Measure 114 gun control gets Federal test

By Taxpayers Association of Oregon
OregonWatchdog.com

Next week, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, will take on the case on the constitutionality of the Oregon gun control ballot measure 114 in Federal Court. This measure, considered to be among the nation’s most strictest gun control measures, limits ammunition rounds to 10 or less and requires gun owners to go to their local police station to take a gun training course and pay a permit fee before they can purchase a firearm.

From this Court, the case is surely going to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

KGW-TV talked to a legal expert and made these observations “A lower court initially ruled that California could ban high-capacity magazines, like Oregon just did. But then the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a New York gun law case, and the justices decided that this ruling could apply to the California case as well, so they instructed the lower court to take another look at California’s law in light of the New York ruling.The New York case in question is New York State Rifle Association vs. Bruen, and the Measure 114 lawsuit makes reference to that decision. The case is a bit different than what’s going into effect here in Oregon. It centers around a law that forced people applying for a concealed carry permit to show that they had “cause,” or some kind of justifiable need to carry a gun.The Supreme Court ruled that no other constitutional right requires someone to show “special need” in order to exercise it — and further, that gun restrictions are constitutional only if there is a historical tradition of that regulation in the U.S. And when they say “historical,” they don’t mean regulations that came about since the beginning of the 20th Century.”The U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York vs. Bruen adopted a new methodology for deciding the scope of Second Amendment gun rights,” Williams said. “The U.S. Supreme Court was emphatic that for a measure to pass constitutional review, proponents of the gun regulation would have to demonstrate that in 1791, similar measures were in existence, that the right to bear a firearm in 1791 wouldn’t have been viewed as infringed by that same type of measure.” (read more)

The NRA First Freedom states, “Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s comprehensive decision earlier this year, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, these suits will require the state of Oregon to clear a high bar. “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct,” the majority in Bruen pronounced, “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” As such, it concluded, “the government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”What Oregon has done clearly sits outside of that “historical tradition.” In most places, throughout most of U.S. history, eligible American citizens have not been required to procure a permit before exercising their core Second Amendment rights. At the margins, some regulation of the time, place and manner in which the right to keep and bear arms is exercised may pass constitutional muster. But Measure 114’s central rule—that law-abiding citizens cannot so much as obtain a lawfully available firearm without clearance from the state—can obviously not be said to be among them. In effect, Oregon has instituted a system of prior restraint on a liberty protected in the U.S. Bill of Rights, a system that is applied to no other federally enumerated right. This will not do.  Neither will the prohibition of standard-size magazines. The standard outlined in D.C. v. Heller (2008)—and subsequently given sharper teeth by Bruen—is that American citizens are protected in their right to own firearms that are “in common use.” Undoubtedly, this applies to magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, which are not unusual or uncommon in any meaningful sense, and which come standard with a whole host of popular and broadly owned firearms.Many of the activists who favored Measure 114 asked why Oregonians “needed” magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds. But they clearly understand why, because, as implemented, Measure 114 exempts law-enforcement officers and active-duty military members from its restrictions. Really, this isn’t especially complicated: If you understand why a police officer might need more than 10 rounds, then you understand why an everyday citizen who has a gun for self-defense might need more than 10 rounds. There is a reason that the Second Amendment protects a “right of the people.”

This case is different than other cases in the State courts on the same Measure.

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