Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[solv3nt]

Did I miss something? It looks like the original @toast isn't different than what @Ura-Ki wrote.

 

[toast]

Did I miss something? It looks like the original @toast isn't different than what @Ura-Ki wrote.

I had originally stated that semis don't require a mag, but amended it to add the word "most".

One. Freakin. Minute!

 

[arakboss]

I had originally stated that semis don't require a mag, but amended it to add the word "most".

One. Freakin. Minute!

Belt fed firearms don't require a mag.?

 

[64MercurysRule]

Belt fed firearm does require a belt as the cartridge holding device .

M1 Garand requires a clip as the cartridge holding device .

A revolver requires a cylinder as the cartridge holding device .

 

[gearhead]

@toast , if ever you're in need of legal counsel, you know where to find the sea lawyers!

 

[Mono1]

What if the State did something really crazy and banned the sales of firearms with threaded barrels (far out, I know)? I could make a pretty good argument that a barrel is a necessary part of most firearms. The State could argue that a barrel may be necessary but a threaded barrel is not. This seems to be the path the State is taking with the mag ban. They agree that a mag (or something with the same exterior dimensions of a mag), may be necessary for some firearms to fire. But they believe the mag or other device, doesn't need to hold more than 10rnds.

I would like to see our argument not be dependent on whether a part of a firearm is necessary or not. Otherwise they could ban all sorts of Mall Ninja accessories like sights, grips, lasers, lights, and just about anything else we commonly add to our firearms. They could even ban gas tubes and pistons.

Naw. Gas Tubes and Pistons are in common use (More than 200,000) and there was no law against them prior to 1869.

 

[Mono1]

Did I miss something? It looks like the original @toast isn't different than what @Ura-Ki wrote.

Its OK, go back to bed.