A three-judge panel from the Oregon Court of Appeals has unanimously ruled that Measure 114, a significant firearm regulation passed by voters in November 2022, complies with the state constitution. This decision arrives after a contentious legal and political battle over the measure, which faced immediate challenges following its narrow approval.

Key Details of Measure 114

Measure 114 introduces several stipulations regarding firearm possession, which have raised concerns among gun rights advocates. The main provisions include:

• Mandatory permits for gun acquisitions, requiring police approval for individuals aiming to purchase firearms.
• The closure of the “Charleston Loophole,” ensuring that firearm transfers cannot proceed unless background checks are completed within a specified period.
• A limit on magazine capacities to 10 rounds for civilians, though exempting law enforcement and military personnel from this restriction.

Legal Reactions and Implications

The ruling follows a mixed response from various stakeholders. Attorney Tony Aiello, Jr., representing gun rights plaintiffs, expressed strong discontent with the ruling. He stated, “Today Measure 114 has turned millions of Oregonians into criminals because their right to bear arms has been erased by Oregon’s Judiciary.” He also indicated plans to appeal the decision to the Oregon Supreme Court, seeking ongoing support from the community.

Support for Measure 114

Contrastingly, supporters of Measure 114, such as Jess Marks, executive director of the Alliance for a Safe Oregon, celebrated the ruling. Marks emphasized that the court’s decision recognized the concerns of community members who advocated for safer regulations, asserting, “This victory goes to the Oregonians who… voted for a safer future.”

Federal Court Challenges

Moreover, the measure is currently facing scrutiny in federal court. U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut has also ruled that Measure 114 aligns with the rights established by the Second Amendment. This decision, now subject to appeal in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, asserted that large-capacity magazines are not commonly used for self-defense and therefore lack protection under the Second Amendment.

Judicial Reasoning

The Oregon Court of Appeals, in its ruling, underscored that the permit-to-purchase system and associated checks do not undermine the constitutional right to bear arms. Judge Darleen Ortega remarked, “Article I, section 27 does not provide an absolute right… it is a right to defend oneself using constitutionally protected arms.” This perspective highlights a judicial interpretation that balances public safety with individual rights.