Oct. 2024 News Update

Oral Arguments in the Court of Appeals

Will the Court of Appeals Allow Measure 114 to Be Implemented?

Yesterday, the Oregon Court of Appeals heard arguments from both sides (two gun owners and the State) in the case which we hope will be resolved by full implementation of Measure 114’s safety procedures. The hold up is the result of one Harney County Judge’s ruling that Measure 114 violates the state Constitution. The Attorney General strongly disagrees and the State’s Attorney made very persuasive arguments urging the Court to reverse the Harney County Court.

While a few of us fit into the small courtroom to watch, many opted to watch online — so many, in fact, that the system quickly reached its capacity. While you can still view it online, here’s what you missed: 

The three-judge panel came well-prepared, immediately peppering questions to each side about the scope and standard that applied. Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Koch was ready.

He pointed out the trial court got “far off track” in its decision. In this type of case, the test is whether the statute is capable of constitutional interpretation in any circumstance.” The trial court wrongly searched for any possible circumstance in which Measure 114 could be unconstitutionally applied or construed. That was totally opposite of the correct test. 

The State explained that Measure 114’s regulations are constitutional as long as they “reasonably relate” to “public safety” and do not  “unduly frustrate” the right to “bear arms.” So, the Court of Appeals does not have to give any deference to the trial judge’s numerous findings.

Attorney Koch’s response to each question identified just how the trial court was in error: 

• Contrary to the trial court’s finding, banning large-capacity magazines (10 rounds) doesn’t violate the Oregon Constitution, which only provides protection for “weapons,” not all accessories to weapons.  

• Even if large-capacity firearms were protected, the ban promotes “public safety.” Smaller magazines means fewer shots and a chance to flee or interrupt while the shooter is loading a new magazine. Evidence also showed more than 10 rounds are virtually never, if ever, used in self-defense, so a ban has minimal interference. 

• Measure 114’s permit-to-purchase requirement is allowed because it doesn’t unduly interfere with Oregonians obtaining weapons. Similar permit programs in other states have significantly reduced homicides and suicides rates, promoting public safety. (The trial court actually refused to admit these vital findings from other states, but the Court of Appeals doesn’t have to defer to that erroneous ruling.)

• The elimination of the Charleston loophole (which allows turning over guns to a buyer after three days, even if the background check isn’t completed) is “reasonable” to promote public safety.

The attorney for the gun owners who filed the case argued that the State had to prove the law would actually do what it was enacted to do, i.e., prevent a dangerous practice, even before the law was put into place. He asserted that the State didn’t prove that. He even suggested the State had to show a person is dangerous before imposing a requirement of a permit or training. 

But the Court seemed to question those positions, asking:

Isn’t the purpose of the inquiry to find out if the permit applicant is dangerous? And, would those requirements (permit application and training) be unduly burdensome? 

Though the legal arguments at times were quite technical, the recurring theme did not lose sight of the reasons that Measure 114 was created and passed as stated in the Preamble:

• “To enhance public health and safety” by reducing the availability of large-capacity magazines which “pose a grave and immediate risk to the health, safety and well-being of the citizens of this State, particularly our youth.” 

• To halt the “horrific deaths and devastating injuries due to mass shootings, homicides and suicides” which are “not acceptable at any level.” 

It is a very impactful law, passed by the majority of Oregon voters, and we are entitled to its protection! 

There is no deadline by which the Court of Appeals must issue a decision, and they have between 3,200 and 4,100 cases filed each year. But, we are hopeful relief will come by the end of this year or early in 2025. The court agreed to handle this case on an expedited basis.

The decision that should be issued, at least to us, seems clear: Implement Measure 114 now! Stay tuned.