Judge Confirms Opinion: Oregon’s Measure 114 Gun Law Violates State Constitution

Authored by Scottie Barnes via The Epoch Times,

A state court’s preliminary ruling against Oregon’s Measure 114 gun control policy will stand after a hearing in which Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio considered additional arguments against his original case findings.

Judge Raschio rejected every objection that defense attorneys for the Oregon Department of Justice raised to his opinion about the case. That opinion found the measure violates the state’s constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

Measure 114 was initially set to take effect on Dec. 8, 2022. It has been on hold since Judge Raschio issued a preliminary injunction allowing parties to argue its legality in federal and state courts.

The measure has already been argued in a federal court, where U.S. District Court Judge Karen Immergut ruled in July 2023 that the law does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

The plaintiffs in the federal case have filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This could move the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Parties in the state case argued before Judge Raschio for six days in September 2023. He issued an opinion on Nov. 21. The defense immediately requested that the judge hear additional arguments. He granted that request and set a hearing for Jan. 2, issuing his decision the same day.

With that decision, the court made the earlier injunction permanent.

“This marks another victory for Oregon firearm owners against the most extreme gun ban in the United States,” Tony Aiello, Jr. attorney for plaintiffs told The Epoch Times.

“The state defendants did nothing more than waste the court’s and parties’ time and resources with their motion. It is unfortunate that they do so with bottomless resources supplied by Oregon taxpayers.”

The decision is likely to be appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.

Narrowly approved by voters in November 2022, Measure 114 requires Oregonians to undergo an FBI background check and take a police-sponsored firearms class, which does not yet exist, to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm.

Police would be required to create and operate an application process and maintain databases of applicant information.

The measure also bans magazines that are “capable of holding or being modified to hold” more than 10 rounds.

Proponents contend that the “Reduction in Gun Violence Act” will save lives.

Gun rights advocates have called it one of the most extreme gun laws in the country, claiming that it will strip law-abiding citizens of their constitutional right to bear arms in the state.

They argue that legal gun sales would end in Oregon should Ballot Measure 114 survive court challenges.

Hearing Objections

In this week’s hearing, defense attorneys for the state argued that virtually every conclusion the judge reached following the September trial was wrong.

State defendants objected to the court’s finding that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) would be unable to conduct background checks as required by the measure.

The FBI had previously informed the state that it would not conduct the background checks required by the new law, explaining in a legal guidance that doing so would be a crime because the measure “does not meet the requirements of Pub. L. 92-544.”

But shortly after Judge Raschio issued his Nov. 21 opinion, the FBI changed its position, stating that it would grant Oregon a “grace period.”

This allowed the defendants to claim that this objection no longer applied.

Judge Raschio disagreed based on the factual record.

The state objected to the court’s finding that the parties had “agreed” that Measure 114 “delays the purchase of firearms for a minimum of 30 days.”

It also objected to the court’s findings that mass shootings are sensationalized by the media, that the measure’s backers failed to present evidence of enhanced public safety, that a “magazine is a necessary component of a firearm,” and that “almost all emigrants to the Oregon Territory had firearms.”

The judge rejected each of these arguments.

Opponents of the measure took issue with the state’s defense of the law.

“The state is spending millions to end firearm ownership in Oregon and prosecute Oregonians who exercise their rights under the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions,” Keven Starrett of Oregon Firearms Foundation, one of the plaintiffs in the federal case, told The Epoch Times.

“The next step in Oregon’s endless war against its most law-abiding citizens will no doubt be an appeal of the judge’s injunction to a higher court, paid for by taxpayers,” he said.

Mr. Aiello agreed.

“Normally, I would anticipate that the parties will agree to language to be included in the General Judgment this week, the General Judgment would be signed, and then Defendants will file an appeal,” he said.

“However, this case has been unpredictable.”

For Measure 114 to survive, the state defendants must win in both the federal and state courts. Plaintiffs only have to prevail in one of these cases for the measure to be struck down.