Oregon gun store counter assault rifle AR-15
Firearms are displayed at a gun shop in Salem, Ore. (AP Photo/Andrew Selsky, File)
Previous Post
Next Post

By Gillian Flaccus, AP

Oregon’s tough, voter-approved gun control law remains temporarily blocked after the Oregon Supreme Court declined to overturn an earlier decision preventing the measure from taking effect Thursday.

Chief Justice Martha Walters late Wednesday denied the emergency motion to intervene, filed earlier in the day by state Attorney General Ellen Rosenbaum.

The measure includes a ban on the sale and transfer of high-capacity magazines. It also requires permits, criminal background checks, fingerprinting and hands-on training courses for new gun buyers.

Harney County Judge Robert Raschio blocked it Tuesday, just hours after a federal judge ruled in favor of the law. The Oregon Department of Justice argued in an urgent filing that Raschio got it wrong.

“Magazine capacity restrictions and permitting requirements have a proven track record: they save lives!” Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said in a statement. “We are confident the Oregon Constitution — like the Second Amendment of the U.S. constitution — allows these reasonable regulations.”

Several lawsuits have challenged the measure, which voters narrowly approved last month. The measure’s fate is being carefully watched as one of the first new gun restrictions after the U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down a New York law limiting the carrying of guns outside the home.

The Oregon measure bans the sale, transfer or import of magazines over 10 rounds unless they are owned by law enforcement or a military member or were owned before the measure’s passage. Those who already possess high-capacity magazines can have them only in their homes or use them at firing ranges, in shooting competitions, or for hunting, as allowed by state law after the measure takes effect.

It would also close a federal loophole that allows gun transfers to proceed if background checks cannot be completed quickly.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut delivered an initial victory Tuesday to the measure’s proponents, ruling that the ban on the sale and transfer of high-capacity magazines could take effect Thursday. She also granted a 30-day delay before the law’s permit-to-purchase mandate takes effect, but she did not quash it entirely, as gun rights advocates had wanted.

Hours later, the Harney County judge put the law on hold. In that case, Gun Owners of America Inc., the Gun Owners Foundation and several individual owners alleged that the measure violates Oregon’s constitution and sought to have it blocked while that question was decided.

Gun sales and requests for background checks soared in the weeks since the election because of fears the new law would prevent or significantly delay the purchase of new firearms under the permitting system.

Gun rights groups, sheriffs and gun store owners have sued, saying the law violates Americans’ right to bear arms. All those lawsuits were filed in federal courts except for the one in Harney County, a gun rights group said late Tuesday.

A hearing on the Harney County judge’s order is set for Tuesday.

“We are, of course, deeply troubled by the ruling that came out of the Federal Court today. We are also grateful for the opposing ruling from the Harney County Judge this afternoon,” the Oregon Firearms Federation wrote. “But no matter what, there is a long way to go.”

The Supreme Court decision on the New York law signaled a shift in how the nation’s high court will evaluate Second Amendment infringement claims, with the conservative majority finding that judges should no longer consider whether a law serves public interests like enhancing public safety, and instead weigh only whether the law is “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

Previous Post
Next Post

31 COMMENTS

    • Unfortunately what is sadly missing in the defense against oregon’s useful idiot approved Gun Control is the word, “Discrimination.”

      From a historical perspective between freed slaves and Gun Control and the democRat Party’s Jim Crow Gun Control puts today’s Gun Owners on the same plane as the kkk democRat Party’s N-Word.

      If the Gun Control blame game rot doesn’t stop pretty soon there with be Gun Owner water fountains, Gun Owners served around back signs at restaurants, Gun Owners sit at the back of the bus signs, no credit for Gun Owners which is already happening, Gun Owner credit card transactions monitored which is happening, etc.

      Unfortunately most Gun Owners are courtroom drama history illiterates which makes them almost worthless when it comes to defending a Centuries-Old-Document called The Constitution of The United States.

    • Laws made in haste and ignorance without proper consideration, planning, design, appropriate technical knowledge, and implementation.

      What could go wrong?

  1. You mean someone in Liberogon has half a brain ?!?!? I’ve been there. Several times. Truly a state full of wussies. But a beautiful place none the less……..

  2. “Magazine capacity restrictions and permitting requirements have a proven track record: they save lives!” Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said in a statement.”

    Bullshit. Parkland shooter used 10 round magaz!nes. Didn’t noticeably slow him down. I know that permitting stops precisely no criminals anywhere. But go search through every crime database in the country. I’ll wait.

    • the thing is once 10 rounders are the accepted norm then they raise the bar so to speak to villainize them also as high capacity and introduce 3 round mag capacities legislation as safety measures… and so on… until you guessed it….

  3. “with the conservative majority finding that judges should no longer consider whether a law serves public interests like enhancing public safety”

    I submit that overturning this law is enhancing public safety.

    • “with the conservative majority finding that judges should no longer consider whether a law serves public interests like enhancing public safety”

      Scalia and “reasonable” restrictions. Thinking this through, the anti-gunners just might be able to bring back “intermediate scrutiny”, under the guise of “reasonable restrictions”, because “reasonable restrictions” trace to “Heller”, and public safety is reasonable (not a “compelling government interest” that needs to be “balanced” against natural, civil and human rights.)

