Oregon - It will now be illegal to OWN gun magazines with > 10 capacity.

[MikeInOr]

Measure 114

"The initiative would also prohibit the manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale, or otherwise transferring of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. It would make violations a class A misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to 364 days in jail, a fine of up to $6,250, or both."

It is now going to be a crime to own a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. As soon as this measure goes into effect which is usually 30 days after passing a HUGE number of state residents are going to be instantly made into criminals!

How did this unfold in other states with 10 round magazine capacity caps? Am I supposed to turn in my 10+ round magazines or destroy them myself? Back in the Clinton days current 10+ round magazines were grandfathered in. Now they are just illegal in Oregon. Is this how it worked when other socialist states passed similar laws?


https://kpic.com/news/local/linn-co...ine-capacity-limits-oregon-ballot-measure-114



LINN COUNTY, Ore. — Linn County Sheriff Michelle Duncan released a statement Wednesday regarding Ballot Measure 114.

"Unfortunately, we are seeing the passage of Ballot Measure 114," Duncan said in the release on social media, "which creates a required permitting system in order to purchase firearms AND bans gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. This is a terrible law for gunowners, crime victims, and public safety."

The Sheriff continued, "I want to send a clear message to Linn County residents that the Linn County Sheriff’s Office is NOT going to be enforcing magazine capacity limits."

Duncan stated the measure is "poorly written" and that Linn County Sheriff's Office will work to find "the best course of action to take on permitting."


"I want to ensure anything we do or don’t do will not hinder gunowners’ rights to purchase firearms, intentionally or unintentionally."

The full statement is below:





Message from Sheriff Michelle Duncan on Ballot Measure 114:

Unfortunately, we are seeing the passage of Ballot Measure 114, which creates a required permitting system in order to purchase firearms AND bans gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. This is a terrible law for gunowners, crime victims, and public safety.I want to send a clear message to Linn County residents that the Linn County Sheriff’s Office is NOT going to be enforcing magazine capacity limits.This measure is poorly written and there is still a lot that needs to be sorted out regarding the permitting process, who has to do the training and what exactly does the training have to cover. In the coming days, I will work with other law enforcement partners, elected officials and community members on the best course of action to take on permitting. I want to ensure anything we do or don’t do will not hinder gunowners’ rights to purchase firearms, intentionally or unintentionally.Although, I am hopeful that the passing of this measure will result in an immediate lawsuit against it, as it should, there is still going to be a lot to sort out on how this will impact our residents, the Linn County Sheriff’s Office and other police agencies in Oregon.I will continue to inform the public as decisions are made.Sheriff Michelle Duncan

 

[Old Dog]

In Washington state, one may keep any standard capacity magazines previously owned before the law's effective date, use them in concealed carry handguns, take them to the ranges, take them out of state, bring them back... Cannot sell or give them to anyone inside the state.

Here it's essentially an unenforceable law due to the fact that in most cases, it's difficult to prove when a citizen bought the magazines, and it's the state's burden of proof to show that one acquired them illegally after the mag ban went into effect.

No grandfather clause in the Oregon law? Bruen aside, there are other Constitutional challenges awaiting on the government forcing citizens to give up personal property with no compensation.

 

[ilbob]

The courts have allowed governments at all levels all kinds of powers to take from citizens without paying for what has been taken. I suspect that the idea that you can get relief from this on the basis of it being taken from you without payment is low. But, on 2A grounds, probably a better bet.

 

[CapnMac]

They were/are still counting the votes, so the measure has not passed--yet.

Typically, other State's legislation has offered three answers: Destruction; Sale to FFL; or Turn in to LE.

There are any number of practical issues with the new legislation, too.

It's reasonable to expect substantial non-compliance (and wilful ignorance of the law).

 

[tactikel]

Trade them on “trading post”, sell them online, modify them permanently to be compliant. Sell the pistol, and buy a compliant replacement (if rounds decrease consider increasing power of chosen round, swap out 9mm for: .45 acp, .357 Sig, 10 mm). This whole thing sucks ( and I live in Illinois!).

 

[Bennj]

In NJ the choices were to sell, permanently pin, destroy, send them to a more friendly state for safe keeping in the miraculous event of a reversal, or turn them into the police. No grandfathering allowed. I'm sure many criminal acts were avoided when the bad guy realized he set out with >10 mags and had to return home.

 

[Maia007]

It is not the case that it is categorically illegal to own hi-cap mags under Measure 114. Any hi-cap (over 10 rounds) owned prior to implementation of the Measure may be still be owned and used under the following conditions.

