June 2024 Newsletter

• Opening Editorial: History Has Much to Teach Us

• Measure 114 Update: Measure 114 Is Still on Hold! Why?

• Student Opinion: The Fight for Common Sense Gun Law Continues

• News to Know

History Has Much to Teach Us

Langston Hughes, the great American poet of the Harlem Renaissance, once wrote, “Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken-winged bird that cannot fly.”

In this month of June, when we remember the sacrifices of many so that democracies may survive with the 80th anniversary of D-Day, and as we honor the second American Independence Day of Juneteenth when the message of the Emancipation Proclamation ending slavery finally got to Texas two years after it was signed—history has much to teach us.

Lift Every Voice Oregon was birthed in February 2018 following the Parkland mass shooting to confront violence and hate and to overcome it with action. LEVO was born of love while intentionally organizing one of the most diverse volunteer movements in Oregon history. Together, when many said it couldn’t be done, we embraced a high road campaign with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Six Principles of Non Violent Direct Action as a centerpiece.

We began with the dream of making our children and communities safe by taking on gun violence in America within our own communities. Thousands in every county in Oregon embraced the dream and made it a reality with passage of the historic Measure 114 in November 2022. The pundits and realists said it could not be done, yet you believed in the dream and gave it your all to make it a reality.

Yes, there have been challenges along the way, but at high school graduations throughout Oregon, students are embracing the role they played to help get Measure 114 passed into law, waking up a nation that something can be done. This is what democracy looks like, they chanted.

It is fitting, then, that amidst all the graduations the Oregon Attorney General has filed the opening brief for the Oregon Court of Appeals to get the Oregon Law Measure 114 implemented. As you will read in this newsletter, LEVO along with a number of our key partners have filed an Amicus Brief in support. Implementing Measure 114 justly and equitably will save lives and give hope to Oregonians and the country that life-saving change can come.

“Hold fast to dreams,” Langston Hughes wrote. Lift Every Voice Oregon is committed to ending violence of all kinds and helping to create safe and healthy communities. Our high road movement grounded in love with diverse grass roots volunteers at our core is being studied by others who want to end gun violence, as well as violence of all types.

The vision and your intentional work against all odds has inspired many around the country to act. Let’s keep on dreaming and acting out of love so generations to come will be healthy and safe. 

Rev. Dr. W. J. Mark Knutson,
Chair and Chief Petitioner for Lift Every Voice Oregon

Measure 114 Is Still on Hold! Why?

Measure 114 was passed by Oregon voters in November 2022. It became law, but it is still not implemented.

The holdup is an order by Harney County Judge Robert Raschio. He applied the wrong standard in order to justify his finding that Measure 114’s life-saving provisions are unconstitutional. Oregon’s Attorney General has filed a compelling brief identifying the major errors in Judge Raschio’s ruling. Lift Every Voice Oregon (LEVO) along with many other organizations have also filed “friend of the court” briefs (called amicus curiae), pointing out errors in the ruling. The briefs are very persuasive. Five briefs were filed as of June 14, calling for total reversal and an order implementing Measure 114.

Here are the most serious errors highlighted in the briefs:

Used Wrong Standard. Judge Raschio’s duty was to see if Measure 114 could be interpreted in any circumstance as not conflicting with Oregon’s Constitution. He did the exact opposite. He searched hard to find at least one interpretation that would be inconsistent with the Oregon Constitution. That’s not the test; this error requires reversal.

Excluded Relevant Evidence on Public Safety. The judge said there was not enough proof that Measure 114 enhanced public safety. He looked in the wrong places and precluded the exact evidence that showed the public safety effects, such as proof that:

• Large capacity magazines (LCM) cause more deaths and injuries in a much shorter time.

• Permit to purchase regulations in other states led to reduced homicides and suicides.

• The drafters of Measure 114 and the voters were motivated by facts, media reports, research studies, and the voters pamphlet statements, but the judge didn’t look to these. In fact, he dismissed the reports of mass shootings as “sensationalized.” 

The recently filed briefs brought these missing pieces to the attention of the Court of Appeals in graphic ways. LEVO, Ceasefire Oregon, Central Oregon Gun Safety Advocates, Jewish Federation of Greater Portland, League of Women Voters, Muslim Educational Trust, Viva Inclusive Migrant Network and Albina Ministerial Alliance included in their brief:

• The history of what motivated Measure 114’s drafting and the enormous effort to get on the ballot.

