Oregon State Loses Attempt to Reinstate Gun Control Measure 114

SALEM, Ore — The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled against overturning a Harney County Circuit Court judge ruling that has placed gun control Measure 114 on ice.

Law Violates the Right to Bear Arms

The Eastern Oregon Judge, Robert Raschio, ruled against the Oregon state-approved Measure 114, saying that it violated the right to bear arms under the Oregon Constitution.

Oregon Will Be One of the Strictest Gun Controlled States

The voter-approved Measure 114 will make Oregon one of the strictest gun-controlled states in the country.

Prospective owners will have to undergo a training course before they can apply for a permit to purchase a gun.

Measure 114 also bans the manufacture or sale of gun magazines exceeding 10 rounds of ammunition.

The gun control law was approved in November 2022 but has never been implemented because of a succession of lawsuits at state and federal levels. Judge Raschio’s dismissal of the implementation of Measure 114 resulted in the state taking the matter to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

Read: Oregon Judge’s Final Order Rules Gun Control Law Approved By Voters Unconstitutional

Factors On Which the Court of Appeals reached its Decision

Oregon requested that Measure 114 be implemented while opposition cases work their way through the system, but the Appeals Court judge has dismissed the motion.

The Court of Appeals took four factors into consideration before making its ruling, known as granting a stay that would allow Measure 114 to become effective immediately.

1. What chance did the state have of winning its argument? The court ruled that both sides had presented solid arguments, so the ruling could go either way.
2. Was the state action made in good faith, or to delay the issue? And
3. Was there any support in the law or in fact for what the state was requesting? The court ruled that the state was not trying to accelerate or delay the matter, but that once again both sides had presented good arguments.
4. What harm to the state, other parties, the public or other people would result from implementing what the state had requested, or not doing so? The court did not accept the state’s argument that it was to enforce the law to promote the safety of the public “during an epidemic of violence.” The court ruled that the state could only argue speculative harm and that argument was not sufficient for the court to uphold the state’s appeal.

The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that Measure 114 will remain on ice. However, it did agree to accelerate the process by setting a deadline for both sides to submit their legal responses and arguments. They have been given 119 days from April 19 to present their arguments.

In its Order, the court wrote that a ‘stay’ would change existing gun laws. It said the state likelihood of successfully putting Measure 114 into effect while an appeal was pending was an ‘unconstitutional’ measure.

The Firearms Policy Commission (FPC) president, Brandon Combs, says his organization will aggressively support efforts to eliminate “unconstitutional laws” and labeled as “frivolous” the state’s attempt to enforce Measure 114.