I quote the Measure in full text:

(5) As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be an affirmative defense, as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that:

(a) The large-capacity magazine was owned by the person before the effective date of this 2022 Act and maintained in the person’s control or possession; or

(b) The possession of a large-capacity magazine was obtained by a person who, on or after the effective date of this section, acquired possession of the large-capacity magazine by operation of law upon the death of a former owner who was in legal possession of the large-capacity magazine; and

(c) In addition to either (a) or (b) of this subsection the owner has not maintained the large-capacity magazine in a manner other than:

(A) On property owned or immediately controlled by the registered owner;
(B) On the premises of a gun dealer or gunsmith licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 for the purpose of lawful service or repair; (C) While engaging in the legal use of the large-capacity magazine, at a public or private shooting range or shooting gallery

or for recreational activities such as hunting, to the extent permitted under state law; or
(D) While participating in firearms competition or exhibition, display or educational project about firearms sponsored,

conducted by, approved or under the auspices of a law enforcement agency or a national or state-recognized entity that fosters proficiency in firearms use or promotes firearms education; and

(E) While transporting any large-capacity magazines in a vehicle to one of the locations authorized in paragraphs (c)(A) to (D) of this subsection, the large-capacity magazine is not inserted into the firearm and is locked in a separate container.

(d) The person has permanently and voluntarily relinquished the large-capacity magazine to law enforcement or to a buyback or turn-in program approved by law enforcement, prior to commencement of prosecution by arrest, citation or a formal charge.

(6) Unlawful manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale or otherwise transferring of a large-capacity magazine is a class A misdemeanor.

So we can keep our currently owned hi-caps for home defense or recreation on our own property. We can take them to and use them at a bona-fide shooting range, and we can hunt with them, pursuant to existing game laws. We can no longer carry (open or concealed) firearms with mags over ten rounds. We do not have to turn them in.

Here is the link to the full text version. It also shows the major donors in favor of and opposed to the Measure. Of course, there will be future infringements by the gun control advocates, but this is where we stand today.

https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Meas...p_and_Purchase_Requirements_Initiative_(2022)

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Trade them on “trading post”, sell them online, modify them permanently to be compliant. Sell the pistol, and buy a compliant replacement (if rounds decrease consider increasing power of chosen round, swap out 9mm for: .45 acp, .357 Sig, 10 mm). This whole thing sucks ( and I live in Illinois!).

It isn't here yet in Illinois...but the Gov I refer to as "Mr. Hug-A-Tubby™" has promised us all that an AWB (w/ over 10 rd mag ban) is coming soon!

 

[joneb]

Here it's essentially an unenforceable law due to the fact that in most cases, it's difficult to prove when a citizen bought the magazines

I guess these hi-cap mags should have had serial numbers?

 

[Old Dog]

I guess these hi-cap mags should have had serial numbers?

Well, as we're making a concerted effort to frame the narrative up here, we're going with "standard capacity magazines" over the silly term "high capacity" mags... AR-15s and most semi-auto pistols having been designed for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and all that...

Some manufacturers (I know MagPul is one) do seem to have date codes stamped on their products.

Consensus up here seems to be that since it's the government's burden of proof for showing when the standard capacity magazines were acquired, most of us aren't even bothering taking any silly steps to "prove" that we owned our magazines prior to the July 1, 2022 effective date of SB 5078. There was a flurry of activity on some of our regional gun forums with members trying to figure out how to date-stamp the photos they took of their mags on smartphones and other measures, but ultimately, everyone settled down and stopped worrying about all this nonsense.

Here's what I said in one of the other Measure 114 threads:
I followed Measure 114 with interest. Even more egregious, draconian restrictions than Washington's Initiatives 594,1639 and Senate bill 5078. What's more, there's no way the local police agencies and Oregon State Police will even begin to accomplish what the measure tasks them with, setting up training, a permitting process and databases, prior to the measure's effective date. A permit required from one's local police, just to apply for permission from OSP, to apply to purchase a firearm? Law enforcement has to approve trainers for the mandated safety training -- with no requirements even delineated for qualifications for those who would instruct, how they become "approved" and what exactly the training will consist of?

At least citizens here are still allowed standard capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds) in their carry handguns (of course, presuming they were procured prior to July 1, 2022).

Oh, but wait: in Oregon, you'll still be able to take your 10-round-plus mags out for "recreational purposes" and hunting. Just not in your carry pistol when you're stepping over human feces, used hypodermic needles, trash and junkies while trying to avoid the aggressive panhandlers in downtown Portland.

 

[Old Hobo]

Glad to see sheriffs refusing to enforce anti-Constitutional laws. Hoping to see jury-nullification activity.

 

[joneb]

Glad to see sheriffs refusing to enforce anti-Constitutional laws. Hoping to see jury-nullification activity

This is the hope.
"The Oregon Secretary of State’s office notified OSP that Ballot Measure 114 will go into effect at 12:00 a.m. on December 8."
https://ktvz.com/news/oregon-northw...rks-to-clear-recent-backlog-amid-measure-114/
This is happening much sooner than expected, The initial projections IF ratified would not take effect until January.
Gun shop owners are spinning many plates here and they fear some will break. So what happens if a gun purchase does not clear by the deadline??? Who will eat that?