• Quotes from the voters’ pamphlet showing public safety was highly motivating.

• A 3½ page chart listing the worst mass shootings since Sandy Hook by name, the number of casualties and size of magazines used (see pp. 25-28).

The most compelling proof that the Judge was headed in the wrong direction was his questioning Joe Paterno, Field Director for the Measure 114 signature collection. As the Attorney for this brief wrote: “the trial court focused not on whether the law [Measure 114] could be constitutionally applied but on whether, if at all, it could ever be unconstitutionally applied in circumstances the trial court speculated might arise.” The State’s brief called this “turning it on its head.”

His questions included hypotheticals about whether a white rabbi would be treated differently than a middle eastern rabbi when applying for a permit. Or, whether an older white reverend would be let go after picking up a large-capacity magazine on the street while driving by—a scenario hard to imagine under any circumstances—would be treated differently than a younger black pastor (see pp. 32-40).

• Put aside the fact that these hypotheticals relate to individual instances of enforcement after implementation, which was not an issue in the trial.

• Put aside the fact that it’s insulting to suggest that a law enforcement officer would engage in such deliberate unlawful behavior.

• Put aside the fact that not only would the right to appeal these decisions exist, but also a right to sue the officer and the law enforcement agency itself, if such decisions were a pattern or policy of that agency, exists. 

The critical error in this line of questioning is the suggestion that if one officer in a specific situation could discriminate against an individual then the law itself unconstitutional. Virtually every right protected under the Constitution could be applied on an individual basis in an unlawfully discriminatory way, but we don’t stop passing laws or regulating conduct because of that. We, in fact, have other overriding laws that prohibit discrimination and punish those who engage in it.

Measure 114 has within its own language a safeguard, requiring monitoring and preparation of reports that include information helpful to ensure that the law is being administered in a “consistent and equitable manner.” The LEVO brief closes by stating the “trial court plainly disagreed with…Measure 114,” but a court “is not allowed to substitute its policy preferences for those of Oregon’s electorate.” Reversal is required on this basis alone.

We are eager to have the Court of Appeals review the entire record and additional arguments made in the friend of the court briefs. There won’t be a decision by the Court of Appeals immediately—here is the timeline:

July 26 — Plaintiffs’ (the opposition) response brief is due

August 16 — State’s reply brief is due

TBD — Oral Argument (no date will be set until all the briefs are filed) 

TBD — Court of Appeals decision (no due date for the decision, but the court has agreed to expedite the case) 

The voters deserve the benefits of each of the public safety provisions of Measure 114. They deserve them promptly. 

Student Opinion: The Fight for Common Sense Gun Law Continues — And It Won’t Stop

Lift Every Voice Oregon would like to recognize and appreciate Aishiki Nag for writing this opinion in the Daily Emerald in May. Ms. Nag is a freshman at the University of Oregon, majoring in Political Science and Public Policy. She is from Tigard, Oregon and used to serve as the Youth City Councilor on the Tigard City Council. She carries the same enthusiasm when writing about the importance of local policies and how they impact communities.

Measure 114 arose organically through grassroots efforts from Oregonians who understood the calamity of gun violence in America and how that can be prevented. There are efforts to overturn these changes, but Oregon will continue to fight for preventive measures.

The measure called for a completed background check before purchasing a firearm, aiming to close the “Charleston loophole” that allowed individuals to buy a gun before their background check was approved. It required a process of fingerprinting to trace guns back to people when used in crimes, “hands-on” safety training, a firearm permit and limits on the sale and transfer of high-capacity magazines.

Immediately after the passage of the measure, its legality was challenged under the Second Amendment of the Constitution with lawsuits on the state and federal levels.

The most challenging part of the measure is the limitation of manufacturing, importing, selling and transferring ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds, classifying it as a class A misdemeanor. This was an intentional decision to prevent a pattern seen in mass shootings of rapid firing into crowds, harming and killing large numbers of people.

