Loading...

Gun Pulse: Oregon court preserves gun control ballot measure

The decision overturned a previous circuit court ruling which said Ballot Measure 114 was unconstitutional, instead declaring that the entirety of the initiative was “facially constitutional.”

article image

The plaintiffs said the state government was seeking to “upend generations of Oregon law and culture and turn constitutional interpretation on its head,” an opportunity they “eagerly awaited.” File Image.

Editor’s Note: Gun Pulse, formerly an email newsletter from The Sentinel meant to cover the battle over the Second Amendment in our nation, is now exclusively available on our website.

 

Members of the Oregon Court of Appeals approved a ballot measure from three years ago which banned the purchase of all magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.

 

Oregon voters narrowly passed Ballot Measure 114, also known as the Reduction of Gun Violence Act, thereby creating new requirements for gun owners, including a mandatory permit to purchase a firearm from any transferor and a criminal background check from the transferee, in addition to the regulation on the size of magazines firearm owners are allowed to purchase.

 

 

The decision overturned a previous circuit court ruling which said Ballot Measure 114 was unconstitutional, instead declaring that the entirety of the initiative was “facially constitutional.”

 

Gun Owners of America and other gun rights organizations had submitted the lawsuit against the gun control measure, writing in a previous filing that “a slim majority of voters disinformed by well-funded out-of-state anti-firearm advocates passed Ballot Measure 114 to supposedly combat a litany of overstated, undersupported, and sensationalized public safety aims.”

 

 

The plaintiffs said the state government was seeking to “upend generations of Oregon law and culture and turn constitutional interpretation on its head,” an opportunity they “eagerly awaited.”

 

United States District Judge Karin Immergut also previously ruled in favor of Ballot Measure 114, writing two years ago that the new statutes align with “the nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety.”

 

 

Immergut wrote that “the Second Amendment also allows governments to ensure that only law-abiding, responsible citizens” can bear arms, while asserting that large magazines “are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.”

 

Ballot Measure 114 allowed those who already own magazines which can hold more than ten rounds to possess them at home, at a firing range, in shooting competitions or for hunting.

 

article image