Oregon Frearms Federation v Brown - Magazine ban

[Euler]

I see this case mentioned in the news quite a bit this weekend.

On July 14, in a 122-page opinion (greatly summarized below) from the Federal District Court of Oregon:

Docket

Opinion said:

...
Plaintiffs have not shown that the Second Amendment protects large-capacity magazines, defined as magazines capable of firing eleven or more rounds without reloading. And even if the Second Amendment were to protect large-capacity magazines, this Court finds that Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant have established that Oregon's restrictions on the use and possession of large-capacity magazines are consistent with the Nation's history and tradition of firearm regulation. Consequently, Oregon's large-capacity magazine restrictions are constitutional under the Second Amendment.
...
Accordingly, based on the credible evidence presented at trial, this Court finds that many Americans purchase LCMs with the intent to use them for self-defense. This Court finds, however, that it is exceedingly rare (far less than 1 percent) for an individual to fire more than ten shots in self-defense. Therefore, this Court finds that the features unique to LCMs -- the ability to shoot more than ten bullets without reloading -- are not "commonly used ... for self-defense."
...
Defendants' experts come from neutral academic backgrounds and possess no economic interest in the sale of LCMs. Ms. Hlebinsky, by contrast, offers a curatorial perspective on the evolution of firearms technology in the United States, including personal experience handling firearms from different eras. ... But Ms. Hlebinsky lacks background and training as a historian.
...
Perhaps most importantly, however, Ms. Hlebinsky is married to Mark Hanish, who also served as an expert witness in this case.
...
Accordingly, based on the credible evidence presented at trial, this Court finds as follows: Repeating firearms were not commonly owned by civilians at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification in 1791. Repeating firearms that could fire more than ten rounds without reloading did not exist in America prior to 1791. Interpersonal gun violence was not a general societal concern in 1791.
...
Based on the above evidence, this Court makes the following finding: Large quantities of gunpowder posed a threat to public safety at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification in 1791. In the late-eighteenth century, colonies and states responded to this danger by regulating the amount of gunpowder that could be stored in a given area and placed restrictions on the manufacture, inspection, sale, and transport of gunpowder.
...
The beginning half of the nineteenth century saw a rise in "deadly weapons" regulations, wherein local and state governments sought to regulate weapons viewed as being particularly dangerous to public safety. ... Many of these weapons were considered particularly dangerous because of how easily they could be concealed.
...
Based on the credible evidence presented at trial, this Court finds as follows: State and municipal governments in the beginning half of the nineteenth century regulated weapons viewed as being particularly dangerous to public safety.
...
Accordingly, based on the credible evidence presented at trial, this Court finds as follows: In the mid-to-late nineteenth century, the proliferation of revolvers among the U.S. civilian population led to an increase in these weapons being used for interpersonal violence.
...
Accordingly, based on the credible evidence presented at trial, this Court finds as follows: Detachable magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, and automatic firearms were invented for military-use in World War I. Semi-automatic firearms were invented in Europe in the late nineteenth century and spread to the United States in the early twentieth century. The most popular semi-automatic handgun in the early twentieth century held a total of eight rounds. The first fully-automatic handheld firearm marketed to U.S. civilians was the Thompson sub-machine gun, which was marketed for self-defense but became widely associated with violence and criminal activity.
...
Accordingly, based on the credible evidence presented at trial, this Court finds as follows: As semi-automatic and fully-automatic firearms and ammunition feeding devices became increasingly popular in the early twentieth century, governments responded by passing regulations limiting the possession and use of these firearms.
...
In sum, the evidence at trial shows that while magazines may be necessary to render firearms operable, LCMs, as a subset of magazines, are never necessary to render firearms operable. A firearm is not useless without an LCM because magazine capacity is not a determining factor in the operability of a firearm. And the right to bear arms does not become "meaningless" because the government chooses to restrict LCMs. Unlike the total handgun ban in Heller, for instance, BM 114 does not restrict "an entire class of 'arms,'" but merely a subset of an accessory to firearms. ... Accordingly, this Court finds that LCMs are not "bearable arms" as that term is used in Second Amendment jurisprudence.
...
Nevertheless, this Court accepts the parties' stipulation that magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition are owned and possessed by millions of Americans.
...
This Court finds that, while magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition are owned and possessed by millions of Americans, this fact alone does not automatically entitle these magazines to Second Amendment protection. This Court rejects Plaintiffs' invitation to equate "commonly owned" with "in common use today for self-defense."
...
This Court acknowledges that there may be lawful purposes other than self-defense for which an individual can use a firearm.
...
While these uses may be lawful, they have never been explicitly recognized as being "the central component" of the Second Amendment right; only self-defense enjoys that kind of unique focus within the Supreme Court's caselaw.
...
This Court assumes that most firearm owners purchase their firearms, and firearm accessories such as LCMs, with the intent to use them for lawful purposes such as self-defense. If the subjective intent of an individual were enough to show that a firearm or firearm accessory is used for a lawful purpose -- primarily self-defense -- then nearly every firearm or firearm accessory purchased in this country would satisfy that test. The constitutionality of a firearm or firearm accessory, in other words, would depend only on how common a firearm or firearm accessory is -- not on how the firearm is used. As discussed above, this Court finds that sheer commonality is not dispositive in determining whether a particular firearm or firearm accessory is protected by the Second Amendment. As such, this Court finds that an individual's subjective intent in purchasing a firearm or firearm accessory for self-defense, while relevant, also cannot be dispositive in assessing whether a firearm or firearm accessory is in common use for self-defense.
...
In sum, it is common in constitutional law for courts to consider objective evidence -- such as the factual context of a particular piece of speech, or the societal understanding of an individual's expectation of privacy -- in considering whether the violation of a constitutional right has occurred. Because the Second Amendment is not "subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees," this Court finds that it may fairly consider objective evidence to determine whether LCMs are commonly used in self-defense.
...
This Court accordingly finds that the Second Amendment does not protect LCMs.
...

