Oregon Gun Law Ruling Deemed “Unconstitutional” is Turning “Legal Standards on Their Head”

For the past several years, the decision has been at the center of a heated debate, with a significant portion of the state’s population contesting its constitutionality, making it a topic of significant interest and engagement. 

Around 50.7% of the region voted in favor of the measure, which requires residents to acquire a permit should they wish to purchase a weapon. It also prohibits the sale of ammunition magazines that hold ten or more rounds in many circumstances. 

Prominent Harney County Judge Robert Raschio has voiced concern about the law and successfully prevented it from passing after suggesting that certain aspects of the measure are unconstitutional. 

However, the judge believed that this regulation infringed on the constitutional right to bear arms.

“Under the guise of the ‘Reduction of Gun Violence Act,’ Ballot Measure 114 is an unconstitutional, anti-gun initiative package that includes a state-run government registry of gun owners’ personal information and firearms, requires a permit to purchase a firearm, imposes an indefinite delay on background checks, and bans any magazine with over a 10-round capacity,” the NRA writes.

The trial court “weighed the policy merits of the measure for itself and, at the same time, refused to consider published studies and reports on the public safety benefits of each of the law’s three components,” the state’s opening brief said (via Oregon Live).

“Rather than determine whether Measure 114 ‘is capable of constitutional application in any circumstance,’ the trial court instead searched for any possible circumstance in which the measure might be unconstitutionally applied or construed. This was a legal error that requires reversal,” Dahab wrote.

“Oregon citizens have a right to self-defense against an imminent threat of harm, which is unduly burdened by Ballot Measure 114,” Raschio wrote.

The proposed permit-to-purchase program “mimics the concealed handgun license scheme, reducing the right to bear arms to an unduly burdensome administrative due process right,” said Raschio. 

“The parties have stipulated that the Federal Bureau of Investigations will not conduct background checks on applicants who apply for a permit-to-purchase a firearm,” Raschio wrote. “The defendants invite the court to assume that the permits will be issued anyhow. The defendants provide no evidence on why that assumption would be true.”

“There is no historical basis for limiting the size and capacity of firearms, including their magazines,” Raschio wrote. He later added that “firearm technology at the founding of the state is the foundation for the current firearm technology.”

The state of Oregon later appealed the ruling in February, arguing that Measure 114 was set into place to save lives. “The Harney County judge’s ruling is wrong,” said state Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum. “Worse, it needlessly puts Oregonians’ lives at risk. The state will file an appeal, and we believe we will prevail.”

She continued, “We are making a very reasonable request:  Let Measure 114 take effect now so Oregonians’ lives can be saved—now!”

He continued, “Nothing in the preamble, the voters’ guide, nor the defendants’ evidence provide a rationale for why the rounds should be limited to ten as opposed to any other arbitrary numbers that could have been picked, nor did they show the limitation of ten rounds has any demonstratable effect on negative outcomes to mass shooting events.”

Following the decision of the Oregon Court of Appeals, the Gun Owners Foundation took to X to celebrate the win, writing, “a huge win in strong anti-gun territory.”

While the proposed guns laws remain highly controversial, Oregonians will have to wait a little longer until the court makes its final decision on whether to pass Measure 114.  

In the aftermath of former President Donald Trump being shot at a rally in Pennsylvania, President Joe Biden addressed the US, saying, “We cannot–must not–go down this road in America. Violence has never been the answer.” But what are lawmakers doing to put a stop to this?

Many Democratic lawmakers and gun safety activists, who are normally quick to respond to gun violence, have stayed relatively quick after the attack.

He added: “This assassination attempt was enabled by easy access to a military-style rifle, used precisely as it was designed. Today’s muted response reflects a dangerous normalization of political violence and gun threats.”

“Our nation simply does not have to hand assassins and mass murders the weapons that make the slaughter possible,” Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut and the lead voice on gun safety issues in Congress, wrote on social media. “You don’t have a plan to end mass shootings or political violence if your platform seeks to make it easier for killers to get high powered military weapons.”

Although nine states have banned assault rifles like the one used to shoot Trump, people still widely use them in the US, and mass shooters frequently choose them.

While Oregon appealed Measure 114, the Giffords Law Center gave the state an A- as the state has invested nearly $14 million in community violence intervention to help prevent gun violence. The state also raised the age to purchase firearms to 21 years old.

The state is generally seen as generous with firearms, but it is taking steps to limit the rising gun violence in the country.

While there are some regulatory measures to enhance safety and prevent misuse of firearms, the state’s middle-ground approach respects and facilitates the rights of individuals to purchase, own, and carry guns.

Background checks are necessary for 18 year olds who are purchasing a long gun like a rifle and for anyone 21 or older purchasing a handgun.

There are safe storage laws in place to protect minors and unauthorized persons from handling the weapon.

The fees individuals pay to conduct the background check fund the program, which aims to keep Oregon residents as safe as possible while allowing them to exercise their freedoms.

Petitioners can file a request with the court for an ERPO, which will lead to a hearing within 24 hours about the subject of the petition.

The evidence can include recent threats or acts of violence toward the petitioner, themselves, or others. Patterns of behavior or conduct that shows there is general cause for concern are acceptable as well.

These weapons are uniquely lethal, but that state treats them as if they are any other gun.

This allows residents of the state to own and use a wide range of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

This number is down by 4, showcasing that the gun restrictions in Oregon are serving their community better than most places in the US.

While the media focuses heavily on mass shootings and other gun-related deaths, more than half of these deaths are self-inflicted.

The BBC calculated that among 100 residents there are 120.5 firearms based on the 390 million guns in circulation in the US as of 2018.

Despite the recent buckling of heads in Oregon’s courts, their gun laws are not too lenient or strict, making them a state to look at for future gun laws.

However, gun laws are an extremely complicated and controversial subject that will likely change frequently as people push for what seem to be extreme measures to limit the number of gun owners in the US.