Oregon’s Measure 114 is one of the most controversial state gun control laws out there. It was passed as a ballot initiative, which is troubling as all get out (I’m not a fan), and there’s a lot of stuff in it that makes the way it was passed look like small potatoes.
But now, maybe, there’s a chance to kill it once and for all.
See, while it’s survived most legal challenges so far, there’s no guarantee it’ll make it through this last one.
The Oregon Supreme Court has agreed to review the state appellate court ruling that found gun control Measure 114 constitutional under state law.
The state’s high court set oral arguments for Nov. 6.
Voters narrowly approved the measure in November 2022 but the regulations have never gone into effect, blocked by a Harney County judge’s ruling that they violated the state constitution.
The measure 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.
The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in March that the measure is constitutional in a major reversal of the Harney County judge’s decision.
The Appeals Court found that a qualified person can acquire a gun for self-defense under the plain language of Measure 114 and thus the measure meets the Oregon Constitution’s right-to-bear arms provision.
Two Harney County gun owners, backed by Gun Owners of America, had petitioned the state Supreme Court to weigh in on the case. Their attorney, Tony Aiello Jr., argued that the high court should clarify Article 1, Section 27 of the state Constitution, which establishes the right to bear arms.
Aiello argued that a required gun permit would turn that right “into a privilege for government to grant or refuse.”
The Oregon attorney general’s office argued the measure’s “reasonable regulations” are designed to promote public safety and don’t “unduly” frustrate a person’s right to armed self-defense.
I hate that term “unduly.”
The reason I hate it is that it’s too subjective to have any viable meaning on a constitutional issue like gun rights. What I think unduly frustrates a person’s right and what someone like Chris Murphy thinks unduly frustrates it are going to be very different things. This means it’s really up to the individual judge or the panel of judges to determine what they think it means.
Which, honestly, I think is part of the problem here. For anti-gun judges, none of this seems like too much of an ask.
For pro-gun folks, this is all way too far.
Now, the state supreme court has a chance to fix this. The problem is that I doubt they will. So far, with Oregon’s politics, it’s just more and more of an anti-gun crap show and I doubt we’re going to see that change anytime soon.
But this isn’t the last hope by any stretch of the imagination, either.
There’s still the US Supreme Court, which is unlikely to uphold the law as it currently stands. They might not rule on some specific things, but it’s very unlikely they’d rule that Measure 114 is constitutional.
The problem, though, is that there’s no guarantee that SCOTUS would even agree to hear the case in the first place. Plus, that’s all very expensive, and a lot of people would get jammed up in the meantime.
I’m very troubled, though, that anyone could look at a permit-to-purchase requirement and see it as no big deal. Especially since what isn’t mentioned above is that you have to complete a training class before you can get the permit. That creates a different kind of burden than just submitting an application and a modest fee before being able to buy a gun.
How that doesn’t “unduly” frustrate people’s rights is beyond me.
Read the full article here
