In a unanimous ruling Wednesday, the Oregon Court of Appeals approved a measure that would further regulate the purchase of firearms and ammunition across the state.
The opinion finds Ballot Measure 114, narrowly passed by voters in 2022, does not violate the state constitution. This overturns a decision from an Eastern Oregon judge.
鈥淲e conclude that all of Measure 114 is facially constitutional,鈥� the court wrote in an 25-page opinion published Wednesday. The three judge-panel found Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio applied the wrong legal framework when he found the initiative unconstitutional.
Measure 114 bans purchases of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It also requires a permit before purchasing a firearm, which involves a buyer passing a criminal background check and completing a gun safety course.
Despite a green light from the state鈥檚 appeals court, the voter-approved initiative won鈥檛 go into effect immediately. Opponents have 35 days to appeal.
鈥淭oday Measure 114 has turned millions of Oregonians into criminals because their right to bear arms has been erased by Oregon鈥檚 Judiciary,鈥� lead counsel Tony Aiello, Jr., a senior associate at Tyler Smith & Associates, P.C., said in a statement. 鈥淲e intend to appeal this ruling to the Oregon Supreme Court and call on Oregonians for their continued support of this litigation.鈥�
Backers of Measure 114 welcomed the court鈥檚 ruling.
鈥淥regonians brought this measure to the ballot,鈥� Jess Marks, executive director for the Alliance for a Safe Oregon, said during a news conference Wednesday. 鈥淭hey passed it, and it鈥檚 the gun lobby that has brought these lawsuits forward. We intend, in partnership with all the folks who鈥檝e worked on this issue, to see Oregonians' wishes through.鈥�
Supporters note the law would also close a loophole, which allows gun transfers to go forward if a background check takes longer than three days. It鈥檚 known as the 鈥淐harleston Loophole,鈥� named for the 2015 mass shooting at a church in South Carolina. The shooter if the loophole had not been in place.
Wednesday鈥檚 opinion comes as the Oregon Legislature prepares to take up the issue of gun safety during this year鈥檚 session. In a , House and Senate lawmakers plan to focus on a range of issues that touch on gun regulations, such as preventing suicides, murders and school shootings.
It鈥檚 not clear whether majority Democrats will use that hearing to tee up gun safety bills they鈥檝e introduced this year. Those include House Bill 3075, which would repeal and amend portions of Measure 114, along with bills to from owning some guns, and allow more public buildings .
State Attorney General Dan Rayfield called Wednesday鈥檚 Court of Appeals decision 鈥渁 big step forward for gun safety in Oregon鈥� and said it helps keeps firearms out of the wrong hands.
鈥淲e know there will be a lot of conversation around this, but the bottom line is that we鈥檙e committed to protecting the rights of responsible gun owners while doing what we can to reduce gun violence,鈥� Rayfield said in a statement. 鈥淥ur job is to make sure the law works for everyone.鈥�
Oregon Senate Republicans blasted the appeals court ruling, saying Measure 114 faced 鈥渙verwhelming opposition from rural communities and law enforcement.鈥�
Voters passed the measure in 2022 with a mere 50.6% of the vote. While Oregonians from every county voted in favor, the greatest support came from Multnomah County. Some rural counties voted nearly 3-1 in opposition.
鈥淢easure 114 is an alarming attack on the constitutional rights of responsible Oregonians,鈥� the Senate鈥檚 12 GOP members said in a joint statement. 鈥淩equiring a permit to exercise a constitutional right is an outrageous overreach, and restricting magazine capacity will do nothing to stop violent criminals.鈥�
Republicans urged the Oregon Supreme Court to take up the case.
In the years since it passed, Measure 114 has faced a number of legal challenges in state and federal courts.
In 2022, a month after voters approved it, sued to block it from taking effect.
After Raschio ruled Measure 114 violated the state constitution, attorneys with the state Department of Justice appealed, which lead to the court of appeal鈥檚 decision Wednesday.
In 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut . Immergut, who was appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term, found that the measure鈥檚 permitting system did not violate the Second Amendment and that large capacity magazines 鈥渁re not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.鈥�
That ruling was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but has been on hold while the court considers a similar law out of California. That statute, which deals with large capacity magazines, will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
OPB鈥檚 Dirk VanderHart contributed reporting from Salem.
