Opponents of an impending gun control measure in Oregon have filed a lawsuit to block the legislation before it takes effect.
On Friday, the Oregon Firearms Federation, the Sherman County Sheriff, and a gun store owner filed the lawsuit in federal court, according to KGW8. This month, the measure narrowly passed in the midterm elections, and Townhall covered how gun sales skyrocketed in the state.
Townhall noted that Measure 114 would expand background checks and require state residents to take a training course and obtain a gun permit. The measure also prohibits selling, possessing, and using magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The law is slated to go into effect on Dec. 8.
“Banning magazines over 10 rounds is no more likely to reduce criminal abuse of guns than banning high horsepower engines is likely to reduce criminal abuse of automobiles,” the lawsuit reads.
“The only thing the ban contained in 114 ensures is that a criminal unlawfully carrying a firearm with a magazine over 10 rounds will have a potentially devastating advantage over his law-abiding victim,” it continues, noting that the law infringes on Americans’ constitutional rights.
“The reason for the popularity of these magazines is that in a confrontation with a violent attacker, having enough ammunition can be the difference between life and death,” it continued.
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum will reportedly defend the legislation against lawsuits.
Previously, 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.
“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.
This year, 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.
After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, several other judges have upheld Second Amendment rights, citing the case.
In one instance, a federal judge in Syracuse struck down key parts of a restrictive New York gun law that took effect in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling. The law restricted who could carry a handgun in public, where handguns could be carried, and where firearms could be purchased. The law explicitly prohibited guns in places deemed as "sensitive locations."
In addition, the Supreme Court vacated gun law in Massachusetts that imposed a lifetime ban on purchasing handguns for anyone convicted of nonviolent misdemeanors involving the possession of guns. The law included requiring a license to purchase or possess a pistol.
And a federal court in Tennessee ruled that public housing agencies in the state are prohibited from including provisions in their leases that prevent tenants from having firearms in their homes.