In a significant development, an Oregon judge has ruled against the enforcement of a controversial gun control law, which critics have labeled as the "most extreme" in the nation.
The judge held that the law contravenes the state constitution.
Tony Aiello Jr., the attorney representing two gun owners from Harney County in the case, expressed his satisfaction with the ruling. "This Thanksgiving, we can be thankful for Article I, section 27 and its continued protection of our right to bear arms," he communicated to Fox News via email.
However, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has pledged to challenge the ruling, potentially taking the case to the state Supreme Court. "The Harney County judges ruling is wrong," Rosenblum stated to Fox News. "Worse, it needlessly puts Oregonians lives at risk."
Measure 114, the law in question, was passed by Oregonians a year ago with a slim majority of 50.65% of the vote, and support from only six of the state's 36 counties. The law mandates a permit for any gun purchase, prohibits the sale of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, and has been dubbed "the nation's most extreme gun control Initiative" by organizations such as the NRA's legislative arm.
However, Measure 114 never came into effect due to immediate legal challenges at both the federal and state level.
Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio ruled on Tuesday that both the magazine ban and the permit-to-purchase requirement infringe upon Article 1, Section 27 of Oregon's constitution, which asserts, "the people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State."
The state's argument largely hinged on the types of firearms that were prevalent when Oregon ratified its constitution in 1857. According to testimony from history professors, firearms capable of holding many rounds were "vanishingly rare," as reported by Oregon Public Broadcasting.
"Semiautomatic technology and automatic technology are such profound ruptures in the history of firearms technology, that I find it very difficult to believe that anybody even someone very well informed in the late 1850s could have predicted the emergence of smokeless powder, detachable cartridges, automatic reloading," stated Bryan DeLay of the University of California, Berkeley.
However, Ashley Hlebinsky, a former firearm museum curator, testified for the plaintiffs that many early guns could fire multiple rounds and that some models with magazine-style devices existed around the time Oregon became a state.
Judge Raschio ruled that large capacity magazines were available in the early 1800s and that gunsmiths were actively trying to improve upon the technology.
"The idea that Oregons pioneers intended to freeze the firearm technology accessible by Oregonians to antiques is ridiculous on its face," Aiello told Fox News on Wednesday. "If there is any evidence of such an intention, Defendants certainly did not present any of it at trial."
The permit system has been one of the most controversial parts of the measure. Gun buyers would be required to complete an "in-person demonstration of the applicants ability to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency" a much stricter process than what is currently required to obtain even a concealed handgun license in Oregon.
State lawyers argued that the permit system and magazine capacity limit were necessary to curb homicides, suicides, and mass shootings.
However, Judge Raschio wrote in his ruling that state lawyers "failed to provide any convincing evidence of a threat to public safety requiring a permitting process" and that, to the contrary, the potential delays in processing a permit application would flip the protections of the right to bear arms "on its head."
"This legal battle is not over," Aiello wrote after the ruling. "However, we hope that the strength of the Courts ruling gives our Attorney General pause on filing that appeal and continuing to spend millions of taxpayer dollars defending this ill-conceived ballot measure."
Federal Judge Karin Immergut previously ruled in July that Oregon's law is in line with a U.S. tradition of "regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety."
The plaintiffs are currently appealing that ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Login