      • I would think that would be addressed by Bruen, whereas the default is now analogous historical context at the time of ratification.

      • Except that Heller expressly rejected interest balancing (a portion of the decision totally ignored in liberal circuits), as did Bruen–this time in no uncertain terms. There are still a few federal judges who haven’t figured that out. Like the one up in Oregon.

        • “Except that Heller expressly rejected interest balancing”

          My arguement would be, as stated, “reasonable restrictions” are not “interest balancing”(though they actually are – think about it), but merely “reasonable restrictions”, thus complying with both “Heller” and “Bruen”.

          The courts start interpreting the Constitution with the view that, “no amendment is absolute” (you can also read, “no constitutional protection/provision is absolute”).

          That prejudice means “interests balancing” is the beginning position of judicial review.

  4. ILLannoy govner and obese lowlife J. Prickster seriously stated yesterday that Republicans should support banning “assault” weapons because “safety”. On the same daze as the Dims “tweaked” the Purge Law coming January 1st.As in Oregon eff what courts say.

  5. The last time OREGONE was a good state,
    Was when there was a sign at the north & south end of the I-5 corridor that said,” COME VISIT, BUT DON’T STAY”
    Then the Democrats took over, the signs came down & we’ve been in liberal lockup’s ever since.
    Then the state got Californcated.

  6. This is all very entertaining to watch that legal circus in Oregon from 2000 miles away in MS. Good thing I stocked up on popcorn. 🙂

    • “Legal circus” in OR may feel like a movie but watch out when it goes virtual three-d with non visual effects like smell and air puffing in your face. When you trip over something take off your virtual goggles and it will be your MS legislature making it real for you, too!

      • I can’t even describe how unlikely that would be. 🙂 If that OR AG was in MS, he’d already be in jail.

    • Washington and Oregon used to be extremely “live and let live” kind of places, and that included very good gun laws. People usually highlight Florida for kicking off shall issue in 1989, but Washington had been shall issue since 1969.

      That’s eroded over time, slowly at first, then faster and faster. But the cautionary tale is there. Things might be good now, but there’s no way guarantee it will remain that way.

  7. Not to be a wet blanket, but I think the headline overstates what the Oregon Supreme Court actually did.

    Long and short, the OSC has NOT ruled on the merits of the case. All it did was refuse a petition for a writ of mandamus / request to stay the preliminary injunction. That’s par for the course in appellate law — to overturn or stay a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary step that appellate courts want to rarely take, and do so only in the clearest cases.

    However, given the composition of the OSC I’m not particularly confident that it will rule “our” way if/when the case comes to them by a normal appeal.

    • Essentially true, but it won’t keep a liberal court down. The Ninth has a history of overturning TROs in gun cases, despite the law heavily weighing against doing so. In this case, I cannot doubt but that the Oregon Supreme Court looked at the fact that this TRO only lasts until next week’s hearing, which hearing could moot the issue. Plus they already know if they read the news that the State cannot put into place a system for issuing the purchase permits for at least 60-90 days (if then). Thus the TRO maintains the status quo until the constitutionality of the new restrictions can be assessed–which is what TROs are supposed to do.

    • Yep, this is just the initial jockeying. Despite the breathless reporting we actually haven’t had *anything* truly judged yet.

      It’s at least not *bad* news though so we’ll take it for now.

  8. I find it mildly amusing that this article calls the three day wait a “loophole” while an opinion piece right nest to it criticizes using the word loophole to describe following the law.

  9. “Magazine capacity restrictions and permitting requirements have a proven track record: they save lives!” Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said in a statement. “We are confident the Oregon Constitution — like the Second Amendment of the U.S. constitution — allows these reasonable regulations.”

    Where is the evidence of a “proven track record: they save lives!”
    And Attorney General Ellen Rosenbutt needs to read and comprehend properly the 2A relative to any so called “reasonable regulations”.

  10. Attorneys general and many judges do not understand “shall not be infringed.” and no interest balancing. Oregon and Washington are good examples. Violating a person’s constitutional rights is an authoritarian act.

  11. “Magazine capacity restrictions and permitting requirements have a proven track record: they save lives!” Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said in a statement. “We are confident the Oregon Constitution — like the Second Amendment of the U.S. constitution — allows these reasonable regulations.”

    Just try applying the same logic to other Constitutional rights. For example, if the court allowed those gun restrictions, what’s to stop a politician from banning certain religions or ethnicities on the same questionable claim of “saving lives”? For example, a politician might say, “Rounding up Japanese-Americans and Muslims and putting them in internment camps have a proven track record: they save lives!” Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum might say next. “We are confident the Oregon Constitution — like the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution — allows these reasonable regulations.”

  12. Sure looks like prog broads run the state of Oregon. Shortage of testosterone out there along the US West coast.

      • I thought it was the pacific ocean. that whole coast and Hawaii are balless. Alaska is just to cold for the sissies

Comments are closed.