A while back, Oregon voters approved Measure 114. It ushered in a host of gun control laws, none of which are really in keeping with the right to keep and bear arms. Then again, what gun control law is?
As is only right, the passage triggered a number of lawsuits. However, it seems attorneys for the state think the law should be allowed to go into effect because of the state's own self-delusion.
Oh, I doubt gun control advocates would see it that way, but that doesn't change the fact that the request is clearly not one based on reality.
A lawyer for the state Tuesday urged the Oregon Court of Appeals to allow the voter-approved gun control Measure 114 to take effect, arguing that its regulations promote public safety without “unduly” restricting an Oregonian’s right to bear arms for self-defense.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert A. Koch said a state judge’s findings blocking the measure as unconstitutional are “far off track” and lack “basis in Oregon law.”
Attorney Tony L. Aiello Jr., representing gun rights advocates who challenged the measure, argued that Harney County Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio made the right decision because the measure “unfairly” regulates all Oregonians without first determining that they are dangerous or unfit to buy a gun.
During nearly 40 minutes of oral arguments, a three-judge panel of the appellate court asked what standard it should use to decide if the measure adheres to the state’s constitution.
Measure 114 passed in November 2022 with 50.7% of the state vote. It limits gun magazine capacity to 10 or fewer rounds, requires a permit to buy a gun and closes the so-called “Charleston Loophole” by requiring the completion, not just initiation, of a criminal background check to buy or transfer a gun.
And yet, it doesn't "unduly" restrict people's right to keep and bear arms?
So what is the correct amount of restriction of someone's constitutional right? Where are we going to draw the line, that this is acceptable and this isn't?
Recommended
Well, the Supreme Court drew a line in Bruen. They said that for any gun control law to be constitutional, one has to show an analog from the time of the nation's founding or from the time when the Constitution was incorporated to apply to the states. You're going to have a hard time finding any such law from either period that justifies limiting firearms to a particular number of rounds--and this was the era when the Gatling Gun was a thing, for crying out loud, and just anyone could buy one if they wanted--much less any of the other nonsense.
But at the heart of this is the fact that Oregon officials have deluded themselves into thinking that such restrictions are just due restrictions that are right and just, even after it's been demonstrated that such regulations do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns. These measures don't protect anyone, but they want to justify them, so they've lied to themselves until they believe that they do.
But self-delusion isn't a legal strategy, and Measure 114 needs to go down in flames.