 

[F-111 John]

California's magazine capacity lawsuit Duncan v. Becerra (Bonta) has been remanded by the 9th Circuit back to the district court for further consideration in light of Bruen.

Oregon is also in the 9th Circuit, so whatever outcome from Duncan will ultimately affect this Oregon law.

Perhaps some enterprising Oregon pro-gun group could file a motion in federal court to put a stay on the enforcement of this law pending the outcome of Duncan.

But since you can keep your magazines at home, there is no real 'takings' in the Oregon law, so maybe there would be an issue with finding a plaintiff with standing?

 

[JFrank]

Glad to see sheriffs refusing to enforce anti-Constitutional laws. Hoping to see jury-nullification activity.

That wouldn’t even be necessary if more Oregon gun owners had voted against the new law.

 

[MachIVshooter]

It's the long game they're playing, same as the 15 rd limit they did here in '13 that grandfathers the owners, not the mags. They have learned from the '94 AWBs failures in that regard.

It's pretty unenforceable right now, and current LEAs don't even try, but anyone born on or after 7/1/2013 who is not an FFL or LE can never legally possess them here under this law, and the burden of proof becomes a simple matter of possession + DOB, no longer an impossible issue of establishing original manufacture or purchase dates, nor chain of custody.

 

[Spats McGee]

It's the long game they're playing, same as the 15 rd limit they did here in '13 that grandfathers the owners, not the mags. They have learned from the '94 AWBs failures in that regard.

It's pretty unenforceable right now, and current LEAs don't even try, but anyone born on or after 7/1/2013 who is not an FFL or LE can never legally possess them here under this law, and the burden of proof becomes a simple matter of possession + DOB, no longer an impossible issue of establishing original manufacture or purchase dates, nor chain of custody.

Well, that's an interesting trick, and something we all need to watch out for in assessing future legislation.

 

[LiveLife]

California's magazine capacity lawsuit Duncan v. Becerra (Bonta) has been remanded by the 9th Circuit back to the district court for further consideration in light of Bruen.

Oregon is also in the 9th Circuit, so whatever outcome from Duncan will ultimately affect this Oregon law.

Perhaps some enterprising Oregon pro-gun group could file a motion in federal court to put a stay on the enforcement of this law pending the outcome of Duncan.

Already happening - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12468841

As anticipated, OFF v Brown (OR magazine ban) lawsuit was filed on 11/18/22 by Portland attorney John Kaempf representing Oregon Firearm Federation, Sherman County Sheriff Brad Lohrey and Keizer gun store owner Adam Johnson in Pendleton federal court against Oregon governor Kate Brown and AG Ellen Rosenblum to block Measure 114.

And on 12/12/22, judge Benitez will hear CA's motion to reconsider and extend the Duncan case out to next year but likely judge Benitez will deny the motion - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12462855

 

[P89DCSS]

Here it's essentially an unenforceable law due to the fact that in most cases, it's difficult to prove when a citizen bought the magazines, and it's the state's burden of proof to show that one acquired them illegally after the mag ban went into effect....

Magpul mags have datecodes. The datecode is the earliest possible purchase date. Any datecodes after the ban goes into effect are proof of illegal ownership.

 

[Old Dog]

Magpul mags have datecodes. The datecode is the earliest possible purchase date. Any datecodes after the ban goes into effect are proof of illegal ownership.

Yep, I noted that in my second post in the thread (#10).

 

[joneb]

Because of measure 114 high capacity magazines have been flying off the shelves in Oregon. It would not surprise me if Oregon will soon hold the largest magazine round count in the US, assuming we can find and afford ammunition to fill them.

 

[AlexanderA]

Because of measure 114 high capacity magazines have been flying off the shelves in Oregon. It would not surprise me if Oregon will soon hold the largest magazine round count in the US, assuming we can find and afford ammunition to fill them.

Yup, unintended consequences. The antigunners never learn. Their efforts, including especially the 1994 AWB, have resulted in a dramatic increase in the weapons they are trying to control.

 

[CoalTrain49]

There's probably enough std. capacity magazines in the wild now that any new legislation isn't going to matter regarding illegal use. If they exist, which they do, they will be used illegally no matter how many laws are passed to restrict the sale or ownership. Just one more lesser charge piled onto many more serious charges after the crime was committed.

The same holds true for semi-auto rifles. Millions of those in the wild.

At some point building a dike to turn back the tide becomes a futile endeavor. All it takes is one big storm to realize that.

 

[SharpDog]

'Blatantly unconstitutional': Strict gun control law faces new NRA-backed legal challenge:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/blatantl...a-backed-legal-challenge#&_intcmp=hp1r_2,hp1r