Fed. Judge says Measure 114 gun law to stand

By Taxpayers Association of Oregon
OregonWatchdog.com

U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut ruled that the Oregon gun control measure 114 is constitutional, even though it is considered to be the most restrictive and bureaucratic gun control measure in the nation.   The judge effectively stated that having more than 10 rounds in a firearm is not commonly used for self-defense.

The Judges’ Conclusion.

“The Supreme Court has held that Second Amendment protects an individual right to self- defense inside and outside of the home. LCMs are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment. Even if LCMs are protected by the Second Amendment, BM 114’s restrictions are consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety. This Court accordingly enters judgment in favor of Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment challenge to BM 114’s LCM restrictions.

The Second Amendment also allows governments to ensure that only law-abiding, responsible citizens keep and bear arms. BM 114’s permit-to purchase regime, on its face, sets forth objective criteria for the issuance of permits, and does not allow unfettered discretion by permitting agents in assessing an applicant’s mental health status to ensure that only law-abiding and responsible citizens can purchase firearms in the state of Oregon. This Court accordingly enters judgment in favor of Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment challenge to BM 114’s permit-to-purchase regime.

The Fifth Amendment protects an individual from having their property taken by the government for public use without just compensation. But the Fifth Amendment does not prevent the government from exercising its police power to protect the public welfare. BM 114’s LCM restrictions are a valid exercise of police power. This Court accordingly enters judgment in favor of Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant on Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment challenge to BM 114’s LCM restrictions.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents the government from depriving a person of liberty without due process of law. Plaintiffs have failed to show that BM 114’s permitting provisions deprive them of liberty, because BM 114’s permitting provisions do not violate their Second Amendment rights. This Court accordingly enters judgment in favor of Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant on Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment challenge to BM 114’s permitting provisions.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also prevents the government from passing retroactive laws, unless the government can point to a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means. BM 114 does not impose retroactive penalties on the possession of LCMs, and is therefore not retroactive. Moreover, Defendants’ interest in public safety provides a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means. This Court accordingly enters judgment in favor of Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant on Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment challenge to BM 114’s LCM restrictions.

Finally, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents governments from passing laws that are so vague that they fail to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited. BM 114’s LCM restrictions give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited. This Court accordingly enters judgment in favor of Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant on Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment challenge to BM 114’s LCM restrictions.”

— Was this article helpful?   If so, please contribute online at OregonWatchdog.com (learn about a Charitable Tax Deduction or Political Tax Credit options to promote liberty).