Ruling unanimously, a three-judge panel of the Oregon State Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld gun control Measure 114, declaring it does not violate the state constitution.
The ruling reverses a lower court ruling in 2023, constituting a major setback for Beaver State gun rights advocates.
The attorney representing plaintiffs in the case, Tony Aiello, Jr., at Tyler Smith & Associates, P.C., issued a statement quoted by Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), “Today Measure 114 has turned millions of Oregonians into criminals because their right to bear arms has been erased by Oregon’s Judiciary. We intend to appeal this ruling to the Oregon Supreme Court and call on Oregonians for their continued support of this litigation.”
Measure 114 was passed by a small margin in November 2022, and was almost immediately challenged in both state and federal court by virtually every gun rights organization in the country. In 2023, Harney County Circuit Judge Robert Raschio ruled the measure violated the Oregon State Constitution, while in Portland, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Donald Trump appointee (first term) ruled i the measure is constitutional under the U.S. Second Amendment. In that decision, which is now on appeal to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Immergut held that large-capacity magazines “are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.”
Writing for the court, Appeals Court Judge Darleen Ortega quoted an earlier ruling in which it was stated, “The [facial] constitutionality of a law as enacted is rarely if ever dependent on facts, least of all on the kind of facts denominated as ‘adjudicative facts’ in the Oregon Evidence Code (Rule 201(a)) and subject to being proved by evidence. This is so because almost all laws are written to govern numerous concrete situations under circumstances that may change over time.”
Later in the 25-page ruling, Judge Ortega wrote, “We first observe that the permit-to-purchase program and point-of-transfer background check is not a total ban on obtaining firearms for self-defense. Persons who meet the qualifications for a permit and do not have any disqualifying criminal convictions may obtain a firearm.”
Kevin Starrett, head of the Oregon Firearms Federation, said via email the ruling “was not unexpected.”
“What was unexpected was the absolutely tortured and nonsensical judicial reasoning behind it,” he said.
Oregon anti-gunners are cheering the decision, according to OPB.
“This victory goes to the Oregonians who, concerned about the safety of their families and communities, collected signatures, knocked on doors and voted for a safer future,” said Jess Marks, executive director for the Alliance for a Safe Oregon. “We’re grateful that the Court of Appeals has heard our voices and examined the undeniable research and evidence to reach the conclusion that Measure 114 will save lives.”
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield issued a statement in which he asserted, “This measure gives us the tools to make sure gun buyers go through background checks and get proper permits, helping to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and making our communities safer.”
KGW News noted in its report that Measure 114’s magazine capacity limit of 10 rounds does not apply to law enforcement or the military.
It further explained the process an Oregon citizen must go through to obtain a permit-to-purchase, including the completion of a safety course and criminal background check. Opponents of the measure note the background check becomes repetitive because there is a background check when someone actually buys a gun, and they note criminals get firearms through illicit means, so they avoid background checks.
The measure also closes the so-called “Charleston Loophole” which allows a firearms transfer to proceed if a background check takes more than 72 hours, which is the current federal NICS standard.
