The Oregon State Supreme Court has given no indication when it will hand down a ruling on the constitutionality of gun control Measure 114, but last week the seven justices heard oral arguments in the challenge of that 2022 citizen initiative.
And the arguments appeared to be dominated by plaintiff’s attorney Tony Aiello, Jr., who clearly came prepared. During his initial presentation and again during rebuttal, Aiello seemed to have strong answers and arguments why Measure 114 should be struck down.
The full hearing, which may be viewed here, lasted an hour. It began and ended with Aiello fielding questions from the justices and explaining why tenets of the measure—the permit-to-purchase requirement, which requires completion of a safety course, and the prohibition on magazines capable of holding more than ten cartridges—do not pass constitutional muster.
A third aspect of the case is the cost of the training which could have a significant impact on the outcome, as it could be cost-prohibitive for many people on low or fixed incomes to complete.
Aiello told the court he had just taken a safety course and it cost $200.
While Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Koch contended the magazine ban is constitutional, because such “large-capacity” magazines did not exist at the time Oregon achieved statehood and adopted its constitution in February 1859 Aiello countered, “Cars, Twitter and blood alcohol tests also didn’t exist in 1859. The fact of the matter is the Constitution of Oregon and the United States applies to things that did not exist when the document was written.”
The gun prohibition lobby has pushed magazine bans and permit-to-purchase mandates in Oregon, neighboring Washington and Colorado, so much is riding on this case beyond the Oregon border. On the line is the language of Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution. That amendment states, “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence (sic) of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]”
According to KGW news, the Oregon Senate Republican Caucus has called Measure 114 “unconstitutional and deeply flawed.” Senate Republicans, and Beaver State gun rights activists contend Measure 114’s permit requirement creates “unnecessary barriers” for law-abiding gun owners, or people who want to become gun owners, especially those of limited financial means.
Koch defended the magazine capacity limitation, arguing, “It’s significantly different for the technological reasons why that was not commonly used for self-defense. They didn’t really exist at the time. And it’s also significant because of the public safety risks that are posed by magazines of larger than ten rounds.”
He also contended, “The restrictions here reasonably promote public safety without unduly frustrating armed self-defense.”
But that contention may not square with U.S. Supreme Court guidelines set down in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. While the Oregon case is specifically aimed at whether Measure 114 violates the Oregon State Constitution, there is a pending federal challenge of Measure 114, currently on appeal to the Ninth U.S Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
