The Oregon State Supreme Court has reportedly agreed to hear oral arguments on gun control Measure 114 on Nov. 6, in a case which has dragged on for more than two years, according to a report at OregonLive.
The hearing will begin at 9 a.m. at the State Supreme Court in Salem. This case involves two private citizens, Joseph Arnold and Cliff Asmussen, and the Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation.
According to the court order, petitioners have 28 days to file a brief on the merits and respondents will then have 28 days to file their brief. The court may, if shown good cause, grant a request for a short extension time, not to exceed 14 days, the order explains. The order is signed by Chief Justice Meagan A. Flynn.
Measure 114 is an anti-gun-rights citizen initiative passed narrowly in November 2022. It was challenged both in federal and state courts, and a negative ruling by a federal district judge more than a year ago is now being appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court in San Francisco.
Challenges were mounted by virtually every Second Amendment organization in the country including the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, National Rifle Association and other groups, including the Oregon Firearms Federation. Federal Judge Karin Immergut rejected those actions, and appeals were filed. Those cases have been languishing while the state case proceeded.
Under provisions of Measure 114, gun buyers would be required to get a permit to purchase a firearm from a police agency, despite the fact that owning and keeping guns is a right protected by the state and federal constitutions. Magazines capable of holding more than ten cartridges are banned by the measure. All firearms transfers require background checks. The permit to purchase process includes a background check and completion of a required safety course.
The measure passed by just over 50 percent, and it was placed on hold by the legal actions. While the federal lawsuits were thwarted at the trial court level, they were appealed to the Ninth Circuit. At the same time, a state-level action was brought before Harney County Circuit Judge Robert Raschio. That case was argued in 2023 and Raschio ultimately ruled Measure 114 violated the state constitution. The Oregon Attorney General’s office appealed.
An Oregon appeals court earlier this year declared the measure is constitutional under the Oregon State Constitution, but the state Supreme Court’s entry into the case stalled it once again.
As noted at the time by the Salem Statesman-Journal, the appeals court ruling, authored by Judge Darleen Ortega, “rejected the argument that the permit to purchase program would cause an at least 30-day delay to purchasing a gun and concluded the program and point-of transfer background check were ‘reasonable’ responses ‘to identified public safety concerns.’”
It is not clear whether such language would ultimately collide with the U.S. Supreme Court’s language in the 2022 Bruen ruling, which explains, “To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Essentially, Oregon’s position appears to promote “means-end scrutiny” which would be the “public safety concerns” mentioned in Judge Ortega’s ruling.
It is also not clear whether the Bruen language might have any impact on the Oregon Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Beaver State constitution’s right-to-bear arms provision.
Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution states, “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[.]” It was adopted when Oregon achieved statehood on Feb. 14, 1859.
Not only is this a state constitutional dilemma, it also brushes up against the Second Amendment of the federal constitution. Many people seem to overlook the fact that the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. While the state case does not focus on the Second Amendment, the pending federal challenges do.
This year, anti-gun Democrats in the Oregon Legislature pushed bills which, in essence, were designed to get around the court stall.
The case is being watched closely by gun rights organizations and gun prohibition lobbying groups, as well as legal scholars for several reasons. Among the critical issues is whether a state law can require a citizen to get a permit from a police agency as a condition of exercising a constitutionally-protected fundamental right.
Kevin Starrett, head of the Oregon Firearms Federation told AmmoLand via email, “While we have no way of predicting what the court may decide, at least they did not rubberstamp the Appeals Court decision, which was plainly ludicrous.”
Biggest Non-Secret: Anti-Gun Groups Overwhelmingly Support Dems
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
