Oregon Judge Declares Measure 114 Gun Safety Law Unconstitutional
In a recent ruling, a Harney County Circuit Court judge has determined that Oregon’s new gun laws, established under voter-approved Measure 114, are in violation of the state constitution. This decision marks a significant setback for the gun control measure, which was passed by a narrow margin in November 2022 but has been in legal limbo since.
Measure 114, which sought to impose stricter regulations on gun ownership in Oregon, has been blocked from taking effect since December, following an order from Judge Robert Raschio. His recent ruling came after a comprehensive six-day trial in September, where both sides presented extensive evidence and arguments. As it stands, the measure will remain unenforceable unless a higher state court overturns his decision.
Judge Raschio’s Reasoning and Constitutional Concerns
Judge Raschio’s ruling centers on the assertion that Measure 114 imposes undue burdens on the constitutional right of Oregon residents to defend themselves. “Oregon citizens have a right to self-defense against an imminent threat of harm, which is unduly burdened by Ballot Measure 114,” he wrote. The judge argued that the measure’s restrictions could potentially compromise public safety rather than enhance it, as intended.
Measure 114 aimed to introduce several new requirements for gun ownership, including mandatory safety courses, a background check before purchasing firearms, and a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. However, Judge Raschio found these provisions to be inconsistent with the rights enshrined in the Oregon Constitution.
State’s Response and Future Legal Battles
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has strongly criticized the judge’s decision, calling it flawed and warning that it could endanger public safety. “The Harney County judge’s ruling is wrong,” Rosenblum stated. “Worse, it needlessly puts Oregonians’ lives at risk. The state will file an appeal, and we believe we will prevail.”
Measure 114 has faced legal challenges on multiple fronts since its passage, with lawsuits filed in both state and federal courts. Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ruled that the measure complies with the U.S. Constitution. That decision has since been appealed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and now, with Judge Raschio’s ruling, the state law faces further judicial scrutiny.
Historical Context and Debate Over Firearm Technology
A key aspect of the trial focused on the historical context of firearms in Oregon around the time the state constitution was written in 1859. The defense argued that the constitution only protects firearms that were in common use at the time or their modern equivalents. During the trial, experts testified about the availability of multi-shot firearms in the mid-19th century. Some witnesses, like Ashley Hlebinsky, a former curator of the Cody Firearms Museum, emphasized that while some early firearms could fire multiple rounds or use magazine-style feeding devices, such weapons were rare in the U.S. at that time.
Judge Raschio found Hlebinsky’s testimony persuasive, citing it in his decision to support the idea that the constitutional framers would have been aware of and understood advancements in firearms technology. Conversely, Judge Immergut, in her federal ruling, questioned Hlebinsky’s credentials and neutrality, suggesting her ties to pro-gun groups and the firearms industry might bias her perspective.
The state’s attorneys called upon historical experts who argued that while some advanced firearms existed, they were not widely available or commonly used. Professor Bryan DeLay of the University of California, Berkeley, emphasized that the technological advances in firearms, such as semi-automatic and automatic weapons, would have been unimaginable to the framers of the Oregon Constitution.
Law Enforcement Perspectives and Self-Defense Considerations
During the trial, testimonies from law enforcement officials highlighted practical concerns regarding the measure’s impact on public safety. Two county sheriffs, Cody Bowen of Union County and Dan Jenkins of Harney County, testified about the unique challenges faced by law enforcement in rural areas with extended response times. They emphasized the importance of high-capacity magazines for self-defense, particularly in situations where residents may need to protect themselves and their property for extended periods.
Judge Raschio agreed with this viewpoint, stating that citizens in remote areas cannot always rely on timely law enforcement responses and must have the means to defend themselves. “Victims can be left without a law enforcement response for hours,” he wrote. “A citizen’s need to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property is immediate as there is no one else who will be there to do it for them.”
Debates Over the Definition of “Readily” in Magazine Modifications
A contentious point during the trial was the interpretation of the term “readily” in the context of modifying gun magazines to hold more than 10 rounds. Plaintiffs argued that it is relatively simple to modify magazines using common tools, while state attorneys contended that such modifications require additional equipment not immediately accessible to most people.
Judge Immergut, in her federal ruling, sided with the state, stating that a magazine is not “readily convertible” unless specific modifications are made. However, Judge Raschio found this interpretation too restrictive, arguing that components of firearms, including magazines, are protected under the state constitution.
Implications and Next Steps
With Judge Raschio’s decision, Measure 114 remains blocked, and the case is poised to continue through the appeals process. The next step is likely an appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals, with a potential ultimate destination being the Oregon Supreme Court. As this legal battle unfolds, the broader implications for gun control measures in Oregon and potentially beyond will become clearer.
This ruling underscores the ongoing tensions between state-level gun control initiatives and constitutional protections, highlighting the complexities involved in balancing public safety with individual rights. As the appeals process progresses, both supporters and opponents of Measure 114 will closely watch the courts for guidance on how to navigate these challenging legal waters.