part)
Some argue that fundamental issues related to the case (United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) were never truly decided because the Supreme Court remanded the case to the federal district court for "further proceedings", which never took place. By the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed, and since Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down, there were no claimants left to continue legal proceedings.[5]"

"Holding," according to WIkipedia:


"Holding
The National Firearms Act, as applied to transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long, without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the states and did not violate the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.(Bolding, underlining, mine)"

You be the judge. The case was kludged up from the get-go.

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
Capybara said:
Wow, she may have won the award for most tenuous and misguided interpretation of Bruen in the nation.
Click to expand...

Motion seconded.

This all is starting to remind me of the pitiable "arguments" from the losing side of a high school debate. Elevate the significance of even a smidgen of "evidence" to great importance for the debate judges.

Although judges hate to be overturned, I wonder if she did all this to propel it to a higher court. Unlikely, but the thought occurs to me, worthy or not. Nothing is as it seems in modern politics and you gotta look for all the hidden angles.

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
Well when you have an influx of Californians, gun policies are going to change for the worse. Washington (state) is in the same boat.
 
herrwalther said:
Well when you have an influx of Californians, gun policies are going to change for the worse. Washington (state) is in the same boat.
Click to expand...

Fait accompli in Commierado Colorado, although this is heading toward 2 board no-noes: (1) traducing a subset of people; and (2) a political discussion.

I was never comfortable with the second no-no since politics and firearms (or any) freedom are intimately entwined.

Terry said, dangerously.

Terry, 230RN
 
I really hope something shuts this down again, as an Oregonian this was obnoxious the last time around. When’s the start date for the training course permit requirement?
 
GEM said:
Seems to me that in modern times, the slow pace of the courts isn't acceptable. If Scotus makes a major decision, it has to have a quick path where THEY take up violations of their decision in real time. Not waiting for the lower courts, circuit courts, remands, refusing to take up TROs. etc. Just saying that they are keeping their eye out, is pure BS. It is a year since NYS passed the CCIA in revenge and it hasn't even made it through the lower levels and the back and forth appeals. When basic rights are violated you can just go yachting or fishing. AWBs are passed, mag bans are passed and the trout are running? Oh, WAH, they have so many cases - you can discern the basic rights violation and those laws that negate your decision fairly quickly.

Folks are still waiting for them to da DAH, wipe out all the bad laws being passed. Or they say, well it took years to enforce Brown vs. Board of Ed. so we should be happy to wait decades for Bruen to free us. What baloney! Just excuses. As I said before, I think Clarence and Alito don't have the votes. That's what happened with Heller not really changing the concealed carry, mag bans, AR type bans in most places. They never went back to it for a long time.
Click to expand...


Gem, the natural and expectable traditional delays inherent in the legal system have become a strategic tool of the anti-gunners.

The more crap (pardon!) they can generate and tie up in court cases, the more time they have to maximize their propaganda efforts. Moreover, the more 50-50 coin tosses (laws) they can generate, the more likely that at one point, by sheer random processes, some of them will actually "stick."

They are smarter than we are... well, maybe just more susceptible to being led by their noses by their masters...

Terry said, dangerously.

Terry, 230RN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Breaking News: Federal judge temporarily blocks parts of new New York gun law
Replies
21
Views
1K
GEM
G
A
  • Locked
Despite gun-friendly SCOTUS ruling, federal judge declines to declare possession law unconstitutiona
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
3K
Robert
Robert
A
  • Locked
New York gun law that restricted concealed carry rights blocked by federal judge
Replies
16
Views
1K
Aim1
A
R
U.S. District Judge Strikes Down Post Office Ban
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
CapnMac
CapnMac
Speedo66
  • Locked
Federal Judge Disallows Posting Blueprints For 3D Guns
Replies
15
Views
904
hq
hq
Back
Top