It's so quiet here.

[Brian D.]

Sometimes no new posts for days at a time. Hardly anyone logged in at all. Pathetic.

[M-Quigley]

It is pretty slow lately, but then there hasn't been much new legislatively that isn't or hasn't been already discussed. I hear about this or that prelim injunction but like everyone else still waiting on a conclusion to various things. Although I usually log on at least once daily, I've been pretty busy lately to post much. I've got some range reports I need to get around to posting.

Here is something interesting that is new, although it doesn't affect Ohio. Out in Oregon, there is a gun control measure called measure 114, Measure 114 would ban magazines holding more than 10 rounds and require a completed extended background check and a permit to purchase a firearm. A federal judge already ruled it is constitutional, but the issue is in state court, and just recently wrapped up, awaiting a decision. On a radio and podcast show called Gun talk the host mentioned something about a supposed expert witness for the state testifying in favor of gun registration was allegedly asked if gun registration was effective in reducing crime, and his answer was of course, yes. His reasoning though is that he watched Law and order on TV they used gun registration to solve crimes. I don't recall, even after rewinding that statement from the host, him saying what his source was though, and I can't find it online so far. I'd love to know what the plantiff's lawyers response to this statement was. I also don't know if he was referring to the federal court case or the state one. The thing is, if it's true, if an expert witness for a pro gun group answered a court question based on a fictional TV show it would be all over the news nationwide. Late night comedians would be mentioning it. Since it's in support of gun control however, crickets.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/ ... f536d3307f

Since then, Measure 114 has been stalled by legal challenges, both at the state and federal level.

Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled Measure 114 is lawful under the U.S. Constitution, finding that large-capacity magazines are not commonly used for self-defense and a permit-to-purchase system is constitutional. That ruling is being appealed.

In court Monday, lawyers debated the right to bear arms and the merits of additional regulation.

“If a right can be taken away simply because it furthers public safety in some way, it’s not a right at all," said an attorney representing gun owners, the plaintiffs in the case. "There are still Oregonians that are willing to go to bat for those rights in court against the might of the state."

Oregon DOJ lawyers said self-defense standards don't hold up with advances in gun technology.

“The fact that detachable magazines and automatic firing technology were eventually used for civilian purposes cannot, according to the Court of Appeals, bootstrap these weapons into personal defense weapons so that they come under Constitutional protection," they argued.

Bootstrap? semi auto firearms with detachable magazines have been used by "civilians" for at least 120 years. I'd hardly call that bootstraped.

Elsewhere the state DOJ lawyers are trying to say civilians don't need so called high capacity magazines to defend themselves. It seems like none of the anti gun people are ever asked to justify what the so called standard is for alleged "high" capacity. Who came up with 10 rounds and why? or 15, like in the latest AW ban congress passed in 2020? Is it because the Glock 17 magazine is 17 and not 15? Why didn't the judge overseeing the Columbus 30 rd magazine ban ask why 30 rds is bad and 29 is okay? Is it because AR rifle typically ship with 30 rd magazines? A local big box retailer allegedly pulled AR's off their shelves initially when the ban was first enacted. IMHO a 30 round magazine is standard capacity for an AR in 5.56. And the 10 rd limit, where did that come from? Just a number pulled out of some politician or anti gunners butt?

[Brian D.]

It's getting easier and easier for me to consider these people to be enemies of freedom, and traitors.