Watch Scott Jennings Slap Down This Shoddy Talking Point About the Spending Bill
We Have the Long-Awaited News About Who Will Control the Minnesota State House
60 Minutes Reporter Reveals Her Greatest Fear as We Enter a Second Trump...
Wait, Is Joe Biden Even Awake to Sign the New Spending Bill?
NYC Mayor Eric Adams Explains Why He Confronted Suspected UnitedHealthcare Shooter to His...
The Absurd—and Cruel—Myth of a ‘Government Shutdown’
Biden Was Too 'Mentally Fatigued' to Take Call From Top Committee Chair Before...
Who Is Going to Replace JD Vance In the Senate?
'I Have a Confession': CNN Host Makes Long-Overdue Apology
There Are New Details on the Alleged Suspect in Trump Assassination
Doing Some Last Minute Christmas Shopping? Make Sure to Avoid Woke Companies.
Biden Signs Stopgap Bill Into Law Just Hours Before Looming Gov’t Shutdown Deadline
Massive 17,000 Page Report on How the Biden Admin Weaponized the Federal Government...
Trump Hits Biden With Amicus Brief Over the 'Fire Sale' of Border Wall
JK Rowling Marked the Anniversary of When She First Spoke Out Against Transgender...
Tipsheet

State Judge Puts Oregon's 'Extreme' Gun Control Law on Hold

AP Photo/Andrew Selsky, File

A ruling by a state court judge this week put Oregon’s upcoming gun control law on hold just days before it was scheduled to take effect. 

The ruling by Harney County Judge Robert Raschio stopped Measure 114 from taking effect. As Townhall covered, the measure would require a permit and hands-on safety training and fingerprinting provided by law enforcement to buy a gun. It would also prohibit the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammo. The measure narrowly passed in the midterm elections.

Advertisement

After the measure passed, firearm sales in the state skyrocketed and a Second Amendment organization filed a lawsuit to challenge it. 

Judge Raschio said that Measure 114 would violate Oregonian’s constitutional rights,” Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

“Deprivation of fundamental constitutional rights for any period constitutes irreparable harm,” he wrote.

On Twitter, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said that her office will appeal to the state’s Supreme Court.

Last month, when the measure looked to pass, some members of law enforcement in Oregon said that they would not enforce aspects of it. 

Linn County Sheriff Michelle Duncan said in a Facebook post on Nov. 9 that the legislation is a “terrible law for gun owners, crime victims, and public safety.” She added that she would not be enforcing the magazine capacity limits provision of the law. 

Advertisement

“I want to ensure anything we do or don’t do will not hinder gun owners' rights to purchase firearms, intentionally or unintentionally,” Duncan said in the post.

In June, the United States Supreme Court struck down a gun control law in New York that would have required residents seeking a permit to show “proper cause” to carry a weapon.

In the ruling for the case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, Justice Clarence Thomas penned the 6-3 majority opinion. Thomas wrote that the Second Amendment should not be treated differently than other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. 

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Advertisement


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement