Oregon Attorney General Concedes Measure 114 Permit to Purchase Gun Control Provision Isn’t Ready for Prime Time

Previous Post
Next Post

By Lee Williams

The hypocrisy of Oregon Measure 114 proponents is on full display.

Among the components of the new voter-approved ballot initiative that many view as unconstitutional is a permit-to-purchase, which requires an “in-person demonstration before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency,” in addition to a background check, fingerprints, a photograph and any “additional information determined necessary by state police rules.” It also bans the importation and possession of standard-capacity magazines.

But law enforcement won’t be ready by Dec. 8 when the law takes effect, and they likely won’t be ready anytime soon.

Oregon Assistant Attorney General Brian Marshall claimed earlier this month that if Measure 114 is delayed, people will most certainly die.

“Delaying implementation of this constitutional policy while the merits are litigated would likely result in unnecessary deaths,” Marshall argued in a court brief, adding it would prevent the state from trying to “reduce the risk of a massacre within its borders.”

But in a court filing Friday, Marshall had changed his mind. Evidently, unnecessary deaths and massacres were no longer a concern, because he is asking the judge to delay the law.

In his response to one of four lawsuits asserting Measure 114 is unconstitutional, Marshall wrote that “the State Defendants will agree that implementation challenges require postponing implementation of one aspect of Measure 114. Specifically, the State agrees that the Court should enter an order providing a limited window in which Oregonians will be able to purchase firearms even if they do not have a permit, while also allowing Oregonians to apply for and be issued permits.”

In other words, rather than slamming the door shut Thursday on all permitless purchases, the state will allow gun sales to continue unabated.

Several Oregon sheriffs have said they will not enforce the new law, and Marshall clearly blames law enforcement for the delay.

“Succinctly, local law enforcement partners have made it clear that necessary pieces of the permit to purchase system will not be in place by December 8,” he wrote in the brief.

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed two of the four lawsuits against Measure 114, which SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said, “constitutes an egregious affront to the Second Amendment.”

“There is no permit system in place, no guidance on who might qualify as a certified instructor and no forms on which applications may be made or permits may be granted, and no rules to carry Measure 114 into effect,” Gottlieb said in a press release earlier this month.

Since the election, Oregon gun shops have seen an unprecedented surge in firearm and standard-capacity magazine sales. Some shops now require buyers to make appointments.

Yesterday Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum sent a letter to Judge Karin Immergun who’s hearing the challenges to the law, conceding that local law enforcement won’t be able to issue purchase permits by December 8 and asking for a delay until February. The judge will likely decide this week whether to grant a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the law.


The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.

This story is part of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and is published here with their permission.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. What’s needed is a federal judge to agree it’s facially-unconstitutional, and at the very least, stay it until the court formally rules…

  2. “…while the merits are litigated”

    Now you know the real reason its “delayed” … he knows its going to get trashed in court either initially or later as unconstitutional and hes not prepared for that loss or the push back hes getting from the sheriffs. He needs time to regroup to develop a strategy to either defend it or come up with something else or some good reason to explain why to the deceived voters and/or convince sheriffs to enforce it. The reason the sheriffs “will not be prepared to issue permits on December 8” for it is because they are refusing to do so and also refusing to enforce it so yeah if they refuse to issue the permits they are not “prepared to issue permits on December 8”.

    • It’s delayed because they can’t implement it. That means they either have to ignore it exists for now, or they have to basically suspend 2a rights until they implement it. While they would love to do the latter, it means they would face an injunction and an actionable court case sooner. Given that they have had resistance from both sheriffs and firearms retailers, they are going with the drag this out forever option. If they do that they might get a favorable SCOTUS makeup or some new judicial appointments.

      • In other words, no one thought ahead and designed the forms or anything else needed to implement it. It’s typical lazy politicians reacting to things instead of applying their brains.

  3. In place of permit to purchase, substitute voter ID, and see if these tards think that is constitutional.
    Not a chance.

    • Yep, presenting an ID to vote is too much trouble, but going through all the nonsense to make a gun/ammo purchase or get a permit is no big deal. What a bad joke all of these people are!

