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.
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.
A federal judge this morning denied a request by Oregon Firearms Federation and other plaintiffs to delay implementation of the high-capacity magazine ban, so that part of the law would go into effect Thursday.
— Ellen Rosenblum (@ORDOJ) December 6, 2022
What’s next? We will petition to the Oregon Supreme Court ASAP, seeking to align the result in our state courts with the federal court’s well-reasoned and thoughtful decision.
— Ellen Rosenblum (@ORDOJ) December 6, 2022
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.
“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.