Measure 114: Oregon Appeals Court Maintains Hold on Gun Control Law
On Friday, the Oregon Court of Appeals denied a request from the state to allow Measure 114, a voter-approved gun control measure, to go into effect while an appeal is underway. The measure had been previously ruled unconstitutional by a Harney County judge. However, the Appeals Court did agree to expedite the decision on the state’s appeal, signaling a quicker resolution to this ongoing legal battle.
Measure 114, which narrowly passed with 50.7% of the vote in November 2022, mandates that individuals obtain a permit to purchase a gun and prohibits the sale, transfer, and manufacture of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The measure’s enforcement was blocked by a Harney County judge just before it was set to take effect, leaving its future uncertain.
Court’s Reasoning for Keeping the Hold on Measure 114
The Oregon Court of Appeals argued that allowing Measure 114 to be enforced while the appeal is pending would disrupt the existing situation, as the law had already been blocked from taking effect by a lower court. The court also dismissed the state’s argument that delaying the measure would increase the risk of violence to Oregon citizens, calling this claim “entirely speculative.”
While the court acknowledged the importance of the issues addressed by Measure 114, it found no compelling evidence to suggest that there is a non-speculative likelihood of harm during the appeal process. The court noted, “Although the court acknowledges that the measure itself is intended to address an issue of great importance to the public, the motion does not present a sufficient basis to conclude that there is a non-speculative likelihood of harm that will occur during the pendency of the appeal in the absence of a stay.”
Expedited Appeal Process and Legal Arguments
Despite denying the state’s request to implement Measure 114 immediately, the Court of Appeals agreed to expedite the appeal process. It set a deadline of 119 days from Friday for all legal briefs to be filed, with no extensions allowed unless extraordinary circumstances arise.
The debate over Measure 114 centers on its constitutionality under Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution. Supporters of the measure, including state lawyers and various advocacy groups, argued that the Appeals Court should respect the will of the voters who passed Measure 114 and allow it to be implemented to enhance public safety by reducing gun violence and potential mass shootings.
Opponents, represented by attorney Tony Aiello Jr., countered that the measure would immediately harm gun owners by restricting their ability to use high-capacity magazines for self-defense. Aiello argued that the state’s assertion that Measure 114 would prevent gun violence lacks solid evidence, stating that the likelihood of a mass shooting occurring in Oregon specifically due to the lack of a ban on high-capacity magazines is exceedingly low.
Court’s View on Potential Harm and Public Safety
The Oregon Court of Appeals acknowledged that both sides presented reasonable arguments about the measure’s constitutionality and that each party has a “legitimate likelihood of success on the merits.” However, the court remained unconvinced that preventing the law from taking effect would result in any measurable harm.
The court emphasized that the state did not convincingly demonstrate that delaying the implementation of Measure 114 would significantly increase the likelihood of a harmful event occurring. It also noted that while mass shootings are highly damaging events, their occurrence is unpredictable, and there is no clear link between a stay on the measure and a reduction in the likelihood of such an event.
“As the state acknowledges, it is impossible to predict whether, when, or where the type of event the measure seeks to prevent might occur,” the ruling stated. “However, in light of the fact that, were such an event to occur, it would be extremely harmful, the court considers more important the fact that the state has not persuasively connected the denial of a stay—and, therefore, the continued halting of implementation of the measure—with a likelihood of such harm while the appeal is pending.”
Reaction and Next Steps
Supporters of Measure 114, like Jess Marks, executive director of the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety, expressed relief that the appeal will proceed on an expedited timeline. “Every day Measure 114 is delayed, Oregon lives continue to be at risk. Waiting is painful, but we remain steadfast and confident that the court will decide in favor of community safety,” she said.
As the appeal progresses, the debate over Measure 114’s constitutionality and its potential impact on public safety will continue to unfold. The expedited process set by the Oregon Court of Appeals ensures that a decision on the measure’s future will be made sooner rather than later, but until then, the measure remains on hold, leaving the state’s gun laws unchanged.