      • No one has ever said that — the trouble is that the voter-ID proposals so far have made no provision for the poor and other groups to be able to get such ID. The way to implement it would be to mail a form to everyone eligible, with a unique serial number on each form, with places on the form for driver’s license, birth certificate, etc. so a person could put the documents on the form to take a picture (so the ID items are directly associated with the numbered form). The prospective voter would keep the form for the record, and a new state ID card or driver’s license would then be mailed to the voter with a voter ID number on it that is linked in the system to the serial number on the original form.

        The claim that “presenting an ID to vote is too much trouble” bugs the heck out of me because that’s never been the problem, and because a while back when such a law was proposed my mom and a number of her friends at the retirement home wouldn’t have been able to meet the requirements and would have thus been de facto stripped of their right to vote. The irony was that every single one of her friends agreed that a voter ID was a good idea and thus politicians supporting he proposal would have been disenfranchising some of their own supporters!

        Of course that’s all moot now; Oregon went to mail-in voting, with a whole new set of problems — the security procedures sound good and thorough, and yet it’s been shown that one in forty ballots is being signed by someone other than the voter, something that’s not supposed to be possible since the mail-in envelopes’ signatures are scanned!

        • The vast majority of states offer “FREE VOTER ID” so this claim is blatant lie…

          How many of these poor people rent, buy alcohol??

          My bet the vast majority of the poor voters have some kind of State issued ID!!!!

          This claim is “RACIST” to the core and is a DEMOCAT “LIE”!!!!

    • “…substitute voter ID…”

      Good idea. But I can hear the whining already: “but votes don’t kill!” Not directly, but when idgits vote snakes into office, and snakes make evil law/policy, then people die.

    • You mean make voter ID sufficient “permit” to purchase a gun?

      Works for me, except where mail-in-voting is the norm there’s no voter ID.

  4. I’m really surprised they didn’t just leave it as an infinite backlog is surely a feature and not a bug. Must have anticipated huge lawsuits and thousands of plaintiffs.

    • The backlog on the “instant check” run by Oregon’s State Police is already pretty bloody close to infinite; there are people who have been waiting for over a year when all the police had to do would be to walk over to the county courthouse and read some paperwork. I know a guy who was convicted of misdemeanor vandalism who called the challenge line and they basically told him that they’re trying to find a way to connect his crime to domestic violence and thus deny his purchase — yes, they flat out admitted they’re spending their time trying to deny purchases instead of doing their actual jobs.

  5. Apparently, the Oregano legislature has no way to meet, and modify the legislation, so the courts must save the legislators from themselves.

    How quaint.

    • The Oregon legislature has no reason to meet and modify the legislation; it isn’t activity that would gain them votes so they aren’t going to bother.

    • Unless the Governor calls an emergency meeting , then watch the majority of Republicans not show up!!!

      A certain number of Republicans must be on the grounds of the legislator building for there to be a debate, it is in the RULES!!!!

      Previous attempt by DEMOCAT/MARXIST state legislators to get gun control out, the Republicans “WALKED”!!!!

  6. Breaking Federal judge has given the state 30 days to roll out the permitting process, but upheld the rest of 114!!!

    GOOD NEWS was a state judge blocked all of 114 from going into effect!!!!

  7. A “massacre” was prevented at the Clackamas Town Mall, by non other than a citizen with a legally carried gun. So the D.A. is talking out of his “other” orifice.

  8. It doesn’t take a Doctorate of Juris Prudens to see that Measure #114 is in direct contradiction of the Bruen Decision. I’m betting whomever wrote the Bill knew this too, and counted on it, and that they are happy at its being challenged. Why? It will cost the challengers far more money than those defending the Bill. The Challengers have to foot the costs of their challenge all the way to SCOTUS, while Taxpayers unknowingly pay for the State to defend it. Even if the final decision awards all costs to be paid by the Defense, the Taxpayers still lose out as you foot the bill for something you didn’t agree with and voted against.
    Oregonians will win the argument, but either way, they still pay for it. That’s the real F**ked Up problem with our system of Justice.
    Would #114 have happened if the Legislators were held personally financially responsible for their Unconstitutional act? If they personally had to.pay for its legal challenge, they might be a little more hesitant to craft this type of legislation.
    It’s past time we seriously reconsider what’s covered under the umbrella of qualified immunity.

Comments are closed.