I don’t think you’ll find any precedent in U.S. history in which a citizen has to go through so many hoops to exercise Constitutional rights. This is the first of its kind and, if it passes, it will wind up in court.
Oregon trial attorney who specializes in firearms law
October 31, 2022
Opponents Setting Out Unintended Consequences of Oregon’s Gun Control Measure
[Via email from Rolf.
I almost welcome this sort of crap. The more outrageous the restrictions on our specific enumerated rights the easier it is to establish precedence and create a slippery slope in the correct direction.
Also, when the time comes, it will make it easier to get convictions.—Joe]
With the mail in voting they use in Oregon? The communists can pass whatever they’re not afraid of passing.
Thank God for Clarence Thomas! Although Oregon could argue that voter fraud is very historic in Oregon. And laws violating people’s rights have been going on as long as Oregon’s been a state…. So, they have that going for them.
Of course this will end up in court. The real question being the agenda and belief structure of the judge(s) who hear it. NONE of the 20K + laws on the books are Constitutional. Doesn’t mean they aren’t routinely used to deprive honest people of their freedom.
Try this one: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/opponents-setting-out-unintended-consequences-oregons-gun-control-measure
Thanks. I don’t live there but have been a frequent visitor. If this passes and isn’t overturned, I won’t be going back. I feel sorry for the people in E. Oregon.
Yes, if it passes it will end up in court, as much as is possible; ballot initiatives have different legal challenge rules than legislative bills. Also, if/when challenged it will have to progress through the state courts before it gets to federal courts … and the state courts are filled will “Progressive” “true believers” who will find some justification for keeping it, Bruen notwithstanding.
All told, we’re likely stuck with it for a while, and hopefully gun stores will survive long enough for the legal challenge. (Which might be the entire point to such a clearly-unconstitutional law — to drive gun manufacturers and retailers out of business while it’s being held up in courts.)
Why won’t it be challenged directly in Federal Court like Bruen and others?
It seem like a law (whether the result of executive order, initiative or legislation) that effectively makes it impossible to exercise a constitutional right would immediately get a permanent restraining order against enforcement.