One of the most sweeping gun-control measures ever passed by ballot initiative was just given the green light by a state appeals court.
A three-judge panel for the Oregon Court of Appeals handed down a unanimous ruling on Wednesday upholding Measure 114 under the Oregon constitution. The panel held that the measure, which contains a permit-to-purchase requirement for all gun sales and a ban on ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, does not violate the state constitution’s right to keep and bear arms.
“In sum, we hold that all of Ballot Measure 114 (2022) is facially valid under Article I, section 27, because the law is capable of constitutional application,” Judge Darlene Ortega wrote in Arnold v. Kotek.
The ruling deals a blow to gun-rights advocates who have successfully fended off the measure’s restrictions for more than 2 years. Though it narrowly passed on the November 2022 ballot, Measure 114’s provisions have never taken effect. They have been tied up by both state and federal legal challenges as well as bureaucratic difficulties experienced by the state in attempting to set up a new permitting system. Wednesday’s ruling not only provides a path for those restrictions to go into force but also marks a reversal of fortune for gun-rights advocates in state court, where they had previously fared better than in their federal case.
Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, previously held that the measure’s magazine ban and permitting requirements do not violate the Second Amendment in a separate federal lawsuit currently awaiting review before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. By contrast, Harney County Judge Robert Raschio blocked the measure the month after Oregon voters passed it. He later struck it down as a violation of the state constitution.
Reviewing that decision, the Oregon Court of Appeals disputed Raschio’s finding that the measure “unduly burdened” the self-defense rights of Oregonians. Instead, it held that the measure offered “reasonable” regulations to address “public safety threats.”
“Article I, section 27, does not provide an absolute right, but a right to armed self-defense that is subject to the wide latitude of the legislature ‘to enact specific regulations restricting the possession and use of weapons to promote public safety,'” Ortega wrote. “We are not persuaded that requiring a permit-to-purchase and passing a criminal background check—even if complying with those regulations causes a delay in obtaining a firearm—would render Measure 114 unconstitutional under all circumstances.”
As for the magazine ban, the panel held that magazines are “arms” considered by the state constitution but said that restricting their availability likewise represents “a reasonable regulation” directed at a “specific, observable public safety concern.”
“An individual’s desire to use a large-capacity magazine for [self-defense], instead of a capacity-compliant magazine, does not demonstrate that the large-capacity magazine ban in Measure 114 is incapable of constitutional application,” Ortega wrote.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield (D.), whose office defended the law in court, celebrated Wednesday’s decision.
“Oregonians voted for this, and it’s time we move ahead with common-sense safety measures,” he said. “Today’s decision is a big step forward for gun safety in Oregon.”
Though the ruling clears a path for the law to take effect, it will not happen immediately. The panel remanded the case back down to the lower court for “the limited purposes of entering a declaratory judgment consistent with this opinion and determining whether the state is entitled to fees or costs.”
Under state law, the plaintiffs have 35 days to file an appeal with the Oregon Supreme Court.