Edited July 17, 2023 at 12:52 AM by Euler

[Flynn]

Another activist judge that is entirely ignoring court precedent in favor of their personal feelings...

 

So many flaws in her ruling that it's nearly comical to read...

[Yeti]

On 7/16/2023 at 7:50 PM, Euler said:

Ms. Hlebinsky, by contrast, offers a curatorial perspective on the evolution of firearms technology in the United States, including personal experience handling firearms from different eras. ... But Ms. Hlebinsky lacks background and training as a historian.

Yes... so many flaws indeed.  Let's start in this section with stating that someone boasting both undergrad and graduate degrees in American History lacks training as a historian.  Clearly the judge is better trained... groan...

[Flynn]

On 7/16/2023 at 10:24 PM, Yeti said:

Yes... so many flaws indeed.

 

This one gets me

 

Quote

BM 114 does not restrict "an entire class of 'arms,'" but merely a subset of an accessory to firearms.

 

Notice the legalese refusing to accept that magazines are in fact arms in themselves based on the Caetano and Bruen rulings, her entirely flawed interpretation would allow the 2nd to be limited to muzzle-loading single-shot firearms using the same logic that banning modern firearms that use cartridges and hold more than one shot is acceptable as cartridges are just accessories...  This is a ripe case for the Supreme Court to take up on appeal, it's so flawed they could likely just remand it back with a "You're an idiot, try again" statement...

 

The SCOTUS, as usual, chose their words carefully and with meaning, the use of words like instruments, constitute and facilitate were intentional and used with a clear intent to send the message that the 2nd wasn't just limited to stun guns and firearms only but was much, much broader in what it protects...

 

Quote

Caetano: 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.

 

Bruen: Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of “arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.

 

[springfield shooter]

On 7/16/2023 at 7:55 PM, Flynn said:

Another activist judge that is entirely ignoring court precedent in favor of their personal feelings...

 

So many flaws in her ruling that it's nearly comical to read...

 

I hate to say it, she's a Trump appointee. 

 

Perhaps the vetting process was flawed? Or maybe, you never know.

Edited July 17, 2023 at 01:16 PM by springfield shooter

[Flynn]

On 7/17/2023 at 8:11 AM, springfield shooter said:

 

I hate to say it, she's a Trump appointee. 

 

Perhaps the vetting process was flawed? Or maybe, you never know.

 

In the end, no judge is going to always rule the way you desire on every case.

 

That said, it's pretty clear that Trump had a lot of hostile staff working for him that were intent on undermining him, and I'm guessing because of that he got a lot of half-truths and intentionally misleading advice from many of the people he was depending on to give that advice.  Plus based on the area, there might not have been many great options on the shortlist to start with.

[hceuterpe]

On 7/16/2023 at 11:05 PM, Flynn said:

 

This one gets me

 

 

Notice the legalese refusing to accept that magazines are in fact arms in themselves based on the Caetano and Bruen rulings, her entirely flawed interpretation would allow the 2nd to be limited to muzzle-loading single-shot firearms using the same logic that banning modern firearms that use cartridges and hold more than one shot is acceptable as cartridges are just accessories...  This is a ripe case for the Supreme Court to take up on appeal, it's so flawed they could likely just remand it back with a "You're an idiot, try again" statement...

 

The SCOTUS, as usual, chose their words carefully and with meaning, the use of words like instruments, constitute and facilitate were intentional and used with a clear intent to send the message that the 2nd wasn't just limited to stun guns and firearms only but was much, much broader in what it protects...

 

 

 

While not the best outcome.  the more bizarre and ridiculous the ruling, (and this is so insanely flawed), the better to leverage in an appeal.