The federal trials on June 6 had ruled that the measure was constitutional, relying heavily on the language from the Bruen decision, which had created an important legal precedent for large-capacity magazines. Those that hold over ten rounds are not protected under the U.S. Constitution because they do not fit under the classification of “arms.”

On Sept. 23, 2023, the case was presented in Harney County before Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio, who ruled that the measure was unconstitutional under Oregon’s constitution and couldn’t go into effect in the presented timeline.

An important note about this case is that evidence-based and personal testimony showing changes that Measure 114 would promote public safety, such as reports on the substantial increase in fatalities when large-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, was ruled inadmissible in the Harney county court even though it was allowed in the federal hearing.

Oregon's Attorney General, Ellen Rosenblum, says she will appeal the ruling in Harney County.

Diane Peterson, a volunteer group lead for the Eugene-Springfield Moms Demand Action, spoke about the importance of implementation of the measure.

“The significance of Measure 114, on a very basic level, is that it will save lives the moment it will go into effect … Oregon will not be the first, but would be a leader in common sense gun legislation,” Peterson said.

Currently, 79% of all gun deaths in Oregon are from suicide, which is significantly higher than the nation's average of 50%. From the period of 2012 to 2021, gun suicide has increased by 22%, and gun homicide has risen by 135%, compared to the nationwide increase of 19% and 73%, respectively.

There is a racialized history of gun violence in America as well, with percentages of gun violence higher in predominantly Black and Brown communities. Requiring measures such as completed background checks, permits and safety training would significantly decrease the number of suicides.

“There are people who say a person who wants a gun will always get a gun and that is not true,” Peterson said. “The background check system does prevent people who should not have a gun from getting a gun. It will keep people who are in crisis from being able to go out and buy a gun and [also] use it on themselves.”

When asked about the possible striking down of the measure, Peterson remains hopeful that the work done will continue. “That doesn’t stop the movement. The work continues. The people involved with the gun violence prevention movement know that gun violence is preventable. We can’t accept legislative defeat as the end”.

Oregon is currently ranked No. 10 in the nation and classified as “making progress” under Everytown's gun law prevention legislation database, proving that many of the measures being labeled radical in court have been implemented in other states nationwide. For example, California and New York have implemented a ten-round magazine capacity limit on all firearms.

Cara Chen is the Co-leader of the Lakeridge Students Demand Action chapter and began her organizational leadership journey about gun prevention policies after the March 16 shooting of a primarily Asian spa in Atlanta, and was heavily disheartened by the law enforcement response.

When asked about her thoughts on the journey of Measure 114, Chen stated, “It means people are willing to fight to implement gun reform, and if this gets stalled in court — or worse — if it gets struck down to be unconstitutional, that just shows that the court system and our legal system doesn’t actually value citizens voices and doesn’t actually allow us to reform the system when we want to, and that’s the whole point of a democracy … voters should get the final say.”

Chen ends on a more hopeful call for students, “[Prevention policies] seems very doable. Suicide fatalities from firearms and school shootings per year, [and] how many people get injured by gun violence is very quantifiable, and as young people, we need to latch on something concrete that we can work at it and make progress … I think this is an issue that we can fight for that is really doable.”

Currently, the fight for common sense gun reform continues in every single city in this country, and Oregon has a chance to lead the nation in gun reform. The voters said yes, the state said yes and the courts should also rule in favor of the people.

News to Know

Surgeon general declares gun violence a public health crisis (STAT, 6/25/24) The US surgeon general declared gun violence a public health crisis and recommended a campaign like the one against smoking and traffic deaths.

US Supreme Court upholds ban on domestic abusers possessing guns (The Guardian, 6/21/24) Ruling in US v. Rahimi will leave in place legal protections against a major source of the gun violence in the US.

Oregon gun control Measure 114: Harney County judge turned legal standards ‘on their head,’ state argues (The Oregonian, 6/17/24)

Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era federal ban on bump stocks (NPR, 6/14/24) Because Oregon has not explicitly prohibited bump stocks, which turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons, they are now legal throughout Oregon.

Disinformation is a root cause of gun violence. It should be treated as such. (Armed with Reason, 4/23) GVPedia recently published their top ten articles from 2023, and a piece from April was their number one most viewed article. It succinctly summarizes the central goal of GVPedia: to expose the gun lobby’s insidious “Firehose of Falsehood.”