Oregon's New Gun Laws Constitutional Battle

Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

Oregon’s Democrats are like the little brother trying to be like big brother.  In their quest to be as jacked-up as California, thanks to the crazies in Portland in an otherwise largely conservative State, Ballot Measure 114 squeaked into existence in the last 2022 Election.  Oregon has been conducting its elections by mail-in ballot only since the 1990s giving the Democrats in that State also plenty of wiggle room for rigging any vote that goes to the people, and of course the Portland and Coos Bay lefty zones helped a bunch, too.

Fortunately, the courts in Oregon are not completely sold out to the anti-constitution lefties.  Recently Harney County Judge Raschio granted a request for a temporary restraining order on Measure 114, holding back its implementation, for now.  The plaintiffs are Joseph Arnold, Cliff Asmussen, Gun Owners of America, and the Gun Owners Foundation.  The plaintiffs argue that the new measure is a violation not only of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment (we can have a discussion on the validity of the Incorporation Doctrine another time), but also Oregon’s State Constitution.

Included in the Ballot Measure 114 language is the requirement to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm, limitation on magazine capacity, and language banning the “manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, or other transfer” of a magazine that has a capacity that exceeds ten rounds of ammunition.  According to the plaintiffs the language violates Oregon State Constitution Article 1, Section 27.

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. 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[.]

Precedent has already been established by the Oregon Supreme Court, which indicates Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution prevents the infringement of an Oregonian’s individual right to purchase and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen; noting “any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends” and opened the door to challenges to “shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times for processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry”. 

Plaintiffs further argue that BM-114 abuses the fundamental right to keep and bear arms because it infringes upon a law-abiding Oregonian’s right to merely purchase a firearm.  As for the magazine capacity argument, the plaintiffs argue that firearm capacity to shoot more than ten rounds has existed since the 16th century. Merriwether Lewis carried such a firearm that had the capability of a 20 or 22 round magazine.

“It is clear that the founding fathers and the drafters of Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution were very aware of the emerging technology of increased magazine capacity when drafting and ratifying.”

– Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary