Oregon’s Magazine Ban Has Been Ruled Unconstitutional And Struck Down By The Court

With a swift stroke of a judge’s gavel, Oregon’s controversial ban on high-capacity magazines has been declared unconstitutional. A decisive blow to proponents of tighter gun control, the ruling overturned the statewide ban on firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

The ban, which voters approved in November’s election, was challenged in court by gun rights advocates who argued it violated their Second Amendment rights. Now, as the dust settles on this legal battle, both sides are regrouping to continue the fight over firearms and public safety in Oregon and beyond.

Overview of Oregon’s Measure 114 and Magazine Ban

Oregon voters approved Measure 114 in 2022 to enact stricter gun control laws, including a ban on large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

The measure required permits and background checks to buy firearms and prohibited the sale and possession of certain magazines.

The Fight For and Against the Ban

Proponents argued the law would help curb gun violence by restricting access to firearms and limiting the harm caused by mass shooters.

However, gun rights advocates challenged the ban, claiming it violated their Second Amendment rights.

The Court’s Ruling

Judge Robert Rascio presided over the case, Arnold v. Kotek and ruled Measure 114 unconstitutional. He said he would evaluate the law based on the Constitution rather than arguments about magazine lethality.

In the end, Rascio placed a permanent injunction against the measure’s enforcement, allowing large-capacity magazines to remain legal and accessible in Oregon.

Court Case Challenging Measure 114’s Constitutionality

The ruling striking down Measure 114 came after a lengthy court case challenging its constitutionality. Judge Robert Rascio oversaw the bench trial, where he decided the outcome instead of a jury.

His final ruling was that the measure violated the Constitution by infringing on citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Government Officials Defend Measure 114

Governor Tina Kotek and other government officials defended the measure, arguing it would help keep guns out of the wrong hands and reduce violence.

However, Judge Rascio said he would focus specifically on whether the measure aligned with the Constitution, not on its potential impacts.

Gun Safety Supporters Continue To Push Gun Safety Laws

Supporters of gun safety measures continue advocating for laws they believe will reduce violence while respecting legal gun ownership.

The debate around this issue is sure to continue as policymakers aim to balance public safety, constitutional rights, and other concerns. For now, though, Oregonians will not face the restrictions that Measure 114 proposed to put in place.

Judge Rascio Focused on Constitutionality

Judge Rascio stated that he would focus on how the measure related to the Constitution rather than on how lethal large-capacity magazines could be.

He found that Measure 114 infringed upon lawful gun owners’ rights. The judge placed a permanent injunction against the measure, stopping it from being enforced.

Split Public Opinion

Public opinion on Measure 114 was divided. Roughly half of voters supported the measure to require permits and ban large-capacity magazines to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

However, others felt it violated their constitutional rights. The case was brought forward by two local gun owners, Joseph Arnold and Cliff Asmussen, who opposed having to obtain permits to keep their legally purchased firearms.

Background on Measure 114’s Restrictions

Measure 114 aimed to implement strict restrictions on gun ownership in Oregon. The measure passed narrowly in 2022, with 50.65% of Oregon voters in favor of the new rules.

However, the measure was quickly challenged in court by gun owners who felt their Second Amendment rights were being violated.

Magazine Ban

One of the most controversial parts of Measure 114 was its ban on ammunition magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds. Under the measure, manufacturing, selling, possessing, or transferring these magazines would become illegal.

Supporters argued this would help prevent mass shootings and limit the potential for violence. However, opponents said it infringed on their constitutional rights and would do little to curb gun violence.

Permit Requirements

Measure 114 also instituted a permit-to-purchase system for firearms. To obtain a permit, individuals would need to provide a photo ID and fingerprints, complete safety training, and pass a criminal background check.

They would also have to pay the required fees. Supporters said this would help ensure that only responsible, law-abiding citizens could purchase guns. Critics argued that these requirements were too restrictive and would unduly burden gun owners.

Those in Favor of Measure 114

Proponents of Measure 114 argued that it would help reduce gun violence in Oregon. They believed restricting access to firearms and large-capacity magazines would make it more difficult for those intending to cause harm to obtain them.

Supporters felt that requiring a permit to purchase firearms, as well as background checks, would help ensure that only responsible, law-abiding citizens could buy guns.

Opposition to the Measure

Opposers felt that Measure 114 violated their Second Amendment rights by making it overly burdensome to purchase firearms legally. The Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association opposed the measure, arguing it would not improve public safety.

They felt that existing laws had already addressed issues like background checks and that Measure 114 was an unnecessary infringement of citizens’ rights. In their view, law-abiding gun owners should not have to get a permit to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Reactions to Judge Ruling Magazine Ban Unconstitutional

The ruling by Judge Robert Rascio that Measure 114 was unconstitutional received mixed reactions. Those in favor of stricter gun control were disappointed with the outcome. The Giffords Law Center expressed disappointment at the ruling, saying, “This decision is a tragic setback in the effort to curb gun deaths in Oregon.

Every Town, a group campaigning for gun safety laws, said the decision was “disheartening” and that large-capacity magazines have been used in many mass shootings. They believe banning them could save lives.

A Welcomed Ruling By The NRA

The National Rifle Association (NRA) welcomed the ruling. They felt that Measure 114 infringed on citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

The NRA’s general counsel, Chris Cox, said, “This ruling confirms that Measure 114 was an unconstitutional overreach that would have done nothing to promote public safety.”

What Happens Next With Oregon Gun Laws

Following the court ruling overturning Measure 114, Oregon’s gun laws remain uncertain. Judge Robert Rascio’s decision places a permanent injunction on the measure, but Governor Tina Kotek and other proponents of the bill disagree with his ruling.

They are likely to appeal the decision to reinstate the measure. If an appeals court upholds Judge Rascio’s ruling, Kotek and lawmakers may go back to the drawing board to draft a new bill with the goal of implementing stricter gun control laws in Oregon.

The Continued Fight For Oregonians To Bear Arms

Gun rights advocates like Arnold and Asmussen will continue fighting to preserve Oregonians’ Second Amendment rights. They believe citizens have the right to own firearms for self-defense and recreation. Banning large-capacity magazines infringes upon these rights, in their view.

However, gun safety groups argue that large-capacity magazines enable mass shootings and have no place in civilian society. They will push for new legislation banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to reduce gun deaths in Oregon.

A Case Study For Other States on Reform Laws

Oregon’s experience with Measure 114 provides a case study for other states considering gun reform laws. The measure’s defeat in court shows that hastily drafted or overly broad bills may not withstand legal challenges, even if voters approve them. However, its passage on the ballot demonstrates that citizens want meaningful laws to improve gun safety.

Nuanced, well-crafted legislation may have the best chance of being implemented and surviving scrutiny in court. The fight for gun reform is a marathon, not a sprint. With patience and perseverance, safety advocates believe reasonable laws can be put in place to reduce violence while respecting lawful gun ownership.

Other States’ Laws on Magazine Bans

A few states have passed laws similar to Oregon’s proposed Measure 114. California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York have banned magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. However, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, and Vermont allow magazines up to 15 rounds. Meanwhile, Illinois and the District of Columbia prohibit magazines over 20 and 30 rounds, respectively.

Some states have not passed any laws limiting magazine capacity. This includes Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Firearm owners in these states are free to purchase and own magazines of any size.